『헤이케모노가타리』(平家物語)에 관한 일고찰(一考察) -고시라카와(後白河)법황과 헤이케(平家) 일족 멸망의 관련성 분석을 중심으로-
의원내각제(議院內閣制)에서의 상징적(象徵的) 국가원수(國家元首)에 관한 일고찰(一考察) -한국제2공화국헌법(韓國第2共和國憲法)과 독일기본법상(獨逸基本法上) 대통령(大統領)을 중심(中心)으로-
일본어, 日本語 복합동사, 複合動詞에 대응, 對應하는 한국어, 韓國語 표현, 表現에 관한 일고찰, 一考察 -신문기사, 新聞記事 대역문, 對譯文 대조, 對照를 중심, 中心으로-
일반논문 : 일본(日本) 문화정책(文化政策)의 법적(法的) 구조(構造)에 관한 일고찰(一考察)
"양기(養氣)"를 통해 본 려말선초(麗末鮮初) 문인(文人)들의 의식(意識)에 관한 일고찰(一考察)
Keian, in his book Keianosyowaten, criticized the glossing of the Old-Confucianist tradition. This criticism concentrates on the reading of grammatical elements. You can find such criticisms at 9 places in this book. These criticisms also concern the academic situation of Japan at that time, the shape of Kana characters, various marks, and so on. He criticizes the method of vernacular reading of Chinese texts which was in common use in Japan in his times, from various points of view. Among his criticisms on the use of marks, one need to pay attention especially to kun-gouhu, i.e. marks which indicate that one should treat more than one word as a single unit. However, one can not understand the difference between his reading and that of the Old-Confucianist tradition with regard to the kun-gohu from Keianosyowaten, until one compares Yeongjeongbon, one of Old-Confucinaist glossed texts, and Wongwibon which preserves the gloss of Keian. This comparison reveals the difference in the use of kun-gohu between the two. Wongwibon contains 183 instances of kun-gohu, among which 9 instances are attached to words whereas 174 instances to phrases. The former are used to indicate the close relationship between two Chinese characters or the fact that the two characters together correspond to one word. The latter are mainly attached to pronominals, conjunctions or other grammatical elements. In contrast, Yeongjeongbon has only 32 instances of kun-gohu, among which 5 are only found in Yeongjeongbon, and 27 are common between the two, but some of them show differences in the glossed reading. Both of them show some instances of kun-gohu which do not indicate merely that the two characters connected by them amount to one word. Wongwibon shows more varied uses of kun-gohu, for example, connecting the subject with its predicate, or an adverb with another adverb, and so on. It is especially worth noting that some instances of kun-gohu in Wongwibon are attached to characters which are not read in the Old-confucian tradition. Some of them indicates a particular reading or merely the existence of the Chinese character.