原用과 變用 ― ≪聊齋誌異≫ <姊妹易嫁>의 改編 연구
Original Use(原用) and Transformation(變用) ― Study on Reformation(改編) of Liaozhaizhiyi(≪聊齋誌異≫) Zimeiyijia(<姊妹易嫁>)
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This research concretely investigated how the literal novel(文言) works of the same period were reformed as baihua(白話) novel works through Zimeiyijia(<姊妹易嫁>) of Yaozaizhiyi(≪聊齋誌異≫) and Weifumingnieyoujizuo daizijiafuzitianlai(<違父命孽由己作 代姊嫁福自天來>)(hereafter Weifuming) and Maoshangshuxiaomeihuandazi(<毛尙書小妹換大姊>)(hereafter Maoshangshu) of Xingmengpianyan(≪醒夢駢言≫) who reformed this. In this process, this research concretely considered how the narrative form and narrative structure, narrative content, and subject consciousness of the work were ‘originally used(原用)’ and ‘transformed(變用)’. First, when investigating change in narrative form and narrative structure, three works showed difference in the introduction and conclusion form of work even excluding difference in style of writing of ‘menyanmen(文言文)’ and ‘baihuawen(白話文)’ in narrative form. Whether of ‘ruhua(入話)’ appeared differently in the introduction, and participation method of narrator appeared differently in the conclusion. Developing method of three works was similar in respect of narrative structure, however regarding detailed content order and procedure, ‘displacement(前置)’ and ‘separation(分離)’ phenomena appeared, and in respect of word element(話素) set-up and movement per composition, ‘inversion(倒置)’ phenomenon appeared. Next, when investigating change of narrative content, Weifuming had strong characteristic of amplifying by newly reforming or expanding lots of Zimeiyijia additionally, and Maoshangsu was reformed within the range that does not deviate from the content of original work, also, the part considered unnecessary was deleted. In respect of subject consciousness that appeared in the reformation process of Zimeiyijia, a certain degree of change appeared. In Zimeiyijia and Weifuming, the concept of acknowledgement(認定) and acceptance of fatalism(宿命論) appeared in common. However, the degree thereof was different each, if Zimeiyijia highlighted relatively strong fatalistic characteristic, Weifuming emphasized importance of personal personality and virtue above all, while it showed acknowledgement(認定) and acceptance of fatalism. Maoshangshu concentrated on showing the virtue and duty of a woman. This way, considering the process of reforming the original work does not stop at merely investigating the change of narrative content, but has a significance in illuminating relation and association between works. Also, it can provide important material to determine association between the ‘writer’, ‘work’, and ‘reader’ and response, cognition and demand of readers on the work, and tendency and trend, etc. of reformation of novel works during that time. This exploration can concretely investigate how the works could be reborn through change of writing style and content in the development process of novel history, also, be the opportunity to diversely consider the progress process and change type such as content and cognition, reaction of acceptance and refusal, etc. of work that is inherent therein.
Abstract
This research concretely investigated how the literal novel(文言) works of the same period were reformed as baihua(白話) novel works through Zimeiyijia(<姊妹易嫁>) of Yaozaizhiyi(≪聊齋誌異≫) and Weifumingnieyoujizuo daizijiafuzitianlai(<違父命孽由己作 代姊嫁福自天來>)(hereafter Weifuming) and Maoshangshuxiaomeihuandazi(<毛尙書小妹換大姊>)(hereafter Maoshangshu) of Xingmengpianyan(≪醒夢駢言≫) who reformed this. In this process, this research concretely considered how the narrative form and narrative structure, narrative content, and subject consciousness of the work were ‘originally used(原用)’ and ‘transformed(變用)’. First, when investigating change in narrative form and narrative structure, three works showed difference in the introduction and conclusion form of work even excluding difference in style of writing of ‘menyanmen(文言文)’ and ‘baihuawen(白話文)’ in narrative form. Whether of ‘ruhua(入話)’ appeared differently in the introduction, and participation method of narrator appeared differently in the conclusion. Developing method of three works was similar in respect of narrative structure, however regarding detailed content order and procedure, ‘displacement(前置)’ and ‘separation(分離)’ phenomena appeared, and in respect of word element(話素) set-up and movement per composition, ‘inversion(倒置)’ phenomenon appeared. Next, when investigating change of narrative content, Weifuming had strong characteristic of amplifying by newly reforming or expanding lots of Zimeiyijia additionally, and Maoshangsu was reformed within the range that does not deviate from the content of original work, also, the part considered unnecessary was deleted. In respect of subject consciousness that appeared in the reformation process of Zimeiyijia, a certain degree of change appeared. In Zimeiyijia and Weifuming, the concept of acknowledgement(認定) and acceptance of fatalism(宿命論) appeared in common. However, the degree thereof was different each, if Zimeiyijia highlighted relatively strong fatalistic characteristic, Weifuming emphasized importance of personal personality and virtue above all, while it showed acknowledgement(認定) and acceptance of fatalism. Maoshangshu concentrated on showing the virtue and duty of a woman. This way, considering the process of reforming the original work does not stop at merely investigating the change of narrative content, but has a significance in illuminating relation and association between works. Also, it can provide important material to determine association between the ‘writer’, ‘work’, and ‘reader’ and response, cognition and demand of readers on the work, and tendency and trend, etc. of reformation of novel works during that time. This exploration can concretely investigate how the works could be reborn through change of writing style and content in the development process of novel history, also, be the opportunity to diversely consider the progress process and change type such as content and cognition, reaction of acceptance and refusal, etc. of work that is inherent therein.
