한·중 관계의 발전추세와 전망: 바람직한 중국정책을 위한 시론(試論)

조영남 서울대학교 국제학연구소 2011 국제지역연구 Vol.20 No.1

This article aims at analyzing the past two decades’ development of Sino-South Korean relations and its prospect, with a purpose of proposing a South Korea's China policy. To this end, it firstly investigates the evolving trends of Sino-South Korean relations. Then, it delves into major contentious issues between the two countries in political, military and security, and social areas. Based on these analyses, South Korea's China policy is presented. Since the 1992 diplomatic normalization, Sino-South Korean relations have witnessed four distinctive trends: first, rapid increases of agents and areas in the relations between the two countries; second, acceleration of uneven development of the relations; third, the increasing disparity between official descriptions and their actual relations; fourth, increase of the asymmetry between the two countries in state capabilities. In addition, Sino-South Korean relations will face challenges in the future pertaining to three issues, such as Sino-North Korean alliance and North Korean problems, U.S.-South Korean alliance and its preparation for China's rise, and conflicts or confrontations between the two countries on norms and values. Finally, to achieve a more solid development of the Sino-South Korean relations in the future, South Korea needs to pursue a ‘policy trio' toward China, composed of engagement policy, hedging strategy, and East Asian multilateral policy. In this policy trio, South-North Korean relations are the center of gravity, which is closely related with all three policies. This relationship also seriously affects whether the three individual policies are implemented well or not. 이 논문은 지난 20년 동안의 한·중 관계 및 향후 전망을 분석하고, 한국의 바람직한 중국정책을 제시하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위해 먼저, 한·중 관계의 과거 발전추세와 과제를 분석한다. 또한, 정치, 군사·안보, 사회 등 주요 영역에서 나타나는 한·중 관계의 주요 쟁점을 분석한다. 이를 기반으로 이 논문은 한국의 바람직한 중국정책을 제시한다. 1992년 수교 이후 한·중 관계는 교류 주체와 영역의 급속한 확대, 영역별 불균등 발전의 심화, 공식규정과 실제관계의 괴리, 양국 간의 국력격차와 비대칭성의 확대라는 특징을 보여주었다. 또한, 미래의 한·중 관계는 북·중동맹과 남북관계, 한·미동맹과 중국의 부상 대응, 사회·문화 영역에서의 규범 및 가치관 충돌에 큰 영향을 받을 것이다. 마지막으로, 한국은 중국에 대해 관여정책, 위험분산 전략, 동(東)아시아 다자주의 정책으로 구성된 ‘정책 삼중주’를 추진해야 한다. 남북관계는 세 정책 모두와 밀접히 연결되고 각각의 정책에 큰 영향을 미치는 정책 삼중주의 보이지 않는 중심이다.

16세기 초중반 한중관계의 이념성과 중층성

桂勝範(Kye, Seung B.) 동양사학회 2017 東洋史學硏究 Vol.140 No.-

Under the so-called Ming order in premodern East Asia, which lasted for about 250 years from the turn of the 1400s and the early 1700s, there were big differences between the 1400s and the 1500s in the features of the Sino-Korean relations. In the 1400s, sadae (事大), which means serving a bigger country, inferred a sort of utilitarian and contractual relations with the Ming, implying that the suzerain state could be replaced anytime depending on the political situation. In the early 1600s, however, this trend began to change to unconditional relations based on Confucian moral values in which the Koreans viewed the Ming as a ritual father as well as the suzerain. The reasons for this change can be approached from several perspectives, including Chungjong"s submissive attitude toward the Ming in order to secure his throne by borrowing the Ming authority, the spread of the consciousness of Little China (小中華) and the sinocentric world view, and a new Korean mindset in which obedience to Ming China was regarded as natural law, like the yin-yang and father-son relations. With emphasis on such differences, this article is aimed to provide a new approach to the Sino-Korean relations, focusing on the 1500s, from diverse perspectives, not only political aspects but also intellectual ones. In the 1500s, the relations were based on the practical interests of the two countries in non-economic profits such as national security and sharing Confucian knowledge and values. In the 1500s, however, the Ming-Chosŏn relations gradually yet steadily evolved into a new relation based on Confucian ideology. In the 1500s, for example, a new obligation such as father-son relations was added to the preexisting obligation like lord-subject relations. This change implies that Ming China was now the father of Chosŏn Korea as well as the lord, suggesting that the Chosŏn relied much more heavily on Ming China. At the same time, however, the ruling elites of Chosŏn did not follow Ming China blindly; for example, they tended to somewhat look down the current systems of Ming China in the fields of culture and Confucian values. With this critical view of the Sino-Korean relations in the 1500s, this article looks at the two different aspects of the Sino-Korean relations. One was the lord-subject and father-son relations in terms of political and military aspects. Going against such visible politico-military relations, the other was the somewhat underground stream, in which Korean ruling elites never hesitated to reject the Wang Yangming Learning for their own interests as a existing-powered ruling status. This article examines such dual structure of the Sino-Korean relations in the 1500s from an ideological perspective.

