논문 : 쓰여진 것과 말해진 것 -"이중(異重)" 언어 글쓰기에 나타난 통역, 대화, 고유명

신지영 ( Ji Young Shin ) 민족문학사학회·민족문학사연구소 2015 민족문학사연구 Vol.59 No.-

이 글은 식민지기 말기에서 해방기에 걸쳐 생산된 대화적 텍스트(좌담회, 소설속 연설, 대화, 통역)를 대상으로, ‘쓰여진 언어’와 ‘말해진 언어’ 사이의 균열을 포착했다. 식민지 말기의 일본어와 해방 직후의 한국어는 각 시대의 중심언어이며 이와 다른 언어행위를 보이지 않게 한다. 그러나 쓰여진 언어와 말해진 언어 사이의 균열을 살펴보면, 민족간,계급간, 성별 차이 뿐 아니라 언어 내적 차이(문어/ 구어, 침묵/ 발화, 품사 등)와 시대적 변화와 같은 다층적 언어 행위가 나타난다. 특히 ‘일본식 한자어(읽기)’는 식민지 말기부터 해방기에 걸친 변화 속에 한자 문화권의 특수한 혼종성을 보여준다. 이처럼 식민지 시기 및 해방 직후의 ‘이중언어(二重言語-한국어와 일본어를 의미)’적 상황이란, 실상 보다 다양한‘異重言語’ 사이에서 봉합과 균열을 거듭하는 수행적 과정이었다.첫째로 식민지 말기 이중언어 작가들(金史良, 張赫宙等)의 이름 등의 고유명은 ‘한자’로 쓰여 있을 때는 동일하게 보이지만, 그것이 발화되는 장의 성격과 참여자에 따라 ‘조선어식 훈독’과 ‘일본식 발음’을 종횡 했을 가능성을 제시했다. 이와 관련하여 잡지 『 삼천리 』에 중일전쟁 이후에 실린 좌담회 중 발화된 언어와 쓰여진 언어가 달랐던 흔적을 담은 좌담회를 발굴하고, 조선어와 일본어 사이의 갈등 속에서 일본어의 구조가 변형되는 지점들을 포착했다. 나아가 조선어로 쓰여진 「 滿蒙華 文學者代表座談會 」(『 每日新報 』, 1942.11.17∼19)와일본어로 쓰여진「 大東亞文學者代表交驩座談會 」(『 綠旗 』 1942.12)는 대동아 문학자 대회가 끝나자마자 부산에서 경성으로 되돌아 가는 <아카쓰키>열차에서 이뤄진 동일한 좌담회의 두 판본임을 밝혔다. 이 좌담회에 감춰진 중국어-일본어 사이의 통역, 일본어 속기를 한국어로 번역했을 가능성 등은 식민지기 조선의 언어 상황이 일본어와 조선어 관계 뿐 아니라 보다 다양한 형태의 언어 사이에서 갈등하고 있었을 가능성을 보여준다.둘째로 金史良[김사량, 기무시료]의 「 풀 속 깊숙이[草深し] 」(『 文芸 』(朝鮮特集호), 1940年7月)의 연설, 통역, 대화 장면들은 ‘쓰여진 언어= 일본어’가 제국언어/ 피식민의 언어, 일본어/ 조선어/ 한자, 지식인의 언어/ 대중의 언어, 표준어/ 사투리, 소리/ 침묵 사이에서 또한 그 이분법적 분류의 내부에서, 서로 간섭하고 갈등하며 “물들어가고[ぼかしたように,gradation]”(풀/ 57) 무한히 다양하게 변형되었을 가능성을 보여준다. 이는 제국주의적 언어의 권력관계가 소수 언어 행위에 내면화되어 분열과 갈등을 불러일으키면서도, 갈등관계를내포한 다양한 언어행위들이 미묘한 차이들을 끊임없이 생산하며 제국언어를 변형시켰음을 보여준다. 즉 번역 불/ 가능성이란 곧 식민 언어의 재현을 불/ 가능하게 하는 무한한 차이를 지닌 변형된 소수 언어의 생성을 의미하는 것이기도 하다.셋째로, 일반적으로 해방 후 언어적 변화는 일본어에서 한글로의 변화로 이야기된다. 그러나 해방 후 ‘쓰여진 언어’의 변화를 ‘말해진 언어’의 혼종성 속에서 보면 단순히 일본어에서 한글로의 변화라고만 보기 어려운 지점들이 드러난다. 예를 들어 미국의 점령 하에서 ‘영어’와의 관계성이 강화되면서 지배적 언어로서 ‘한글’이 부상해 갔던 남한에서, 한글에 위협적이었던 것은 일어가 아니라 한자였음이 당시의 많은 ‘한자폐지론’에서 드러난다. 즉 일어 폐지가 주로 일상생활의 ‘말해진 언어’와 관련되었다면, 한자 폐지는 주로 ‘쓰여진 언어’에 관련되어 있다. 특히 흥미로운 것은 이때의 ‘한자’가 일본 식민지기를 통과하여 변형된 “일본식 한자어”였다는 점이다. 이처럼 한국어-영어, 일본어, 일본식 한자어가 “쓰여진 언어”와“말해진 언어”를 종횡하며 갈등하는 상황은 해방 직후 일본에서의 경험을 쓴 안회남의 탄광소설의 복잡한 표기에서 확인된다. 「 鐵鎖 끊어지다 」의 대화문에 나타난 ‘괄호’를 이용한 복잡한 표기는 해방 직후의 언어 상황을, ‘일본어식 한자어’의 문제적 위치와 ‘異重言語’의 혼종성 속에서 파악할 필요성을 제기해 준다.이처럼 이 글은 식민지 말기에서 해방기까지 언어적 전환을 ‘쓰여진 언어’와 ‘말해진 언어’사이의 역동적인 관계 속에서 살펴보았다. 물론 식민지기의 제국주의적 언어로서의 ‘일본어’와 해방 직후 식민지배에서 해방되어 나타난 ‘한국어’를 같은 층위의 제국주의 언어라고 말할 수는 없다. 그러나 식민지기의 일본어와 해방 직후의 한국어 속에서 비가시적으로 존재했던 ‘일본식 한자어’, 중국어 통역, 영어-한국어 등은, 말해진 것과 쓰여진 것 사이의 봉합이 터진 지점들에서 드러나는 다층적인 “異重 言語”적 상황을 보여준다. 이 “異重 言語”적상황은 제국주의적 언어를 내면화하면서도 끊임없이 제국주의적 언어와는 다른 그라데이션을 생성하는 소수자들의 변형적이고 다층적인 언어수행을 가능하게 했던 잠재적 조건이었다. Ecriture (roundtables, speeches, conversations, and translations in literary works) in the pre-and post-Liberation displays dissonances between what is written and what is said.The Japanese language was a national language by force in Korea before the Liberation.The Korean and Japanese languages become dominant in their