用事의 개념과 범주에 대한 재검토
A Reappraisal on the Concept and Category of "Yongsa[用事]"
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Although there have been a lot of researches on it, the concept of the term, "Yongsa[用事]" is still not clearly defined. It is because there have been unsolved problems with regard to the characters of the source of "Yongsa", and the exact meaning of "Sa[事]" and "Yong[用]." It is common knowledge that the source of "Yongsa" should be in the form of literature but actually the contents transmitted by word of mouth can be included in "Sa." The scope of the source of "Sa" varies depending on the belief and cognitive structure of those who use and accept "Yongsa." Also, the scope of the source varies depending on the character of the text or the circumstances of writing. What belong to "Sa" are event, knowledge, contention, and the method of formation. Some scholars distinguish it from the "Yongsa" of the 'method of formation' as "Jeomhwa[點化]." In this study, "Jeomhwa" is regarded as being included in "Yongsa", but in order to solve this controversy, separate researches are needed. With regard to the meaning of "Yong", the terms "Gayong[假用]", "Chayong[借用]", and "Banyong[反用]" become controversial issues. "Gayong" is not useful since it is not the term that denotes the method in which "Yongsa" is formed. "Chayong" should be regarded as a method to use one of new meanings derived from original meaning. With regard to "Banyong", the question of whether "Yeongsa poetry[詠史詩]“ or "Nonsa poetry[論史詩]” can be regarded as cases of "Banyong" arises. In conclusion, "Yongsa" can be defined as a method of composition that quotes or modifies former text's event, knowledge, assertion, the method of formation, and makes them as part of the text in order to enhance the persuasiveness and appeal of the meaning and sentiments of the message to be conveyed.
Abstract
Although there have been a lot of researches on it, the concept of the term, "Yongsa[用事]" is still not clearly defined. It is because there have been unsolved problems with regard to the characters of the source of "Yongsa", and the exact meaning of "Sa[事]" and "Yong[用]." It is common knowledge that the source of "Yongsa" should be in the form of literature but actually the contents transmitted by word of mouth can be included in "Sa." The scope of the source of "Sa" varies depending on the belief and cognitive structure of those who use and accept "Yongsa." Also, the scope of the source varies depending on the character of the text or the circumstances of writing. What belong to "Sa" are event, knowledge, contention, and the method of formation. Some scholars distinguish it from the "Yongsa" of the 'method of formation' as "Jeomhwa[點化]." In this study, "Jeomhwa" is regarded as being included in "Yongsa", but in order to solve this controversy, separate researches are needed. With regard to the meaning of "Yong", the terms "Gayong[假用]", "Chayong[借用]", and "Banyong[反用]" become controversial issues. "Gayong" is not useful since it is not the term that denotes the method in which "Yongsa" is formed. "Chayong" should be regarded as a method to use one of new meanings derived from original meaning. With regard to "Banyong", the question of whether "Yeongsa poetry[詠史詩]“ or "Nonsa poetry[論史詩]” can be regarded as cases of "Banyong" arises. In conclusion, "Yongsa" can be defined as a method of composition that quotes or modifies former text's event, knowledge, assertion, the method of formation, and makes them as part of the text in order to enhance the persuasiveness and appeal of the meaning and sentiments of the message to be conveyed.
참고문헌 (24)
- 徐居正, "東人詩話" (1998), 집문당
- 徐居正, "東人詩話" (2000), 월인
- 徐居正, "東人詩話" (2003), 다운샘
- 李仁老, "破閑集" (1994), 범우사
- 崔滋, "補閑集" (1984), 계명대학교출판부
- 崔滋, "補閑集" (1989), 원광대학교출판국
- 崔滋, "補閑集" (2001), 범우사
- 고현철, "用事詩學과 패러디 시학의 비교 연구", 현대문학이론연구, 12, pp.203~226 (1999), 현대문학이론학회
- 김성룡, "典範 학습과 중세의 문학교육", 문학교육학, 1, pp.255~292 (1997), 한국문학교육학회
- 김성룡, "시학과 글쓰기:剽竊과 換骨奪胎 사이", 작문연구, 6(6), pp.227~249 (2008), 한국작문학회
- 金元中, "用事攷: 文心雕龍을 中心으로", 中國語文學, 23, pp.27~46 (1994), 嶺南中國語文學會
- 閔丙秀, "古典詩論의 韓國的 展開에 대하여", 眞檀學報, 48, pp.149~172 (1979), 震檀學會
- 박수밀, "用事와 패러디의 상관관계 고찰", 온지논총, 16(16), pp.153~180 (2007), 온지학회
- 宋載邵, "漢詩 用事의 比喩的 機能", 韓國漢文學硏究, 8, pp.291~310 (1985), 韓國漢文學會
- 윤인현, "韓國 古典批評과 古典詩歌의 산책" (2004), 역락
- 李鍾黙, "李仁老의 漢詩作法과 詩世界", 韓國漢詩作家硏究, 1, pp.109~131 (1995), 韓國漢詩學會
- 李鍾, "고전시가에서 用事와 點化의 미적 특질", 韓國詩歌硏究, 3, pp.323~323 (1998), 韓國詩歌學會
- 이화형, "용사(用事)의 개념 정립을 위한 제언: 고려조 시화(詩話)를 중심으로", 국제어문, 21, pp.3~24 (2000), 국제어문학회
- 이화형, "崔滋의 新意와 用事에 대한 再考", 어문연구(語文硏究), 32(3), pp.367~390 (2004), 한국어문교육연구회
- 鄭堯一, "漢詩批評 用語의 分類 in : 雨田 辛鎬烈 先生 古稀記念論叢" (1983)
- 鄭堯一, "點化·蹈襲·換骨奪胎·點鐵成金의 槪念 硏究", 漢文敎育硏究, (10), pp.329~338 (1996), 한국한문교육학회
- 鄭堯一, "고전비평 용어 연구" (1998), 태학사
- 趙鍾業, "高麗詩論硏究", 語文硏究, 1, pp.5~63 (1963), 忠南大語文硏究會
- 崔信浩, "初期詩話에 나타난 用事理論의 樣相", 古典文學硏究, 1, pp.117~136 (1971), 韓國古典文學硏究會