중·러 전략적 협력과 한반도 평화체제

문흥호 한양대학교 아태지역연구센터 2018 중소연구 Vol.41 No.4

중국의 시진핑 주석과 러시아 푸틴 대통령은 2018년 신년사에서 중·러 전략적 협력이 사상 최고 수준에 달했다고 강조했다. 중․러 전략적 협력을 유지시켜 주는 힘은 미국이다. 소연방 붕괴 이후 러시아는 국가존립이 위협받는 상황에서 미국에 극도로 분노했고, 중국은 ‘역사의 종언’을 앞세운 미국의 집요한 ‘화평연변’ 위협에 직면하여 체제안보를 지상과제로 설정했다. 이 상황에서 중․러의 동병상련과 전략적 협력은 매우 자연스러운 현상이다. 특히 예상치 못한 트럼프의 등장과 ‘미국 우선주의’는 다소 방심하던 중․러를 다시 묶어주고 있다. 이처럼 중․러 전략적 협력의 유인은 여전히 건재하지만 양국 갈등의 역사가 잘 보여주듯이 엄연한 한계가 존재한다. 그중에서도 장기간 응축된 상호불신, 대미전략의 현격한 차이, 푸틴의 ‘강한 러시아’와 시진핑의 ‘강군몽’의 대립 가능성, 유라시아 지역에서의 갈등 등은 중․러 전략적 협력을 제약하는 요인이다. 한편 한반도는 중․러 전략적 협력의 유인과 한계가 혼재된 지역이다. 특히 중국과 러시아는 한반도 ‘평화와 전쟁’의 논의과정에 반드시 참여해야 한다는 강한 지분의식을 갖고 있다. 이는 향후 한반도 평화체제 형성과 중․러 전략적 협력의 ‘상관성’을 검토해야 하는 이유다. 우선 긍정적 요인은 북한의 대외적 고립과 체제 불안 해소, 북․미 평화협정 추진, 북한 핵문제를 악용하는 일본의 견제, 유엔의 과도한 대북 제재 반대 등에 대한 중․러의 일치된 입장이다. 이는 중․러가 북한의 국제적 고립과 체제 불안의 조성에 책임이 있다는 일종의 부채 의식과 미국, 일본에 대한 견제 심리가 함께 작용한 것이다. 중․러의 이러한 전략적 공감대는 극한으로 치닫는 군사적 대립의 완화와 북․미, 남북간 대화를 중시한다는 점에서 한반도 평화체제 구축 과정의 긍정적 요인이다. 반면 한반도 평화체제 구축에 미칠 부정적 요인은 한반도의 전략적 가치에 대한 상호인식의 불일치, 러시아의 대북 영향력 복원 의지와 북한의 대 중․러 균형외교 추진 의지의 의기투합에 대한 중국의 견제, 한국의 북방경제협력 추진에 따른 남․북․러 경제협력 확대 및 중국의 대북 독점적 지위 약화, 러시아의 대북 영향력 강화 움직임 등은 중․러 전략적 협력이 한반도 평화체제 형성의 부정적 요인으로 변질될 가능성을 배제할 수 없다. 결국 중국과 러시아의 전략적 협력은 이를 지속시키는 유인과 함께 갈등을 유발할 수 있는 한계 요인을 갖고 있다. 그리고 그 유인과 한계의 편차는 미․중관계, 미․러관계의 변화 양상에 따라 진폭을 달리할 것이다. 특히 미․중․러․일의 국익이 민감하게 교차하는 한반도는 중․러 전략적 협력의 유인과 한계가 극명하게 대비되는 지역이다. 바로 이러한 점에서 중․러 전략적 협력에 내재된 긍정적 요인의 활용과 부정적 요인의 완화여하에 따라 한반도 평화체제 구축 과정이 큰 영향을 받을 것이다. In New Year messages for 2018, Chinese president Xi Jinping and Russian president Vladimir Putin emphasized that the Sino-Russian strategic partnership reached an all-time high. The United States has been the driving force behind this continuing partnership. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the existence of the nation was threatened and Russia has been enraged at America’s betrayal. Also, facing continuous threat from America that declared ‘the end of history’ and attempted to effect a political transformation of the Chinese socialist system by peaceful means(‘Hepingyanbian’), China set its supreme task as the security of its system. With this background, a bond of sympathy and the strategic partnership between China and Russia should be a natural consequence. In particular, the unexpected election of Donald Trump and his ‘America First’ policy urge closer cooperation between them again. Thus the incentives for strategic cooperation between the two countries remain solid, but as shown by the history of conflicts between them, there still are barriers to this cooperation: long-standing mutual mistrust, discrepancies in policies toward the US, possible clashes between Putin’s ‘Strong Russia Policy’ and Xi’s ‘The Dream of a Strong Military’ and conflicts in Eurasia. Meanwhile, the Korean Peninsula issue can be both the incentive for and limitation on the Sino-Russian strategic partnership. Particularly, the two countries share the strong sense of ownership in discussion on ‘peace and war’ on the Korean Peninsula. This is the reason why we should give positive consideration to the correlation between ensuring peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and the Sino-Russian strategic partnership. First of all, the positive aspect of the Sino-Russian strategic partnership would be the following: resolving North Korea’s international isolation and its unstable regime, pursuing the peace agreement between North Korea and the US, preventing Japan from taking advantage of the North Korean nuclear problem, a common countermeasure to UN’s excessive sanctions on North Korea. This would be the result of their consensus that they are responsible for North Korea’s global isolation along with political unrest, and their common goal of keeping the US and Japan in check. This strategic consensus between China and Russia would positively affect creating a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula in the sense that it tries to ease heightened military tensions and promotes dialogues between North Korea and the US, and North and South Korea. On the other hand, the potential risk factors of the Sino-Russian strategic partnership has would be the following: difference of opinion over the strategic value of the Korean Peninsula, China’s interfering the progress in the relationship between Russia desiring to restore its influence over DPRK and North Korea trying to strike a balance between China and Russia, the expansion of economic cooperation among North-South Korea and Russia and China’s waning influence over North Korea due to the promotion of ‘Northern Economic Cooperation’ of Korean government, recent Russian moves to strengthen its influence over North Korea. All these combined together may adversely affect peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. All in all, the Sino-Russian strategic partnership is a double edged sword which bears incentives to continue cooperation and potential sources of conflict as well. Therefore the actual result of the partnership would vary according to the dynamics of the relationships among the US, China and Russia. In this regard, more diplomatic wisdom of the Korean Government will be required to benefit from the Sino-Russian strategic partnership and prevent its negative consequences.

