학교 문법 품사 설정 및 용어 결정의 과정과 문제점 = A Decision Making Process and Related Problems with Regard to the Establishment of Parts of speech and Terms in School Grammar

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This dissertation has it as the purpose to review a decision making process with regard to parts of speech system, naming and grammar terms. Given the fact that Korean grammar was to be affected by Western grammar, classification and naming have not been excluded from it. Most of Korean grammarians have tried to establish parts of speech appropriate to Korean language feature and supply proper nominations since ShiKyoung Joo in 1910. Specifically, HyunBae Choi changed one-letter nomenclature, which was done by ShiKyoung Joo, into proper two-letter one. Parts of speech that was classified in analytical method by ShiKyoung Joo has been supplanted by HyunBae Choi`s pseudo-synthetic method, and then synthetic method was offered by YollMo Jung. After Korea`s independence from Japanese, in 1949 pure Korean language and borrowed language from China were supposed to be used in naming parts of speech. It is detectable that pure Korean language and borrowed language from China were used equally in various school grammar issued in 1956 and that three methods mentioned above were applied in classifying parts of speech without restrictions. In 1963, Education Department set up Special Committee for Unification of School Grammar under Korean Language Curriculum Committee in order to give unity in the classification of parts of speech and terms in a national level, reaching to a decision by the investment of time and human resource. However, controversy kept going on with people divided to pro and against the decision in journalism, academic world and culture-related area as well as scholars. The legislators in 1966 made attempts to repeal the decision of 1963 but failed. Grammar textbooks have been written under the principle of 1963 as well as what so called synthetic grammar in 1985. I could find out arguments, the process of voting and the result, which were dealt in the Special Committee for Unification of School Grammar back then, through research materials. The fact does not count that who were supporters for the use of pure Korean langue and borrowed language from China. However, I suggest that appropriate grammar should be taught to the next generation in consideration of the following points. First, it is necessary to question the objectiveness and fairness in selecting members for the Special Committee for Unification of School Grammar with regard to their qualifications for it in 1963. Second, the political and social atmosphere was authoritative and not democratic. Third, the main stream of social, cultural and political positions at that time was led by the generation who had learned Chinese letters but now after 50years from that time, Hangul generation leads the main stream. Ironically, it has happened that students need to understand the meaning of borrowed letters from China before knowing the term for grammar in borrowed Chinese letters. For instance, as students do not know the meaning of `myongsa`, which give rise to a problem, teachers have to interpret it to students as “the word for referring to names”. Fourth, the present school grammar is a lot different from the one of that time in theoretical aspects so now is the time to make corrections of contradictory and wrong items. Fifth, the decision made at that time such as pure Korean language should be used in sound part and in turn, borrowed letters from China in parts of speech andsyntax has not been kept consistently so it needs reconsideration. Sixth, in accordance with new hypothesis and social atmosphere, it is necessary to allow freedom in making the 8th grammar textbook of which the approval system by government will be changed into “first making second examination”.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "｢이름씨｣냐 ｢名詞｣냐, 거듭되는 입씨름, 〓”우리文法은우리말로“崔氏側 主張 統一 위한 陣痛인가 〓“二重用語쓸必要없다”李氏側主張,(조선일보 1963.6.5.)"

2 "｢文法論爭｣發端과經緯＞- (東亞日報 1963.6.8.)"

3 "＜메아리＞(한국일보 1963.5.31.)"

4 "＜社說＞ 學校文法 統一문제는 解決된 것이다.-一部學者들의 固執은 不當-(경향신문 1963. 6.20.)"

5 한글학회, "한글학회50년사" 한글학회 1971

6 최현배, "한글만 쓰기의 주장" 정음문화사 1999

7 최현배, "학교문법통일 시비(二), 말은 自然發生 아니다, ‘18년이나 골탕먹인건 누군가’ 漢字用語는 거의 日本투(한국일보 1963.5.23.)"

8 金桂坤, "학교문법통일 是非……一線敎師로서……,文敎部案 改惡 우려있다, 學生은 순 우리말 익숙(한국일보 1963.5.30.)"

9 국어국문학회, "학교 문법통일문제에 대한 성명서”鄭寅燮(1960.5.21.), “국어품사의 이름과 분류-심의회의 결의를 보고-, 익혀진 순한글식 버리고 왜 한문음을 써야 하나, 분류에도 체계와 균형잃어(上)(한국일보 1963.5.21.)"