respective countries after the Japanese defeat. Generally, dominant languages efface the linguistic behaviors of other subordinate languages. If we look into the gaps or dissonances between what is written and what is said in the texts, we find out multi-layered linguistic behaviors reflecting social or cultural changes in race, sex, class as well as intra-linguistic changes like written/ spoken words, speech forms, registers and so on in the pre-and post-Liberation period.This phenomenon may be called a “bilingual situation.” However, the situation underwent more various and complex processes of fermenting discords and overcoming them than has been suggested so far. So I call it the multi-glossic situation with multi-layeredness and plurality, but not simply a bilingual situation. It produces aspects of (in)translatability,which engender an adjusted and transformed language with unlimited differences from a dominant language. And its generation again makes it (im)possible for the imperial language to (re)emerge.Firstly, the proper name of a bi-lingual writer like Chang Hokchu or Kim Saryang written in the Chinese characters is the same in the form, but there were wide differences in pronunciations depending on the speakers and their discoursal situations; for example,following the Korean reading of a Chinese character or the Japanese rendering of a Chinese character. The intermixing of the ways in uttering names is found here and there in the “the Roundtable Talk of Writers from China, Korea and Mongol” written in Korean (Maeil Shinmun, November 17-19, 1942) and the “Roundtable Talk of Representative Writers in Greater East Asian Literary Conference (Rokki, December, 1942) in Japanese,both of which have almost the same in their contents, and editing. In making comparison between the two editions, we find out the possibility that the Korean version, that is, on Maeil Shinmun, was translated from the Japanese one written in the form of shorthand and the possibility that the imperial and dominant language, i.e., Japanese, also underwent a variety of changes in uses, styles, registers and the like, contrary to the imperialist’s intention. Furthermore, the possibilities lead us to have a question whether proper names written in the Chinese characters could be translated completely into the imperial language without distorting their own meaning.Secondly, Kim Saryang (Jp. Kimushiryo) employs diacritics like hiragana over the words uttered or stage directions to describe speeches, translations, and conversations in his novel, Deep into the Grasses. In his novel, we find out the possibilities that both languages,that is, Korean and Japanese, interfered and conflicted with each other, went through gradation in linguistic colors in the binary formatting of imperial language vs.colonized