중국 신문보도에 나타난 한중관계 위협요인 분석: 한반도 사드배치 문제를 중심으로

주민욱 한국동북아학회 2020 한국동북아논총 Vol.25 No.2

The main purpose of this study is to examine the Sino-Korean relations since the deployment of the THAAD on the Korean Peninsula. SNA(Social Network Analysis) was used to identify the correlation between two factors, THAAD and the Sino-Korean relations as the analysis tool. The analysis covered collectible major Chinese Communist Party newspapers reports since July 2016, when the Korean government officially announced the deployment of THAAD on the Korean peninsula. As a result of the analysis, first, It is clear that the correlation between the THAAD and the Sino-Korean relations in Chinese newspaper report. Through SNA analysis, it was confirmed that ‘South Korea’ and ‘China’ are closely connected with ‘THAAD’ and ‘deployment’, on the other hand, are linked to ‘Sino-Korean’ and ‘relations’. Second, China emphasize that the THAAD deployment on the Korean Peninsula will have an effect on the two countrie's economies as well. Third, China insists the THAAD deployment on the Korean Peninsula will not help peace on the Korean Peninsula as well as in Northeast Asia. 본 연구는 한반도 사드배치 이후 한중관계 변화추이를 살펴봄에 그 주목적이 있다. 그리고 두 요인, 한중관계와사드배치 간 상호 관계를 확인하기 위해 단어 간 상호관계망을 그려낼 수 있는 사회관계망분석(SNA)을 활용하였다. 그 분석대상은 한국정부가 한반도 사드배치를 공식화한 2016년 7월 이후의 수집 가능한 주요 중국 공산당 기관지(党报) 신문보도였다. 분석결과, 첫째 중국 신문보도에서 사드배치와 한중관계 간 상관관계는 분명했다. SNA 분석을통해 ‘한국’, ‘중국’ 양국은 한편으로 ‘사드’, ‘배치’와 다른 한편으로는 ‘한중’, ‘관계’ 단어들과 밀접하게 연결되어져있음을 확인하였다. 둘째 중국은 한반도 사드배치가 한중관계는 물론 양국의 경제에도 악영향을 미칠 것을 강조하고있었다. 셋째 중국은 한반도 사드배치가 한반도는 물론 동북아 평화에도 도움이 되지 않을 것임을 주장하고 있었다.

