한·중 고전 문학사 서술의 ‘장르’와 ‘시대 구분’ 용어 사용에 대한 비교 고찰 및 교육 방안 탐구

Abstract

The essay proposes an instructional methodology for teaching the History of Chinese and Korean classical literature by focusing on comparing the usage of the terms “genre” and “periodization” in Korea and China’s literary history narratives. The concept of “literary history” was introduced to East Asia through Modernization. During the establishment of their respective literary histories, Korea and China adopted distinct systems and perspectives to delineate literary development processes. To address these research objectives, this thesis begins by examining previous studies that have raised pedagogical concerns related to literary history narrative systems, encompassing literary education discourse and comparative East Asian literary history analyses. Furthermore, a comparative study of the narrative systems and contexts of literary history textbooks in China and Korea was conducted. In particular, this study analyzes three representative textbooks (History of Korean Literature by Wei Xusheng, History of Korean Literature by Cho Dong-il, and History of Chinese Literature by Yuan Xingpei). These textbooks are widely used in Korean and Chinese literary history classes. The comparative analysis of these three textbooks reveals that the bifurcation of Korean literary history, which breaks away from the context of conventional classical scholarship using the genre of “Korean literature.” is quite different from the introduction of genres in Chinese literary history, which is developed according to the “traditional stylistic theory” of China. We can also see that the descriptors of these literary histories differed in the way they categorized the periods in accordance with the context of literary development in their respective countries. These differences and similarities in the descriptions of Korean and Chinese literary history textbooks suggest that more comprehensive pedagogical measures need to be implemented in the classrooms to prevent learners from experiencing barriers to understanding the traditional genres in the History of East Asian Classical literature. In Chapter 3, I proposed three teaching and learning directions, such as “using diagrams to facilitate the use of the History of Chinese and Korean classical literature narrative system and its background,” “comparative pedagogical approaches to History of Chinese and Korean classical literature,” and “in-depth learning based on specific periods or contact points of History of Chinese and Korean classical literature based on differences in the important terms that are used in two countries’ literary history narrative system.” Through these teaching and learning approaches, it is expected that in the future, students of the classical literature of China and Korea will be able to exploit their background knowledge and develop a comparative perspective in the context of the development of classical literary history narrative in the two countries.