language, Japanese and / or Korean vs. Chinese characters, elites’ language vs.vernacular language, standard language vs. dialect, and sound vs. silence, and finally created a variety of linguistic transformations in words, registers, and grammars. Of course,the colonized language suffered far more drastic changes, but the dominant language was also influenced in a reverse way. The linguistic power relationship was interiorized into the linguistic behavior of minorities and provoked conflicts and splits, which, in turn, produced subtle differences in linguistic behaviors without cease and ironically led to the transformations in the imperial language itself.Thirdly, the Korean language has taken the place of the Japanese language after the Liberation. But the changes in the written Korean after the Liberation reveal that the former did not merely replace the latter in the situation in which both languages were intermixing in the spoken language. Contrary to our expectations, the movement for the abolition of the Chinese characters rose up more strongly than the movement for the banning of Japanese. While the Korean language was becoming dominant, the most threatening was not the use of Japanese in the spoken Korean but the use of the Chinese characters in the written Korean, which exercised more powers in the discousal space.The intertwining and interactions of the Korean language, the Japanese language and the Chinese characters in the spoken and written discoursal spaces are abundantly displayed in the novels in which An Hoenam describes his experiences in the coal mines while he was conscripted there. In Iron Chains Broke (Kaebyok, January 1946), An employs complex notations like parentheses, upper dots and the like, which are scattered in the novel, in order to describe the vivid pictures of the conversations which use Korean, Japanese and / or Chinese characters, similar to the case with Kim Saryang (Jp. Kimushiryo). The use of complex notations in the novels shows that Japanese was considered a spoken language and the Chinese characters a written language and also it reveals that both of them were intermixed in common use of the Korean language at the time.Thus far, we have examined the dynamic relations between spoken and written languages or between what is written and what is said in the pre-and post World War II. In the linguistic transformation, we have evaluated the meaning of employing the Chinese characters and the multi-glossic linguistic behaviors which contain linguistic influences from the dominaut languages. The colonized interiorize the imperial language but, simultaneously,they, i.e., the minorities, never cease to create what I call gradation, and develop their multiple linguistic behaviors and potentialities without completely adopting the dominant language.