한국 한문학 연구에 대한 해외로부터의 학적 요구

심경호 근역한문학회 2017 한문학논집(漢文學論集) Vol.47 No.-

The concept of “Sino-Korean Literature” refers to not only Korean classical literature written in classical Chinese in a narrow sense, but also traditional humanities in a broad sense. “Sino-Korean Literature” in a narrow sense is based on traditional humanities i.e. Sino-Korean Literature in a broad sense, and Sino-Korean Literature in general has developed based on philology. It is needed to exmaine the relationship between them to consider “Sino-Korean Literature” in a narrow sense and to sketch the phase of development of it as they keep close relationships. The traditional meaning of the term “literature” or “letters” (文) in premodern Korea as elsewhere in East Asia encompassed a wider scope than the modern concept of “literature” (文學). It refers not only to refined writing in Literary Chinese, but also to more utilitarian public and private writings in Literary Chinese composed in the context of daily life. Thus, “Sino-Korean literature” includes not only literary writings but also historical records, scholarly essays, public documents such as diplomatic correspondence, and private texts such as correspondence in Literary Chinese. Works in Literary Chinese with interspersed vernacular expressions also belong under the purview of Sino-Korean literature. It is needed to understand the meaning of Sino-Korean literature in this broad sense and to reconstruct its historical development in its own context. This reflection is raised from foreign academic world with the request for reviewing the study of Sino-Korean literature. This article focuses to the following matters among the requests from foreign academic world. ① to understand the concept of chinese character cultural area in East Asia and its circumstances ② to introduce the methodology of comparative literature and culture ③ to reconstruct the context of writing and to write biographies ④ to construct history of controversies and thoughts ⑤ to reflect on the environment in which the concept of traditional 文 was established, and on the relationship between traditional 文 and political power It is true that there was a invisible boundary that limited the research area concerning its era and subject etc. in studying Sino-Korean literature and it was rather neighboring country scholars who achieved lots of research results concerning literature in North South States Period and Koryo Period. There are also several attempts to understand the culture and literature in Chinese character cultural area in a broad sense by understanding the term “literature” in premodern period not with the modern Western concept of “literature” but with a concept with wider scope: History of Japanese literature edited by Komine Kazuaki, History of Japanese ‘literature’ edited by Kono Kimiko and Wiebke Denecke, Oxford Handbook of Classical Chinese Literature edited by Wiebke Denecke, Wai-Yee Li, Xiaofei Tian. These attempts correspond to that of professor Zhang Bo-wei that comprehends the culture and literature in Chinese character cultural area in a broad sense with the concept of “the cultural area of Chinese literature”. It is needed that Sino-Korean literature study scholars overcome the limitations of regionalism and reconstruct the history of classical Chinese literature in East Asia with their own approach. 한문으로 쓰인 국문학 작품을 가리키는 협의의 한문학은 전통인문학(광의의 한문학)을 바탕으로 성립하며, 광의의 한문학과 협의의 한문학은 다시 기초학(소학과 문헌학)을 토대로 발전해 왔다. 이 셋은 유기적인 관계를 이루고 있으므로, 협의의 한문학에 대하여 연구하거나 그 발전상을 고찰할 때 그 셋의 관계를 살펴야만 한다. 또한 한문학은 문언어법의 한문을 사용하여 한국 민족의 사상 감정을 표현한 문학, 역사 사실의 기록, 학문적 사색의 논술, 사대교린의 외교 관계나 공적, 사적 생활에서 작성한 문건을 모두 포괄한다. 근대 이전에는 ‘문’이라 하면 학술과 문학을 포괄했고, 협의의 ‘문’이라고 해도 순문학만이 아니라 공용문이나 실용문까지 아울렀다. 게다가 문언어법의 한문을 주로 사용하되 한국어 어법을 적용하면서 이두를 붙인 표기법을 사용한 표기체계의 시문과, 한자를 음차(音借)와 차자(借字)의 방식을 결합해서 제작한 시문도 민족문학의 일부를 이루어왔다.따라서 한문학을 그 광의의 의미에서 파악하고 한문학의 역사적 전개를 그 콘텍스트 내에서 재구성하는 일이 지금 한문학 연구에 주어진 과제라고 생각하고 있다. 이러한 각성은 해외로부터의 학적 요구와 맞물려져 더욱 첨예하게 되었다. 이와 관련하여 본고는 한국한문학 연구에 대한 해외로부터의 요구 가운데 다음과 같은 점을 특별히 주목했다. ① 동아시아 한자문화권의 개념과 실상 파악 ② 비교문학 및 비교문화 연구방법의 새로운 도입 ③ 저술 콘텍스트의 재구성 혹은 전기(傳記)의 작성 ④ 논쟁사와 사상사의 구상 ⑤ 고전적 ‘문’의 환경에 대한 고찰, ‘문’과 권력의 문제에 대한 성찰 현재 한국한문학 연구는 시대, 주제의 면에서 스스로 구획을 짓고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 남북국시대의 문학이나 고려시대의 문학에 대해서는 인접 국가 지역 연구자들의 연구가 더 많은 성과를 올리고 있는 실정이다. 한국 내의 한문학 연구자들은 인접 국가의 정리에 스스로의 자료를 내맡기는 무기력함에서 벗어날 필요가 있다. 또한 小峯和明 편의 『일본문학사』, 河野貴美子․Wiebke DENECKE 주편의 『일본「문」학사』, 옥스퍼드 대학의 『Oxford Handbook of Classical Chinese Literature』 등은 모두 근대 이전의 문학을 서구적 문학의 개념이 아니라 전통적인 ‘문’의 개념에서 파악하고, 문학의 흐름을 테마 별로 조망하며, 한자문화권의 한정된 지역에 국한하지 않고 한자문화권을 총체적으로 파악하려고 하는 점에서 공통된다. 이것은 장보웨이 교수가 ‘한문화권’이란 용어를 사용하면서 동아시아 한문학을 총체적으로 파악하려는 경향과도 상응한다. 한국한문학 연구도 지역주의의 한계를 돌파하여 동아시아 한문학의 역사를 독자적 관점에서 재구축하는 방향으로 나아가야 할 것이다.

