韓國漢字與台日漢字的字形比較：以現今電腦字型為範圍

Korean Hanja compared with Chinese characters in Taiwan and Japan: Based on the currently used computer font

本研究旨在深入探討韓國、台灣及日本三地漢字字形的異同，亦通過對韓國漢字和台灣正體字的對比分析，擴展到韓、台、日三地漢字的字形比較。本研究設定了一系列漢字字形比較的參數，其中包括筆畫、部件、語意偏旁、諧聲偏旁，以及空間配置等。這套分析框架參照了Myers（2019）與戴浩一（2021）關於漢字結構特性的理論基礎，對韓、台、日三種漢字字形的差異進行系統性的分析。研究資料來源為韓國《漢文課教科書編修資料》中的1800個基礎漢字、台灣《標準字與簡化字對照手冊》中的4808個正體字，以及日本《新常用漢字表》中的2136個漢字。漢字字形的比較分成三部分：韓國與台灣、韓國與日本，以及韓、台、日三地的漢字比較，並根據上述參數將差異結果分為數類進行討論。結果顯示，韓台間以「微別字形」為大宗；韓日間則以「因部件差異而造成的不同字形」占主要部分；而韓台日間以「三者皆相同」的情況為最多。此外，分類結果亦揭示了特定的字形差異，如完全不同的字形或缺乏對應漢字的情形，其發現對華語教學具有實質意義。教師可以依據這些差異預測韓國與日本學生學習正體字可能遇到的困難，從而設計出更適合的教學策略。同時，韓日漢字學習者也能通過這些分析了解不同地區間漢字的細微差異，幫助他們更有效地學習台灣正體字，增進漢字學習的效率與深度。

This study aims to investigate similarities and differences in Chinese character forms among Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. By comparing the character forms used in Korea with those in Taiwan and extending the comparison to Japan, the study sets several parameters for the variations, including stroke, component, semantic and phonetic radicals, and spatial arrangement. These parameters are based on the theoretical frameworks developed by Myers (2019) and Tai (2021) for a systematic analysis of the differences in character forms among the three regions. Data for this study were collected from three sources: 1800 basic characters from South Korea's ''Chinese Classics Textbook Compilation Material,'' 4808 traditional characters from Taiwan's ''Standard and Simplified Characters Reference Manual,'' and 2136 characters from Japan's ''Commonly Used New Kanji Tables.'' The comparison is divided into three parts: between Korean and Taiwanese characters, between Korean and Japanese characters, and among Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese characters. Their differences are categorized into groups according to the parameters in order to observe the different weights of these parameters. The findings reveal that ''minor differences'' predominate in the comparison between Korean and Taiwanese characters. In contrast, ''differences in components'' are most significant between Korean and Japanese characters. Nonetheless, identical characters constitute the highest percentage among all three regions. The comparison also identifies completely different characters or those without counterparts in other regions. The observations from this study are valuable for Chinese language teachers to identify learning difficulties for Korean and Japanese students and design appropriate teaching strategies accordingly. Meanwhile, these analyses are helpful for Korean and Japanese students to understand the nuanced differences of Chinese characters used in different regions, which can help them with effective and efficient learning of traditional Chinese characters used in Taiwan.