한국어의 구어와 말뭉치

서상규 국제한국어교육학회 2013 한국어 교육 Vol.24 No.3

Spoken language and its grammar has been robustly discussed in the field of Korean education as well as various language studies in recent years. It is possible to utilize written and spoken corpora after a large amount of corpora were built up and corpus linguistics was paid attention to by a lot of researchers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It is the time to review the relations not only between spoken and written language but also between spoken and written language grammar. The primary purpose of the study is to answer the two crucial questions with regard to spoken language in the field of Korean education. First, how can we tell the difference between spoken and written language or spoken and written language grammar? Second, how can we detect the spoken language features or orality in the basis of the analysis of corpora? To answer these questions, the usages and the distributions of various language structures which are assumed to be under the category of the spoken language have been analyzed. In particular, the distributions of written and spoken forms of postpositions, endings, pronouns, exclamations, adverbs, and dependency nouns were compared and the following conclusions can be drawn from the present study. The relation between spoken and written language is neither contrastive nor exclusive. Rather, their relation is different aspects of one language depending on a media or a genre. In some cases, the division of "spoken language - co-activation from both languages - written language" can be decided by the principles of composing words or utterances. However, in the most cases, the division of them is the matter of the degree. It is almost impossible to find pure spoken language and grammar or pure written language and grammar. In other words, it seems reasonable that literacy and orality cannot be divided by the specific sets of words such as endings and postpositions but by aspects of using each lexeme and grammarAs a result, it is important to understand that the ratio of spoken language to written language is affected by genres, types, or registers in teaching-learning of combinations of words, and descriptions and educations of grammar rules. (Yonsei University)

말하기 의사소통 활동에서 문자 언어 사용과 학습자의 문해력이 상호작용에 미치는 영향

이승민(Lee, Seungmin),김진영(Kim, Jinyeong) 한국초등영어교육학회 2020 초등영어교육 Vol.26 No.4

Attempts are being made to use written language in conjunction with spoken language in activities for speaking skills. These attempts are based on the expectation that the use of written language in activities for speaking skills can facilitate the interaction required for learning English and help to improve literacy. In this respect, this study investigated the effects of the use of written language in communicative activities for speaking skills in consideration of the literacy of elementary school students. In addition, elementary school students awareness of the use of written language linked to spoken language and their degree of literacy improvement were examined. Two types of communicative activities were designed for this study, and they were carried out under the conditions of spoken language only , written language as a supplementary means and written language as a required means . Twenty-four fifth graders formed a group taking into account their literacy levels and participated in the activities. In conclusion, the effects of using written language on interaction may depend on how written language is used in conjunction with spoken language and on the learner’s literacy level. Therefore, it is necessary to consider this point when designing activities for speaking skills that utilize written language.

구어와 문어에서의 ‘그런’의 실현 양상 연구

전영옥 한말연구학회 2018 한말연구 Vol.- No.50

This study views the basic meaning of the word ‘geureon’ in Korean, as ‘reference,’ and examines the use trends of the word in spoken and written Korean language. First of all, in the spoken corpus, ‘geureon’ has been used 10.5 times per one thousand word phrases, while in the written corpus the word has been used 1.4 times per one thousand word phrases. This shows that the word is used much more frequently in spoken language than in written language. In addition, in written language, only the types of ‘geureon and noun’ and ‘geureon and dependent noun’ appear, but, in spoken language, sometimes ‘geureon’ appears solely and the use of ‘geureon geo’ appears to be very high, thereby implying that the word ‘geureon’ has a different usage in spoken language from that in written language. This study examines by categorizing the referential aspects of ‘geureon’ into ‘referential,’ ‘semi-referential,’ and ‘non-referential’ ones. While in written language, the word ‘geureon’ appears to be a context reference which has the subject to be referred within a context, in spoken language, there are very active semi-referential usages along with some non-referential usages. As semi-referential usages, there are mostly the usages where the word ‘geureon’ may be omitted, and there are a lot of expressions which are not orderly such as modification and repetition. The referential usages, semi-referential usages, and non-referential usages all perform a function to let a discourse cohere. That is, they let a discourse cohere by a variety of methods from making the preceding content cohere with the following content to making the discourse cohere to prevent it from discontinuing. Some aspects of such coherence are common in spoken and written languages, but they show a different result due to various factors working on realization of writings and speeches. In addition, while in written language it can be checked the whole content and the connection between the preceding content and the following content by visual information, in spoken language, it needs to be delivered and understand information by depending on one’s sense of hearing, so ‘geureon,’ which indicates that the preceding content and the following content are connected, is very frequently used.

