为了探究近代中国语言观的变迁, 本稿对清末汉字改革家的语言观进行了考察。汉字改革家们认为, 帝国的文字是民富国强之秘诀, 而汉字是中国落后之原因。他们自觉由于汉字没有表音功能, 字形复杂, 难以习得, 因此创制了在简单符号上加语音的表音文字。他们以表音文字追求语言和文字的一致乃至语言和文章的相一致。而汉字改革家们构思出通过表音字的制定和普及来统一语言的方案。这是文言一致、国语统一的近代语文政策的萌芽。表音字方案的字、字母和文字术语反映了在相异语言文字体系相遇的过程中发生的语言观变化。 近代中国语言观是新旧、东西语言观的融合物。通过对清末汉字改革家的语言观考察, 我们不仅填补了曾分成古代和现代两个部分的中国语言学史空白, 而且为中国近代的理解提供了新的端绪。

从表面上看, 汉语的‘们’和韩语的‘들’都能表示复数而被认为它们属于类似的语法单位。但实际上其语法功能各有千秋。我们发现韩国学生使用‘们’时经常发生多词现象, 这说明‘们’的制约条件比‘들’还要复杂。韩国学生的‘们’多词现象可分为三种类型。本文通过考察得出以下结论。第一, 跟相结合的名词成分有关的多词现象。对韩国学生来说, 最主要的问题在于名词的条件上。与‘们’结合的指人名词应具个体化、集团化的属性, 如本身已具有集团义也不能使用。‘들’就与此不相干。第二, 跟非有定性有定词的修饰有关的多词现象。这是韩国学生的多词现象当中最主要的问题。‘们’与有定性有直接的关系, 而不能受非有定性的有定词的修饰。但‘들’于此无关。第三, 跟能否作为通指名词短语有关的多词现象。‘们’不能表示恒久不变的某一类的总称, 也不能实现为表达任指对象的一般属性的句子。但‘들’不受此制约。

本文通过与韩国语‘NP+의+VN’的比较对汉语‘NP+的+VP’结构的语义功能进行了考察。结果可以知道对汉语主谓结构‘NP+VP’的名词化和韩国语主谓结构的名词化有相同的特点。 用‘的’和‘의’的名词化可以构成‘NP+的+VP’结构与‘NP+의+VN’结构。这样的名词化动因可以看做语言之间的交流互相影响的结果, 诸多语言都有这样对立的两类名词化。这是语言表达对主谓结构的名词化要求的产物。对汉语‘NP+的+VP’结构来说, 这是汉语需要语义上自指的谓词性成分的名词化的原因, 这是专门为表示自指的有标记指称名词化结构。 而且汉语‘NP+VP+的’和韩国语‘NP+의+VN’的名词化指称功能不一样。即‘NP+VP+的’是和主谓结构的自指的名词化不一样的转指名词化。汉语‘的’一般解释为韩国语‘~것’, 但我们不能把韩国语名词化语尾‘~것’和加在句子或谓词性成分后头‘的’混为一谈。其实前者是表示自指的名词化, 而后者表示转指, 比如说, 如果把‘미국이 쿠바를 재재한 것’这样的韩国语翻译成‘美国制裁古巴的’的话, 这只能做修饰名词的定语, 不能独立使用, 自指的名词化翻译应该是‘美国的制裁古巴’。 这里还有需要注意的一点, 比如, 韩国语‘나의 사랑하는 조국’不能用汉语‘我的爱的祖国’来对应。即像‘我爱的祖国’的‘我爱的’一样表示转指的形式, 不能再用‘的’来构成自指名词化‘我的爱的’, 而在‘我爱的祖国’和‘我的爱’中间只能选一使用。这是因为‘NP+的+VP’结构‘我的爱’的自指的名词化照应功能, 所以它不能做像定语这样的内嵌很深的句法结构。这还可以说这是因为自指的名词化和转指的名词化不能同时出现在同一个结构。

This paper started from the critical mind, “Why are the Chinese sensitive to a cultural issue and trying to pursue a ‘Culture Power’?” This paper is aimed at analyzing China’s cultural policy, change in their attitudes toward culture, and the status and role of culture in China. Since the modern age, the major historical events in China have been always associated with culture, and the culture has been the center of the controversy over national development. China, which emerged after its reform and opening, has expanded their influence in the field of international politics, economy, and the military, but relatively, they perceived their influence in the cultural area as vulnerable. Accordingly, the Chinese government expanded the influence of Chinese cultures externally while promoting the cultural policy that would make it possible to establish national identity and integrate society using their traditional cultures internally. In this process, China achieved the ‘Paradigm Shift’ in which they began to perceive the traditional cultures, which were once the target to be overthrown in the past, as the target to be inherited and developed. At present, China has entered into the period of Post-Socialism, during which socialist mechanism and capitalism-created new institutions are mixed. At this period, the Chinese culture attempted at cultural turn using the logic of convergence, and they are walking the path of hybridization. China is still proceeding with a ‘state-led’ cultural turn. Presently, the Chinese culture is developing into the more active and externally oriented character while gradually diverging itself from defensive and reactive attitudes.

