한시 학습 차원에서 한문교육용 기초한자의 조정 방향에 대한 제언 -『東文選』 소재 漢詩를 비교 대상으로 하여-

Abstract

In accordance with the '2022 Revised Curriculum Promotion Plan' announced on April 20th, 2021, various textbooks will be made in the subject of classical Chinese as well in 2023. Prior to a full-fledged development of new classical Chinese textbooks, a more detailed discussion is crucial for the developmental direction of the textbooks in which Sino-Korean poems "without Chinese characters other than the 1,800 basic educational Chinese characters" are included preferentially. First, this study cataloged Sino-Korean poems contained in 30 middle and high school textbook types that are presently used in school settings for the 2015 Revised Curriculum and compared their frequency to the previous curriculum. In addition, Chinese characters used in the collected poems were contrasted to basic educational Chinese characters to grasp the influential relationship. When targeting Sino-Korean poems printed in current textbooks, Chinese characters that deviated from basic educational Chinese characters were only 1.3 characters per piece. This shows that basic educational Chinese characters are acting as a considerable restriction in the process of including Sino-Korean poems. Moreover, the fact that Sino-Korean poems with all characters falling under the range of basic Chinese characters merely amount to three pieces in middle school and four pieces in high school indicates that selecting a fine work of Sino-Korean poetry while keeping the range of basic educational Chinese characters is extremely difficult. Second, the study compared the Chinese characters used by Sino-Korean poems in Dongmunseon (東文選) of Seo Geo-Jeong (徐居正) to basic educational Chinese characters. The comparison was performed to check if there are any Sino-Korean poems that can be additionally covered in textbooks while applying the range of basic educational Chinese characters correspondingly. Through this, two pieces of Sino-Korean poems were found to be further addable to middle school, and three pieces to high school. However, these numbers are incredibly low compared to 1,386 poems, the entire works for analysis, and even in this case, the titles of the poems had to be left as an exception. Third, in case some Chinese characters are to be added to basic educational Chinese characters, the study examined whether a slightly broader inclusion of Sino-Korean poems will be possible with a primary focus on Sino-Korean poems in Dongmunseon. This allowed an identification of which Chinese characters are excluded in basic educational Chinese characters despite being frequently used in poems and which Chinese characters have low usage in poems despite being part of basic educational Chinese characters. This will be able to function as a material for adjusting basic educational Chinese characters later on. It is not an easy task to determine which poem is a good Sino-Korean poem. Nevertheless, if the first standard for choosing works of Sino-Korean poetry to be included in textbooks is a 'list of basic educational Chinese characters' rather than the 'literary value' of the poems, this must be improved upon at all costs. Due to restrictions of space and time, the text for analysis was limited to Dongmunseon, but expanding the target of analysis to Quantangshi (全唐詩), Gukjosisan (國朝詩刪), Daedongshiseon (大東詩選), and so forth in the future is expected to derive more accurate results.