성호 이익 한시에 나타난 친족 교류의 양상 연구

황명환 전남대학교 인문학연구원 2023 가족과 커뮤니티 Vol.0 No.7

This paper was written to investigate the aspects of relatives social intercourse in the Seong-ho(星湖) Lee-Ik(李瀷)’s Sino-Korean Poetry. So far, Seong-ho's literature research has achieved many achievements. However, by overemphasizing the Silhak scholar Seong-ho, his human aspect was treated somewhat negligently. In fact, the group that Seong-ho, who stayed in the countryside, interacted the most actively was relatives, and the Sino-Korean Poetry he left showed Seong-ho's interest in relatives. First of all, we looked at the scope of relatives social intercourse that appeared in he's Sino-Korean Poetry. As a result, it was confirmed that Seong-ho interacted with the line below generation in the father's family. He also established social intercourses with figures from his wife's family or mother's family. In addition, in some cases, he actively interacted with relatives formed through marriage. Thus, Chaun-si(次韻詩), Letter written in poetry, and Sino-Korean Poetry of farewell were left in relation to the social intercourse between relatives. Alternatively, various forms of Sino-Korean Poetry were created to express gratitude for gifts or to respond to family event. In the traditional era, transportation and communication were not developed, so meeting and parting were very special events. In this situation, Seong-ho naturally expressed deep regret over the breakup with the object. At the same time, expectations for the opponent were also expressed. In addition, gifts exchanged between relatives had more than substance. Therefore, Seong-ho also wrote a Sino-Korean Poetry to express his gratitude to the person who sent the gift. In addition, Seong-ho also created a Sino-Korean Poetry to congratulate his relatives on passing an examin, promotion, begetting a son, and to express his condolences on the death of his relatives. The reason why the social intercourse of relatives played an important role in Seong-ho's Sino-Korean Poetry seems to be because he had high pride in his family. In addition, Seong-ho shared his perception of Confucianism through social intercourse between relatives because the will to protect Confucianism became an important basis for the succession of family consciousness.