In seeking Korean unification led by South Korea, this article first analyzes China’s position on Korean unification, proves that China’s perception of a unified Korea is reflected in its Korean Peninsula policies, and predicts its future role. Specifically, this article looks into China’s perception of the Korean Peninsula’s strategic value in its Northeast Asian strategies given its changing relations with the U. S. Also, China’s basic position on Korean unification and its perception and plan on the process of unification and a unified Korea will be analyzed. Finally, this article examine how such a perception and a plan are reflected in China’s Korean Peninsula policies and project the future role of China in the process of Korean unification. In conclusion, although China supports an independent and peaceful Korean unification, it also prefers the status quo of the Korean Peninsula given uncertainty in the process of unification and its outcome. Also, it prefers a progressive unification over an early one. At a time when the U. S. is increasingly keeping China in check in economic and military terms in East Asia and China does not trust South Korea’s security strategies, China tries not to accept collapse of North Korea and South Korea-led unification. Even though China is expected to support establishment of a unified state on the Korean Peninsula which is friendly and cooperative to itself, it will be against a unified Korea under the influence of its competitors (the U. S. and Japan). Therefore, China is unlikely to facilitate Korean unification and considered to be able to have a decisive influence in delaying Korean unification and interrupting South Korea-led unification. This indicates that without dispelling China’s anxiety and gaining its cooperation, Korean unification is unlikely.

The determination of the country of origin of goods has become an important issues because it is essential to apply preferential custom tariff to importing goods. In this paper, we analyze China’s rules of origin in seven FTAs, which China has entered into force, especially focused on the Product Specific Rule(PSR) in the field of agricultural and marine goods. One of characteristics of the China’s FTA rules of origin is diversity after China-New Zealand FTA. For example, China adapted more complicate origin criterion with HS 6-digit. Another property we found in China’s FTA rules of origin is that China adapted more stringent rules of origin, ‘change in tariff schedule method’ or ‘change in tariff schedule method and value added criteria’, in the field of agricultural and marine products. The agro-fishery field is a sensitive issue in the ongoing Korea-Chin FTA negotiations, so more strengthened and sophisticated rules of origin is needed with the in-depth study about the volume of trade of the agro-fishery products between Korea and China.

Considering the structures of trade and investments(both of FDI and ODI(out-bound investment)) between Korea and China, liberalizations of investments and services are very important issues of Korea-China FTA. China is important to Korean enterprises not only as a major investment partner but also the biggest target of domestic market. In special, lowering the barriers to investments became more important tasks as speed up of the ‘transformation from the workplace to the marketplace of the world’. But, in real, barriers to investments had been one of the regular issues pointed out by lots of conutries including Korea. FDI limitation and limitation on ratio of share by classified industry, performance requirement had been a typical example. In addition, there are lots of differences on existing FTAs of two countries concerning the chapter of investment including the scope and coverge, national treatment, minimum standard of treatments, performance requirements, senior management and board of directors, non-conforming Measures, ISD. It is important to set-up of negotiation points in Korea-China FTA negotiation. For example, four points of issues should be added from the point of view of Korea; ①addition of the linked regulations on investments-services concerning the scope and coverge, ②minimization of non-conforming measures(that is, the Negative-lists system), ③addition of minimum standard of treatments for protect investers, ④addition of regulations for limit the performance requirements. Most of all, it is need for more endeavors for expanded investment liberalization. In this regards, the most important thing to Korean parts is addition of the national treatment regulation on establishment stage(admission) of FDI.

This research examine DongBukSamSung ChoseonJok’s living culture and focus on chaning procedure of their marriage and funeral rites. This research divided them into five big steps through time series. First period of which traditional culture was being maintained(time before 1945), Second period that The People’s Republic of China was established(during 1945-1952), Third period which socialist movement was vigorously pushed forward, Fourth period which was the Dark Age that traditional culture was denied and destroyed(1966-1976), The final fifth period an intermediate spinning frame(time after 80century). The region classification is divided into three groups. Jilin Province that Hamgyong citizen mainly emigrated, Lioning Province which Pyongan province citizen mostly moved into, Heilong Jiang which GyeongSang province citizen mainly moved to. As a result, JoseonJok’s marriage custom was greatly influenced by the ethnic minority policies. And There were distinctions of their factorial plan of marriage and funeral rites according to what their home town were.

新生代农民工是工业化、城市化和现代化的产物。对新生代农民工进行科学的管理是中国经济发展、政治稳定、文化繁荣、社会和谐的基础。本论文是对新生代农民工进行的研究成果。本论文率先提出有关新生代农民工的现实状况。新生代农民工在城市化进程中, 他们正经历着与城市生活的碰撞与融合, 在就业、生活、情感需求及权益维护等方面存在理想与现实的落差。因此, 加快推进农民工的城市化进程, 务必要加大对农民工的培训力度, 提高农民工的社会保障水平, 对农民工投入社会的人文关怀。

Among the rural industrialization models that appeared during China’s economic reform era, the three models of “Sunan moshi,” “Wenzhou moshi,” and “Zhujiang moshi” received the most attention. Each of these three models developed distinctively as regional development models in their respective regions based on the region’s political, economical, social, cultural, and historical background, and led the economic development in each region from the early 1980s to the mid 1990s. As such, these three models were lauded by many other regions in China and by the academic sphere as a successful development model. However, with the rapid turns in China’s economic environment since the mid 1990s, problems in these models came to the surface and brought widespread criticism as a regional development model. The limitations seen in the three models gave birth to the movement to innovate them, which in turn, led to concepts such as the “new Sunan moshi,” the “new Wenzhou moshi,” and the “new Zhujiang moshi,” collectively referred to as the “xin moshi (new model).” The purpose of this paper is to reflect on how these three models were replaced by the new development models. In particular, the paper will investigate whether the new models are developing into distinctive models by region like the traditional three models or whether they have converged into a common model. As the co-existence of various ownerships - which can largely be categorized into collective ownership, private ownership, and foreign ownership - at the center of China’s socialist market economy are represented in these three models, the study on the development, reform, and innovation of the three models gives important clues for China’s systemic transformation.