There is a widely distributed dialect classifier “蔸” in the area south of the Yangtze River. This classifier is grammaticalized from the noun “蔸” which means “roots (or stem close to the root) of plants” through a metonymy mechanism. The etymology of “蔸” is probably “株”. The classifier “蔸” was a plant classifier when it was first formed, collocating with nouns related to the plant category. Later, its usage expanded. And the word went through a process of categorization. In some areas of Guangxi and Guangdong, it developed the usage of appearance classifiers, which can be collocated with one-dimensional objects in non-plant categories and even abstract nouns. In more limited areas, such as Guangzhou, the classifier “蔸” can even be paired with a noun referring to a person, but in this case its counting function is weak and the whole expression’s subjectivity is strong.

However, with the rapid development of information technology, dialects are slipping away. People are gradually ignoring and forgetting local dialects and traditional culture. The loss of dialects will surely lead to the loss of traditional culture. As a language and culture research enthusiast, I hope to make people know more about their own language by studying and comparing more dialects. As the mother tongue, dialect will directly affect the acquisition of the second language when we learn the second language, which not only has a positive role in promoting, but also has a negative role in hindering, which requires us to have a deep understanding of the two languages and a comprehensive comparative study. Suzhou and Hefei belong to the wu-speaking area and the jianghuai guanhua area respectively. Although they are two dialects, they are connected with each other from the geographical position. It can be seen that there must be some common characteristics and differences between the two dialects. Based on a comparative study of the languages of Suzhou and Hefei, the author chooses to present the modern pronunciation of the Chinese ancient pronunciation of rusheng characters in the two places, and analyzes and explains the differences between the initial and final vowels of the dialects respectively, so as to find out the differences between the two dialects.

Categorizing dialect and the phonetic notation (《方言類釋》) written in 1778 is a specialized dictionary which collected and recorded Chinese language vocabulary in the middle of Qing dynasty. As far as stylistic rules and layout is concerned, Chinese character was the main index and their pronunciations of Mongolia, Manchu, Japan, and Korean were recorded in Korean alphabet spelling. Xu Mingying (徐命膺) and Hong Mingfu (洪命福), who accepted the king's command, wrote the book so as to easily communicate with Japan and China. Chinese language had been changing. On the contrary, North Korean language conserved a lot of ancient Chinese words leading to a lot of problem communication with the Chinese. This is the reason why two authors had to accept the king’s command to finish the book. The book included abundant Chinese vocabulary also with "Chinese dialect" from Guangzhou, Guangdong province, Shanxi Fen states and southern Jiangsu, Hunan Changsha. These materials are the most valuable complement for the research on the history of modern Chinese history. At the same time those exterior material can also be added by Chinese scholars in the Qing dynasty for enriching interior dictionaries. At the same time, the dialect also provided such clues that are vocabulary rooted in powerful dialect.

Neither Chinese character (Hanzi) learning nor classicalChinese literature instruction should be done in isolation. This paperexplores the way to integrate Hanzi learning, classical Chineseliterature and comprehensive reading in primary schools. It firstdiscusses the hypothetical mental process of children’s readingcompetence development. Guided by this hypothesis, children couldeasily learn Chinese characters in their reading practice, higher gradeprimary school students could learn to fluently read simple classicalChinese articles with proper pause, and they do not need to spend extratime on Chinese learning. In this paper, all of the practices are guidedby the principles of teaching target category in the curriculum designtheories accepted worldwide, such as how we teach students learn tocorrectly write the commonly used Hanzi required by course standards, howwe teach students to write Hanzi in a standard way so that theirhandwriting looks good, how we teach students to learn Pinyin, and howstudents could improve both reading and writing skills in comparativeclassical Chinese literature reading exercises, etc..

『濟州島資料集』(1971) 속의 『漢字의 濟州名』는 방언자료 속에 한자의 음과 훈을 포함시킨 유일한 자료이다. 『漢字의 濟州名』는 석주명(石宙明)이 1943년부 터 1945년까지 제주에서 채집한 한자의 음과 훈을 기록한 것이다. 본 연구는 이 자료를 통하여 한자 훈의 다양한 모습을 살펴보았다. 본 연구에서는 『漢字의 濟州名』에서 제시된 제주명과 석주명이 제시한 표준명 이 다른 경우의 한자에 대해서 방언 훈, 이본 훈, 개인 훈으로 나누어서 고찰하였다. 비교의 대상으로 삼은 것은『千字文 資料集-지방 천자문편』(1995)의 훈이다. 방언자료는 지방 사람의 구술을 기록한 것이기 때문에 지방의 다양한 음운이 그대로 드러나고 구두 모방 암기 과정에서 와전된 훈이 화석화된 경우도 있다. 『漢字의 濟州名』는 방언자료인 만큼 제주방언 어휘로 된 훈이 특징이다. 방언 훈 중에 는 중세 어휘가 그대로 제주방언으로 남은 경우와 고어형(古語形)이 확인되지 않은 방언 어휘 훈으로 나눌 수 있다. 방언형이 우세한 어휘인 경우는 그대로 한자의 훈으로 사용되었다. 제주명과 석주명의 표준명이 다른 훈은『千字文』의 어느 이본 의 훈을 제시하느냐의 차이이다. 제주명은『千字文』내각문고본(1583)에 의한 것 이 많고 석주명의 표준명은 18세기 이후의『千字文』, 특히 임술본(1862) 이후의 훈으로 새긴 것이 많다. 오독이나 잘못된 이해가 아니라 개인의 언어관에 따라 유사 개념이나 용법의 예로 재해석하여 훈을 말하는 경우도 있다. 본 연구에서는 이런 경우를 개인 훈으로 명명하였다. 『千字文』의 훈은 보수적이고 방언적 요소가 거의 없는 것으로 알려져 있지만, 각 지방에서는 제시되는 고정된 훈을 사이에 두고 학습하는 과정에서 발생되는 훈은 다양하다. 지방에서는 훈의 개념을 방언으로 저장하기 때문에 개인이 소유하고 있는 훈은 다양할 수 있다. 제주방언 자료를 통해서 본 한자 훈의 특징은 지역 환경에 따라 재해석된다는 점과 개인 언어에 따라 재해석되었다는 점이다.