중일전쟁 종전 뒤(1945~1948년) 국민정부의 만주지역 한인정책

박정현 ( Jung Hyun Park ) 대구사학회 2016 대구사학 Vol.123 No.-

이 논문은 중일전쟁이 끝난 뒤(1945~1948년) 국민정부의 중국 내 한인에 대한 대우와 재산처리 방향을 다루고 있다. 일본 패전 뒤 한중관계는 비공식적인 관계에서 국가 간의 관계로 바뀌었다. 중일전쟁이 끝난 뒤, 국민정부는 청일전쟁 이후 상실한 중국의 한국에 대한 영향력을 회복하려고 시도했다. 그래서 국민정부는 한국의 독립을 적극적으로 지지했고, 중국 내 한인을 한국으로 송환하면서 이들이 한국 내에서 친중 세력으로 자리 잡기를 바랐다. 중일전쟁 뒤 국민정부 한인정책의 목표는 내정 면에서는 일본 잔재를 청산하기 위해 일본에 협조했던 한인과 한인 재산을 처리하는 것이었고, 외교 면에서는 한인을 보호하고 생활을 안정시켜 한·중 간 우호관계를 수립하는 것이었다. 하지만 중국 내 한인과 한인 재산을 처리하는 것은 간단한 문제가 아니었다. 특히 일본 점령시기 일본에 협조했는지 여부는 논란의 초점이 되었다. 국민정부 입장에서 한인문제는 한국과 우호적인 외교관계의 중요한 요소였기 때문에 한인 관련 업무를 한국대표단과 협의했다. 여기에는 향후 한국과의 우호관계, 한국 내 화교에 대한 대우도 고려했다. 국민정부의 한인 정책은 한인을 한국으로 송환하는 문제와 중국 내 잔류한 한인과 한인 재산에 대한 처리로 나누어졌다. 한인을 송환하는 문제는 별 문제 없이 처리되었다. 하지만 중국 내 잔류한 한인과 한인 재산에 대한 처리는 복잡한 문제를 야기했다. 국민정부는 이러한 상황을 해결하기 위해 일련의 법을 공포하여 한인문제 처리에 대한 원칙을 정했다. 국민정부는 한국과의 관계를 고려하여 한인의 재산과 산업을 敵産처리문제와 다른 방향에서 처리하는 법을 공포했다. 그러나 만주지역에서는 지방행정당국이 한인 재산 처리에 관한 법을 그대로 적용하기 어렵다고 호소하여, 국민정부는 만주지역 한인의 상황에 맞는 법을 따로 제정하여 한인 재산 처리의 원칙으로 삼았다. 일본 패전 직후 국민정부는 일본 잔재 청산과 사회적 안정을 위해 중국 내 한인과 한인 재산에 대한 통제가 필요했다. 처음 국민정부는 한인의 재산을 대부분 몰수했고, 가능한 한 많은 한인을 한국으로 귀국시키려고 했다. 아울러 일본 점령시기 한인 가운데 일부가 일본에 협력한 것에 대해서도 공격적인 태도를 보였다. 하지만 만주지역에서 국민정부는 뚜렷한 우위를 차지하지 못했고, 미국과 소련의 영향으로 한국에 대한 영향력도 크게 행사하지 못했다. 제2차 세계대전이 끝난 뒤 국민정부는 동아시아 중심국가로 한국과 일본에 대해 영향력을 행사하려고 계획했다. 그러나 국공내전에서 불리한 처지가 되면서 오히려 한인과 한국정부의 도움이 필요해졌다. 이에 따라 국민정부의 만주 한인에 대한 정책은 일본 패전 전후 통제 중심에서 점차 한인들의 현실을 인정해주고 한인 생활을 안정시키고 보호하는 방향으로 바뀌어갔다. Along with Japan``s defeat, the Sino-Korean relations shifted from unofficial relations to cross-border relations. After the Sino-Japanese War ended, the Nationalist Government attempted to regain China``s influence on Korea, which had been lost after the First Sino-Japanese War(1894~1895). Thus the Nationalist Government actively supported Korea``s independence, and repatriated Korean-Chinese in China back to Korea, hoping that they would position themselves as pro-Chinese powers in Korea. The goal of the Nationalist Government``s policy over Korean-Chinese after the Second Sino-Japanese War was to deal with Korean-Chinese who cooperated with Japan and their properties to be rid of the vestiges of Japan in terms of domestic affairs, and to protect Korean-Chinese and stabilize their lives to establish friendly relations between Korea and China in terms of diplomacy. However, it was not easy to deal with Korean-Chinese and their properties in China. In particular, whether they cooperated with Japan during Japan``s occupation became the focus of controversy. When Japan lost the war in 1945, Chinese people thought that properties of Korean-Chinese in Manchuria are mostly plundered from Chinese people with the support of the Japanese powers and thus must be forfeited, and that Korean-Chinese must be treated the same as Japanese people. Chinese people were hostile toward Korean-Chinese that had received favors from Japan during the Japanese colonial period and had been in conflict with Chinese people. Therefore, dealing with properties of Korean-Chinese was a complicated issue of personal interests and national sentiments. The issue of land ownership of Korean-Chinese became an apple of discord between Korean-Chinese and Chinese people after Japan``s defeat. To settle this dispute, the Nationalist Government established an act to deal with Korean-Chinese as well as their properties. The issue of Korean-Chinese was an important element of friendly diplomatic relations with Korea, and thus they consulted with the Korean delegates with regard to such affairs about Korean-Chinese. This was also an act of consideration for China``s friendly relations with Korea as well as the treatment of overseas Chinese in Korea. The Nationalist Government``s policy over Korean-Chinese is divided into repatriating Koreans back to Korea and dealing with the remaining Korean-Chinese and their properties in China. Repatriation was carried out without any problem, but dealing with the remaining Korean-Chinese and their properties in China resulted in complicated issues. To resolve the issues, the Nationalist Government proclaimed an act and a set of principles to deal with the Korean-Chinese issues. The Nationalist Government proclaimed an act that deals with properties of Korean-Chinese and business in a different direction from dealing with enemy property, considering China``s relations with Korea. However, in the Manchuria area, the local administrative authorities claimed that it is difficult to apply the act on dealing with properties of Korean-Chinese as it is, and thus they established separate principles and forfeited the properties of Korean-Chinese that cooperated with Japan. Thus, the Nationalist Government established a separate act according to the situation of Korean-Chinese in the Manchuria area, and made it the principle of dealing with properties of Korean-Chinese. Immediately after Japan``s defeat, the Nationalist Government needed control over Koreans in China and their properties to get rid of the remnants of Japan and secure social stability. At first the Nationalist Government forfeited most of properties of Korean-Chinese and tried to return as many Korean-Chinese as possible back to Korea. Moreover, it also showed aggressive attitudes toward some of the Korean-Chinese that cooperated with Japan during Japan``s occupation. However, the Nationalist Government could not hold a clearly dominant position in the Manchuria area, and also could not exert great influence over Korea due to the influence of the US and Soviet Union. After the World War II, the Nationalist Government planned to exert influence over Korea and Japan as the central nations of East Asia. But as it fell into a disadvantageous position in the Chinese Civil War, it rather came to need help from Korean-Chinese and the Korean government. Accordingly, the Nationalist Government``s policy over Korean-Chinese in Manchuria shifted from control after Japan``s defeat to acknowledging reality of Korean-Chinese and stabilizing and protecting the life of Korean-Chinese. (Research Professor / Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University/ jhpiao@korea.ac.kr)

