본고의 論議는 한문교육을 위한 學校文法이 확립되지 않은 상황에서 그 기초를 다지기 위한 것이다.본고에서 분류 제시한 한문의 문장성분은 다음과 같다.主要成分 - 主語敍述語補充成分 - 目的語補語修飾成分 - 冠形語副詞語文章成分으로 兼語를 제시하기도 하나 이는 兼語式 文章에서만 특수하게 나타나는 것이기 때문에 제외하였다. 獨立語의 존재를 부정하지는 않지만 文章의 結構에 직접 관여하지 않는 독립된 成分이므로 분류 검토하지 않았다.우리나라와 중국의 文章成分 名稱을 비교할 때 가장 문제가 되는 것은 目的語와 賓語이다. 賓語를 目的語라는 用語로 대체하였으나 그 개념은 國語의 目的語와 다르다. 본고에서는 目的語와 補語의 구분 기준을 目的語의 자리에 위치한 詞의 詞性과 그것이 敍述語와 결합하는 방식으로 제시하였다. 따라서 國語의 目的語 槪念과 相異함을 인식하여야 한다.

This argument is to strengthen the basis of school grammar under the circumstance that the school grammar is not established yet for the education of classical Chinese. The sentence constituent of classical Chinese that was presented in this argument is as follows. ◦ Main constituent subject․predicate ◦ Supplementary constituent object․complement ◦ Modifying constituent unconjugation adjective․adverb As one of sentence constituents, it also presents a combining word, but the combining word was excluded because it appears in a combining sentence only. It does not deny the existence of an independent word, but the independent word was not classified and examined in this study since it is not involved in the structure of the sentence directly. When comparing the names of sentence constituents between Korean and Chinese, the biggest problem is the object and Bineo. Although it substitutes Bineo for the term called object, the concept of Bineo is different from the object of Korean. In this argument, the criterion of classification was presented that the character of a part of speech located in the place of object and the way of combining the part of speech and the predicate of a sentence. Therefore, it should be noted that it is different from the concept of object in Korean.

• 鄭晩浩(충남대학교) | Jung man-ho