메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
曺銀晶 (세종대학교)
저널정보
한국중어중문학회 중어중문학 中語中文學 第60輯
발행연도
2015.4
수록면
163 - 189 (27page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
To study the history of the Chinese language, we often select Current edition (通行本) as the most authoritative edition and source of texts to be studied. However, as the Current edition (通行本) is a literary work passed down from ancient times, we have always to consider deeply how much it reflects or does not reflect the prevailing language spoken at a given point in time. Therefore, when we study the history of the Chinese language, it is a prerequisite to look into which times the texts being studied belong to. This paper tried to identify the times at which each edition of Laozi was created from the perspective of text linguistics, thereby laying groundwork for further study in the history of the Chinese language. Furthermore, in order to consider the difference among editions of Laozi, this study extended its focus from Guodian edition(郭店本), and Silk Manuscript edition(帛書本) to Beida bamboo edition(北大簡) and Dunhuang edition(敦煌本), and from content words to function words as well. In addition, variance and replacement of difference were also considered in order to increase the confidence of the research results. As a result, the sequence of editions of Laozi was found to be Guodian edition → Silk Manuscript edition / Beida bamboo edition → Wangbi edition(王弼本) → Dunhuang edition, consistent with the previous literature. Previously, the timing of editions was identified by relying on existing taboo words or forms of letters only. However, this paper has shown that the sequence of editions can be explained by replacement as understood by text linguistics. This study is meaningful in that based on these findings, it lays a solid groundwork for further study of the Chinese language.

목차

1. 문제 제기
2. 『老子』제 판본의 필사 시기에 관한 기존 연구
3. 虛詞 사용 현황과 판본 간 선후 관계
4. 實詞 사용 현황과 판본 간 선후 관계
5. 결론
參考文獻
中文提要
Abstract

참고문헌 (29)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-820-001609915