韩汉翻译中同形词误译类型之研究 : 以申京淑的《单人房》为中心

李贞娇 동의대학교 인문과학연구소 2011 인간과 문화 연구 Vol.19 No.-

“韩汉同形词”指的是韩国的汉字词和中国的汉语词书写形式相同的词语。据李珠和(2004)的统计、韩汉同形词的总数18,436个。这其中、词义完全相同的、也即同形 同义词、译者在翻译小说 中照搬照抄基本不会出差错、因此不用考虑这一类。去除这一类、剩下的就是部分异同的和完全不同的、也即同形异义词。这一类占同形词总数的64.36%、大约11,865个。这些汉字词对学习者既有正面的影响、也会产生负面的影响、无论是中国人学习韩语还是韩国人学习汉语都会有不同程度的干扰、这是因为两国学习者常常会以本国词汇意义为基础来理解对方的汉字词、因此很容易出现错误。 《单人房》中所出现的同形词误译大致可分为两类。一类是韩汉都有这些词语(包括词组)、但是意义有差异。这一类误译根据词义所指范围、又细分为四种:词义所指范围较大、词义所指范围较小、词义有交叉、词义完全不同。另一类是韩语有这些词语、汉语却没有。这一类误译又可分为三种:文化负载词、用词不恰当、词汇空缺。这种分类法在它们之间存在着一些交叉。因此、我们利用以下的方法对其进行分类。例如:如果某一个词虽然汉语没有、但是包含着文化因素、那就优先考虑归入“文化负载词”。如果某一个词虽然汉语里不存在、显得有些不自然、别扭、可还能猜测出原意、就归入“用词不恰当”这一类。另外、某一个词既不属于“文化负载词”、又不属于“用词不恰当”、这时、把它归纳为 “词汇空缺”这一类。 通过同形词误译类型的分析结果, 我们可以看出,《单人房》译者的同形词误译主要体现在“韩语有、但汉语没有”(41条、大约占63%)这一部分上。“文化负载词”的翻译是否妥当、这直接关系到译者对韩国文化的了解。能否减少“用词不恰当”和“词汇空缺”现象、主要取决于译者的中文修辞能力。 “Sino-Korean word having the same form in it for both in Korea and China” means a word made with the same Chinese characters in it and used in the same way in application type in Korea and China. According to the data released by Lee Ju-Hwa (2004), there are 18,436 Sino-Korean words having the same forms. The words include “words having the same form and meaning”, which can be used in the same way in both Korean and Chinese and “words having the same form but different meanings”. The “Sino-Korean word having the same form but different meaning” includes the word having the partially same meaning or the partially or totally different words. The number of these words is 11,865, taking up 64.36% of all Sino-Korean words having the same Chinese characters. These Sino-Korean words may positively or negatively affect the learners. Accordingly, either Chinese who tries to learn Korean or Korean who tries to learn Chinese comes across the language barrier to a certain extent due to the existence of these words. Either Chinese or Korean leaners often make mistakes as they are accustomed to understand the words based on their own first language background. There are two kinds of mistranslation in the translation of novel (Secluded Room). One mistranslation applies to the words which exist in both countries but have different meaning from each other. These words can be grouped into four categories depending on the range of meaning of the words; “words having wide range of meaning”, “words having relatively narrow range of meaning”, “words having mixed meaning” and “words which are totally different in meaning”. The other mistranslation applies to the word which exists in Korea but does not exist in China. These words can be grouped into three categories such as “culture related vocabularies”, “improper use of vocabularies” and “non-existence of applicable vocabularies”. If the vocabularies are to be classified as above, some of them may be applied to more than one category. Accordingly, to solve this problem, I adopt the following principle. For example, if a word is not used in Chinese but has the cultural element ,it is first assigned to "culture related vocabularies”, If a word is unnatural and improper but its meaning maybe derived from its original word(starting word), it is classified into “improper use of vocabularies”. In addition, if aword does not belong to either “culture related vocabularies” and “improper use of vocabularies”, it is grouped into “non-existence of applicable vocabularies”. The analysis of types of mistranslation of Sino-Korean words having the same form in the translation of the novel “Secluded Room” shows that the mistranslation is concentrated on the “Sino-Korean words which exist in Korea but not in China” (41 words, 63%). The proper translation of “culture related vocabularies” may be related to the translator’s proper understanding and direct relation to Korean culture while the reduction of “improper use of vocabularies” and “non-existence of applicable vocabularies” may depend on the translator’s writing skill in a native language.

최근 중국학계의 근대 한중관계사 연구(2007~2016)