<우리말 말수 사용의 잦기 조사>의계량적 연구

서상규 연세대학교 언어정보연구원 2020 언어사실과 관점 Vol.51 No.-

This study is intended to reveal that Hyunbae Choi’s research of 『Frequency Research of Korean Vocabulary Use』 (1956) is a valuable achievement which was conducted long before the start of modern field of Korean language informatics based on computer and corpus. First, we analyzed and described the structure and characteristics of the vocabulary list, and the vocabulary classification system and the description methods to distinguish meanings in 『Frequency Research of Korean Vocabulary Use』 (1956). Based on this result, we quantitatively analyzed the characteristics of the vocabulary of the 1950s. In order to compare the quantitative features of the vocabulary of the 1950s represented by this data with the features of the Korean written and spoken language at the end of the 20th century, we used three corpora in ‘New Yonsei Corpus (nYsc)’ (1 type of written language corpus and 2 types of spoken language corpus: each corpus contains one million words). 『Frequency Research of Korean Vocabulary Use』 (1956) and New Yonsei Corpus 1 (nYsc1) are both written language corpus, and New Yonsei Corpus 2 (nYsc2) and New Yonsei Corpus 3 (nYsc3) are both spoken language corpus. Based on the data to be compared, we analyzed the quantitative characteristics of Korean language in two aspects: the distribution and composition of words by part of speech, and the distribution by etymology (type of words). By comparing the distribution of vocabulary by part of speech in terms of the number of words and its ratio, we found a remarkable difference in nouns, pronouns, adverbs, and interjections. In the written language corpora, 『Frequency Research of Korean Vocabulary Use』 (1956) and nYsc1, the proportion of nouns was higher than that in the spoken language corpora (nYsc2, nYsc3). However, the ratios of pronouns, adverbs, and interjections were higher in the spoken language corpora at the end of the 20th century (nYsc2, nYsc3) than the written language corpora (1956, nYsc1). In terms of the sum of frequency and its ratio of the distribution of vocabulary by part of speech, a large difference can be found in nouns, pronouns, adverbs, and interjections. This aspect is like numbers of words, but the difference is much larger. However, a new feature that has emerged in terms of the sum of frequency is that the ratio of particle’s sum of frequency is higher in written language (1956, nYsc1) than in spoken language. On the other hand, as a result of analysis from the etymological distribution, in terms of the number of words and its ratio, it was characterized that the ratio of Chinese words was significantly higher than that of Korean or foreign words. The ratio of Chinese words in written language is higher than that of in spoken language, and the ratio of Korean words in spoken language was higher than that of in written language. However, it shows the opposite features in terms of the sum of frequency and its ratio. In other words, it can be seen that the relationship between Korean and Chinese words viewed by etymology is inversely proportional to each other. In other words, in terms of the number of words alone, Chinese words appear almost twice as many as Korean words, but when viewed as the sum of the number of frequency actually used, the relationship is the opposite, Korean words appear at a rate that is three times higher than that of Chinese words. Another remarkable result is that the difference between written and spoken language is very clear. Therefore, in the spoken language corpus, whether it is the number of words or the sum of the number of frequency, it appears at a much higher rate than the written language. Through this analysis, we once again confirm that it is a very important achievement to analyze the characteristics of Korean language in the 1950s reflected in this data, along with the Korean language informational value of 『Frequency Research of Korean Vocabulary Use』 (1956).