참고문헌 (38)
- 古本小說集成編委會, "古本小說集成" (1990), 上海古籍
- 歐陽代, "話本小說史" (1994), 武漢出版社
- 關德棟, "聊齋志異話本集" (1991), 齊魯書社
- 汪玢玲, "鬼狐風情: <聊齋志異>與民俗文化" (2003), 黑龍江人民出版社
- 蒲松齡, "聊齋誌異" (2000), 齊魯書社
- 윤일수, "「맹진사댁 경사」에 나타난 바꿔치기 혼인 설화의 계승 양상>", 語文硏究, 24 (1996)
- 김명구, "같음과 다름: 《聊齋志異》의 <曾友于> ‘재창작’ 연구 - 서사내용과 서사구조의 변화를 중심으로 -", 중국문학연구, (43), pp.47~94 (2011), 한국중문학회
- 唐雪薇, "鑽入聊齋戲十年成大作--杜建華≪<聊齋志異>與川劇聊齋戲≫問世", 學子, (9) (2004)
- 杜建華, "≪聊齋志異≫轉化爲戲曲的十種方式--以傳統川劇爲例", 戲劇(中央戲劇學院學報), (1) (2003)
- 方兆平, "試論呂劇≪姊妹易嫁≫對同名小說的改編", 安徽文學, (1) (2012)
- 方兆平, "略論≪醒夢駢言≫對≪聊齋志異≫的改編", 語文學刊 (2008)
- 宋家庚, "一部根據≪聊齋志異≫故事改寫的評話小說集--≪醒夢駢言≫簡介", 蒲松齡硏究, (2) (2012)
- 隋武, "對≪姊妹出嫁≫的一點異議", 上海戲劇, (2) (1981)
- 徐文軍, "守朴翁是不是蒲松齡--≪醒夢駢言≫作家初探", 蒲松齡研究, (4) (2005)
- 王晶紅, "解析≪聊齋志異≫中的“異類婚”口承敘事原型", 上海大學學報(社會科學版) (2006)
- 王富聰, "改編≪聊齋≫戱評二則", 蒲松齡研究, (1) (1997)
- 王恒展, "淺論≪聊齋志異≫與話本小說的關係", 蒲松齡研究, (2) (1997)
- 叢琛, "≪姊妹易嫁≫本事考證", 齊魯學刊, (3) (1986)
- 吳燕娜, "≪俗話傾談≫中的“橫紋柴”與≪聊齋誌異≫中的“珊瑚”之比較", 蒲松齡研究, (3) (1995)
- 鞏武威, "論舞台劇聊齋戲的改編", 蒲松齡硏究, (3) (1996)
- "學位論文" (2007)
- 梁衛華, "<醒夢駢言>硏究", 석사, pp.2007
- 燕斌, "<醒世奇言>代詞硏究", 석사, pp.2012
- 劉利俠, "孫氏“正訛”與≪姐妹易嫁≫再評價", 西安外事學院學報 (2008)
- 劉富偉, "<聊齋誌異>文本改編研究--以白話小說和說唱藝術爲中心", 박사
- 李公綽, "只緣舊譜翻新聲--關于呂劇≪姊妹易嫁≫的改編", 人民戲劇, (4) (1979)
- 李軍鋒, "試論宋元話本小說對≪聊齋志異≫的影響", 西昌學院學報⋅社科版 (2010)
- 李停停, "≪躋春臺≫研究現狀及展望", 四川文理學院學報, (4) (2013)
- 鄒宗良, "≪醒夢駢言≫與吳方言--兼論蒲松齡不是該書的作者", 蒲松齡研究, (2) (2009)
- 蔣宗福, "≪躋春臺≫三種整理本勘誤舉例", 方言, (1) (2005)
- 井玉貴, "婚姻喜劇與寒士心態--漫話≪姊妹易嫁≫", 文史知識, (11) (2014)
- 丁曉昌, "試論≪醒夢駢言≫取材於≪聊齋誌異≫", 南京師大學報, (3) (1999)
- 程國賦, "三言二拍選本與原作的比較硏究", 明淸小說硏究, (2) (2004)
- 陳泳超, "≪醒夢駢言≫摹襲≪聊齋志異≫考", 明清小說研究, (3) (1997)
- 陳文新, "從宋元話本到≪聊齋志異≫--論講唱文學對文言小說滲透", 學術交流 (2010)
- 褚半農, "亦談≪醒夢骈言≫與吳方言--兼論蒲松齡不可能是該書作者", 蒲松齡研究, (3) (2010)
- 郭小麗, "<醒夢駢言>考論", 석사, pp.2013
- 廖全京, "在戲劇與文學之間尋找精神張力--≪聊齋志異≫與川劇聊齋戲≫簡評", 四川戲劇, (5) (2004)