손성욱 단국대학교 동양학연구원 2017 東洋學 Vol.69 No.-

The aim of this paper is to look back on the progress made in the field of the history of Sino-Korean relations in the modern era as researched in Chinese academia during the past 10 years, and to consider future directions for development. Ever since the formal establishment of diplomatic relations between Korea and China, modern Sino-Korean relations has been a field of active research in China. The past 10 years has seen the publication of many academic papers, wherein established academics who had actively pursued their research consolidated their previous findings and considered new directions of research. However, progress among the next generation of academics has been less evident. This contrasts with how active research has been in the study of Sino-Korean relations during the Ming and Qing dynasties – particularly in the Qing dynasty. This may be because the study of Sino-Korean relations remains tied to traditional perspectives and research paradigms, in addition to the lack of stimulus for new research due to the decreasing discovery of historical records. Nevertheless, considering the importance of mutual perspectives in the study of ‘history of relations’, and in view of how research on the history of Korea’s independence movement developed through active academic exchange between Korea and China, there is a need to further reinforce such academic exchange for the purpose of advancing the study of the history of Sino-Korean relations. 이 글은 최근 10년 동안 중국학계의 근대 한중관계사 연구 성과를 분석하였다. 1992년 한중수교 이래 중국에서 근대 한중관계사 연구는 활발히 이루어졌다. 최근 10년 동안에도 많은 논문이 발표되었으며 그동안 활발히 연구해 오던 기성학자들이 자신의 연구 성과를 정리하고 새로운 방향을 모색하였다. 하지만 후속세대의 발전은 주춤한 상황이다. 중국학계에서 명청대 특히 청대 한중관계사 연구가 활발하게 이루어지고 있는 것과는대조적이다. 이는 근대 한중관계사 연구가 여전히 전통적인 시각에서 기존의 연구 패러다임을 벗어나지 못하고 있으며, 새로운 사료의 발굴도 그 이전 보다 줄어들면서 연구에 대한 자극이 줄어들었기 때문이라고 생각된다. 하지만 ‘관계사’연구는 상호 간 시각이 중요하고, 한국독립운동사 연구가 한중 간 활발한 학술교류를 통해발전했듯 근대 한중관계사 연구의 발전을 위해 한중 학술교류를 더욱 강화해 나갈 필요가 있다.

韓中建交與韓合斷交的複合關係硏究 -以北韓與合湯對應策略爲中心-

박종어 ( Park Jong Chol ),임지호 ( Lin Chih Hao ) 한중사회과학학회 2018 한중사회과학연구 Vol.16 No.2

本論文是以1992年韓中建交爲主要硏究背景,幷根據過去韓中兩國的文獻 依序整理兩國建交的準備過程,以及台灣與北韓對於韓中建交的反應和事後對應策略。從過去韓國外交部的公文資料顯示,韓國在全斗煥時期便已經開 始佈局韓中建交的基礎,中國也透過韓國駐香港總領使館與韓國建立起非正式的對話管道,韓中兩國藉由此非官方管道進行建交前的初期準備工作,當時中國爲了顧及與北韓的關係,同時也爲了積極封鎖台灣的務賣外交策略,中國與韓國初期的建交準備工作是在台面下秘密地進行。直到1990年代,中韓建交的?圍逐漸濃厚,台灣與北韓也在此時察覺到韓中建交的情況以無法 避免,台灣與北韓當時也爲了要突破國際孤立,積極推展以經濟賣利爲主的外交路線,在這樣的情況之下,台灣與北韓展開了歷史性的接觸,雙方的關係在2000年之前發展到顚峰,然而,台灣-北韓關係在韓美日中等大國的國際現賣結構限制之下,雙方關係發展以一直受到限制,盡管雙方有多次的高層訪 問以及援助行動,但是最後還是以單純的經濟貿易和觀光爲主的經貿關係。 本論文第一部分介紹韓中建交和台灣決定與北韓建立關係的過程,第二部分介紹韓中建交之後,台灣與北韓關係的升級,第三部分介紹台灣與北韓關 係的發展極限,幷且透過部分官方文獻來解析韓中建交之前,韓國與中國的內部看法,第四部分則是介紹中國在韓中建交之後對北韓的見解與看法,其中該部分引用了部分官方文獻以及沈志華的硏究,最後在結論的部分整理歸納韓中建交與台灣-北韓關係的相互作用,以及台灣在朝鮮半島問題上所扮演的角色。 This paper’s researching background is based on normalization of Sino-Korean diplomatic relationship, and also focus on North Korea-Taiwan relationship which was a follow-up reaction on Sino-Korean Diplomatic Relationship. In order to find the process of the establishment of Sino-Korean diplomatic relations. This paper was introducing Korean and Chinese unclassified government document, researching report, autobiography, newspaper which was made for the past period of establishment of diplomatic relations preparation between 1990 to 1992. According to the result of those researching, when Korea and China build the normal relationships. Taiwan wants to make a retaliatory strategy to Korea and China. In 1990s, Taiwan used the new strategy, it was called “Pragmatic diplomacy” to create a new dialog channel with socialist country which was included Russia, Vietnam, Eastern Europe countries and North Korea. But when Taiwan found there were a lot of limitation factor for Taiwan-North Korea relations. At the same time, North Korea was also wanted to make a new retaliatory strategy to Korea and China. Because the normalization of Sino-Korean diplomatic relationship was betraying the traditional friendship of the past. Although North Korea and Taiwan had several times for economic exchange, high level talks and the other food aid, but because of neighbor country Korea, China and Japan, North Korea and Taiwan cannot have developed relations after 1992. This paper will be a kind of basic research for Korea study or North Korea Study. And hope this paper will become a reference material for the study of North Korea and Taiwan relations in the future.