화법과 작문의 교육내용 대비 고찰

임칠성 ( Chil Seong Im ) 한국작문학회 2009 작문연구 Vol.0 No.8

이 논문에서는 말과 글의 본성적 차이를 네 가지로 정리하였다. 첫째, 말에 의한 사고 작용과 글에 의한 사고 작용이 다르다. 글쓰기는 일종의 의미 기호 체계화인 반면 말하기는 그 자체로 힘과 행위이고 사건이기 때문이다. 둘째, 의미를 구성하고 소통하는 방식에 차이가 있다. 말은 상호교섭적인 역동적인 과정이다. 셋째, 말에는 언어적 목적과 함께 관계적 목적이 중요한 목적이다. 마지막으로, 말에는 내적인 힘이 있다. 이 글에서는 말의 힘을 사고의 힘, 관계의 힘, 영혼의 힘, 결속의 힘으로 나누어 살폈다. 그럼에도 불구하고 지금 우리 화법 교육은 말 교육보다는 글 교육에 치중해 있으며, 말 교육이 글 교육처럼 이루어지고 있다. 현행 화법의 교육내용 체계는 구두 언어 교육의 문자 언어 교육화를 낳고 있어서 구두언어 능력을 제대로 신장시켜 주지 못하고 있다. 말과 글의 본성적 차이를 바탕으로 말 교육과 글 교육은 그 교육내용을 차별화하여야 한다. There are natural differences between oral languages and written languages even though both are languages. First, differences in way of thinking. Because written language is a kind of semiotic system but oral language is a kind of an event by itself. Second, differences in way of constructing and communicating of their meanings. The construction and communication of oral language are more transactional than written language. Third, differences in aims. Oral language have two kind of aims;linguistic aim and relational aim. Oral language and written language aim both linguistic aim, that is to deliver linguistic meaning of the language. Oral language also aims to develop the relationship among participants. Finally, oral language has a kind of intrinsic energy. The energy relate with participants` thinking, soul, relationship and unity. So, the contents for teaching oral language and written language should be differ. But, according to the curriculum which reversed in 2007 ``the system of contents`` of oral language are similar to those of written language. The similarity become the cause of teaching oral language as written language.

연구논문 : 구어,문어 통합 문법 기술의 방향과 자료 구축의 문제

배진영 ( Jin Young Bae ),손혜옥 ( Hye Ok Son ),김민국 ( Min Gook Kim ) 경남대학교 인문과학연구소 2011 人文論叢 Vol.27 No.-

본고에서 추구하고자 하는 문법 연구의 방향은 구어와 문어 상에서 나타나는 문법 실현 양상의 차이를 단순히``구어``對``문어``라는 이분법적 관점으로 보는 것이 아니라 발화 혹은 기술상에서 정도성을 지니면서 다양하게 나타나는 사용역의 차이라는 관점에서 접근하려는 것이다. 본고에서는 구어와 문어 문법을 서로 대비되는 문법으로 파악하지 않고, 이 둘의 문법을 아우르는 문법 기술을 이론화하여 체계화하는 방향을 제시하고자 한다. 이러한 방향을 근간으로 실제 언어 자료를 바탕으로 사용역에 따른 문법적 현상을 기술하고 그에 대한 차이를 비교하며 그 원인을 적절하고도 자세하게 설명하는 것을 구어와 문어의 통합 문법 기술의 궁극적인 목적으로 삼는다. 본고는 먼저 국내의 구어 문법 연구가 어떤 관점으로 진행되었는지를 살피고 이를 통해 구어와 문어의 통합적인 문법 기술의 입장에서 지양되어야 하는 문제들을 보인다. 그런 다음 구어와 문어로 대비되는 기존 문법 기술 양상에 대한 전반적인 반성과 함께, 앞으로 진행해야 할 구어와 문어 문법을 통합하여 기술을 위해 필요한 문법 기술의 관점이 어떠해야 하는지는 제안한다. 또한 현재 구어와 문어와 관련하여 이들의 문법을 기술하기 위해 사용되었던 기존 말뭉치의 설계와 구축 현황에 대한 반성을 통해 향후 사용역에 따른 구어와 문어의 통합 문법을 기술하기 위한 말뭉치의 구축이 어떻게 이루어져야 하는지에 대해 논의한다. This study intends to theorize and systemize an integrated grammar covering both spoken and written language while not characterizing the grammars of both spoken and written language as extremities that are discrepant or remote. The direction of the study of grammar that this study pursues is to approach the difference in grammar realization aspects in spoken language and written language not from a simple dichotomous perspective ``spoken language vs. written language.`` Instead, the approach takes the viewpoint arguing that the difference in the aspects of grammar realization is the difference in a register that is diversely expressed in degrees in speaking or writing. Accordingly, the ultimate purpose of the description of the integrated grammar of spoken and written language is to describe the grammatical phenomena according to register based on actual language material, to compare the differences of such phenomena, and to explain the reason for the difference in proper detail. When describing and analyzing various grammatical aspects that were expressed in spoken and written language, we also felt it necessary to include the situations in which the language was placed, that is, the intention of the language user which included the text register element as assumed by us. This study suggests that a functional perspective should be taken to describe a grammar system that covers the grammar of both spoken language and written language. In addition, this study notes that we need material that was classified with various registers for the description of an integrated grammar as pursued here. We also mentioned the problem of building the actual corpus for such a purpose.

口語와 文語를 아우르는 사용자 중심의 한국어 문법

홍종선 한국어문교육연구회 2014 어문연구(語文硏究) Vol.42 No.1

In the field of linguistics, although the spoken language plays as much crucial role as the written language in everyday language use, it has been neglected immensely over the years. It is, therefore, rather a relief to see the recent appearance of viable researches in Korean lin- guistics and Korean pedagogy based on the establishment of the corpus of spoken language. However, there are relentless conflicting views and per- spectives in academic circles whether the Korean spoken grammar pos- sesses a complete independent language system or it should not at all be distinguished from written grammar. In the late 19th century publications, only limited materials on spoken language of early modern Korean are found while a certain number of recorded voice materials are available in the 1920s. However, there is a great future ahead for the spoken language research as an extensive number of recorded voice materials exist from the national liberation period to the post-1960s, and due to some research institutions are now developing and incorporating some large scale voice corpora and spoken language corpora. As much as the study of written language, the grammatical study of spoken language must focus more on the everyday colloquial expressions of language populace. The user-centered grammatical study which investi- gates the actual use of colloquial expressions is as important as the re- searcher-centered grammatical study which inquires into theoretical aspects of languages. For example, although including ‘Haseyo style' in the hearer honorific levels may be perceived to be improper in the theoretical lin- guistic viewpoint, the claim can be accepted as an appropriate analysis reflecting the awareness of native language populace using ‘Haseyo style' widely in order to express the speaker's high regard toward the hearer. 지금까지 언어학에선 언어생활에서 문어 못지않게 중요한 역할과 비중을 가진 구어를 너무 소홀하게 다루어 왔다. 한국어의 구어 문법이 문어 문법과 구별되는 독자적인 문법 체계를 갖는다고 보거나, 두 문법이 기본적으로 같다고 보는 등, 학계는 구어에 대하여 아직도 여러 면에서 견해들을 달리하고 있다. 19세기 말의 간행물에서 현대 국어 초기의 구어적 자료를 아주 제한적으로 찾고, 1920년대부터의 음성 자료를 조금씩 접할 수 있으며, 광복을 지나 1960년대 이후부터 음성 자료가 많이 전해진다. 오늘날 몇몇 기관이 음성 코퍼스를 비롯하여 구어 코퍼스를 대량으로 구축하고 있어, 앞으로의 구어 연구에 좋은 자료가 마련되고 있다. 문어 연구도 그러하지만 특히 구어의 문법 연구는 언중들의 현실어를 중시하는 연구가 되어야 할 것이다. 언어 이론적 체계에 충실한 연구자 중심의 문법 연구와 더불어 실제의 현실어 실태를 체계화하는 사용자 중심의 문법 연구도 요구되는 것이다.

국어학 연구의 성격과 태도에 대한 반성

임용기 국제언어인문학회 2003 인문언어 Vol.5 No.-

The issues concerning the nature of the attitude toward the study of national language may vary from country to country, depending on the national or racial characteristics. The problem domains and the methodologies dealing with them may vary accordingly. Ever since the Korean language was equipped with a writing system in the year of 1443 through King Sejong's long-cherished desire, investigations have been constantly made into the real nature of the language itself in pursuit of a better method for representing the spoken language in written form. This is how the study of the Korean language began to take shape.Among such investigations are Hunmin-jeong-eum (the Korean script: 1446) compiled by Jiphyon-jon, the royal office of schloarly researches, Doongguk- jeonghun-yokhun (the orthodox script of Korean: 1448), Hongmu-jeonghun- yeokhun (interlinear gloss for the Chinese script of the Ming Dynasty: 1455), An Orthodox Approach to Written Korean (1909) by the institute of the National Script, The Standardized Spelling System (1933) by Chosun Language Society, An Authorized Dictionary of Standard Korean (1936), How to Write Borrowed Words (1940), and A Grand dictionary of Korea (1947-57). Chu Shi-Gyung's Phonetics of the Korean Script (1908), Korean Grammar (1910), and Sound Patterns of Korean (1914) were all written in this vein; so was Choi Hyun-Bae's Uri-mal-bon (the rudiments of Korean Grammar: 1929/1937).All these achievements in the study of the Korean language are the end-products of the constant endeavor to solve the issues related to the spoken and written forms of the Korean language. And this is how the uniqueness and autonomy of the language study in korea have been established. It should be borne in mind, however, that, in seeking solutions to the problems inherent in the Korean linguistic studies of foreign countries. On the contrary, they have been very active in accommodating such results. While they have set up their problem domains on the basis of the korean language, they been progressively open-minded in looking for the solutions to the problems at hand.

중국인 학습자의 한국어 격식적 글쓰기 교수·학습에 대한 제언 - 중국 산동성의 사례를 대상으로

조경순,유하 전남대학교 인문학연구소 2015 용봉인문논총 Vol.- No.46

There are many differences between written and spoken language, but it is often the case that this characteristic is neglected in Korean education. Korean learners are required to develop the ability of skilled writing at the level of native speakers and thus need to develop the ability of keeping it formal according to the goals of texts and using written language properly. This study thus set out to propose writing abilities that would correspond with the written language skills and formality required from Korean learners and a teaching and learning process to help them recognize differences between spoken and written language to develop Korean command of harmony between spoken and written language skills by cultivating formal writing abilities. The investigator devised a two-lesson formal writing teaching plan by taking the Chinese curriculum into account and made use of communication-based teaching methods in the first lesson for written language perception and task-based teaching methods in the second lesson for formal writing. The study claims its significance by proposing a lesson plan that will meet the diverse needs of learners and the purposes of Korean education in recent years, establishing the concept of written language in Korean education, and identifying the components of formal writing abilities. 중국에서 이루어지는 한국어 쓰기 교육에서는 문어와 구어의 다른 특징이 간과된 채 교수·학습이 이루어지는 경우가 많다. 한국어 학습자에게 모국어 화자의 능숙한 글쓰기 능력을 요구한다는 점에서 글의 목적에 맞게 격식을 지키고 문어를 적절히 사용할 수 있는 능력이 필요하다. 이에 따라, 이 연구에서는 한국어 학습자에게 요구되는 문어 능력과 격식에 부합하는 쓰기 능력 구성 요건을 제시한다. 그리고 한국어 학습자의 격식적 글쓰기 능력을 배양하여 구어와 문어 능력이 조화된 한국어 능력을 기르기 위해 구어와 문어의 차이를 인식시키는 교수 학습 과정을 제시한다. 중국의 교육과정을 고려하여 2차시의 격식적 글쓰기 수업안을 구성하며, 첫 번째 차시는 문어 인식 수업으로 의사소통 중심 교수법을 활용하고 두 번째 차시는 격식적 글쓰기 수업으로 과제 중심 교수법을 활용한다. 최근 다양한 학습자의 요구와 한국어 교육의 목적에 부합하는 수업 방안을 제시하며, 한국어 교육에서의 문어의 개념을 정립하고 격식적 글쓰기 능력의 구성 요건을 제시한다는 점에 이 논문의 의의가 있다.