10 고창식, "학교 문법 해설서-문교부 통일안에 따른-. in: 歷代韓國文法大系 第①部 38冊, ①104" 塔出版社 1965

11 문교부, "학교 문법 통일을 위한 경과 보고서" 문교부 1963

12 최현배, "피흘리며 이어온運動 表決에 글힐수없다(경향신문 1963.5.18.)"

13 박태윤, "표준 중등 말본. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第31冊,①81" 塔出版社 1956

14 고영근, "표준 국어문법론" 塔出版社 1993

15 문교부, "편수 자료 5집" 문교부 1964

16 허웅, "최현배" 동아출판사 1993

17 최태호, "중학말본III. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第35冊,①94" 塔出版社 1957

18 최태호, "중학말본II. in: 歷代韓國文法大系, 第①部 第35冊, ①93" 塔出版社 1957

19 최태호, "중학말본. in: 歷代韓國文法大系 第①部 第35冊,①92" 塔出版社 1957

20 이희승, "중등학교 국어과 중등 문법. in: 歷代韓國文法大系,第①部 第32冊,①86" 塔出版社 1956

21 최현배, "중등조선말본" 정음사 1947

22 이희승, "중등 학교 국어과 초급 국어 문법. in: 歷代韓國文法大系,第①部 第32冊,①85" 塔出版社 1949

23 장하일, "중등 새말본. in: 歷代韓國文法大系 第①部 第29冊 ①74" 塔出版社 1947

24 최현배, "중등 말본" 정음사 1950

25 이숭녕, "중등 국어문법. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第34冊, ①89" 塔出版社 1956

26 박태윤, "중등 국어문법. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第28冊,①73" 塔出版社 1948

27 이영철, "중등 국어 문법. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第30冊,①78" 塔出版社 1948

28 문교부, "중ㆍ고증학교 학교 문법의 통일. in: 편수 자료 5집" 문교부 1964

29 문교부, "중ㆍ고등 학교 국어 문법 지도 지침(유인물)" 문교부 1962

30 이인모, "재미나고 쉬운 새 조선 말본. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第30冊,①77" 塔出版社 1949

31 최현배, "우리말본" 정음사 1982

32 김석득, "우리말 연구사" 정음문화사 1983

33 김석득, "외솔 최현배 학문과 사상" 연세대학교 출판부 2000

34 박창해, "쉬운 조선말본. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第26冊, ①65" 塔出版社 1946

35 문교부, "술어에 대한 여론 미간행물" 문교부 1963

36 문교부, "소위원회 보고 사항" 문교부 1963

37 한글학회, "성명서" 1963

38 김민수, "새 중학 문법. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第36冊, ①95" 塔出版社 1960

39 김민수, "새 고교 문법. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第36冊, ①96" 塔出版社 1960

40 한국국어교육연구회, "문교부 학교통일에 따른 중학 국문법. in: 歷代韓國文法大系 第①部 第38冊 ①102" 塔出版社 1964

41 한국국어교육연구회, "문교부 학교문법 통일에 따른 고등 국문법. in: 歷代韓國文法大界系 第①部 第38冊,①103" 塔出版社 1964

42 문교부, "문교부 제정 문법 용어표" 문교부 1962

43 장하일, "문교부 인정필 표준말본3. in: 歷代韓國文法大系 第①部 第四冊,①76" 塔出版社 1949

44 장하일, "문교부 인정필 표준말본1-2. in: 歷代韓國文法大系 第①部 第29冊 ①75" 塔出版社 1949

45 "말본, 문법, 對決 15年 다시 붙은 불꽃, 말본과 문법(文法)의 대결 15년―(朝鮮日報, 1963.5.23.)"

46 국어국문학회, "국어품사의 이름과 분류-심의회의 결의를 보고-, 體言의 ｢토｣를 獨立品詞로 다루는 것은 커다란 矛盾(下)(한국일보 1963.5.22.)"

47 문교부, "고등 학교 문법" 문교부 1985

48 교육 인적 자원부, "고등 학교 문법" 교육 인적 자원부 2002

49 李崇寧, "고등 국어문법 개정판. in: 歷代韓國文法大系,第①部 第42冊,①121" 塔出版社 1960

50 이숭녕, "고등 국어 문법. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第34冊, ①90" 塔出版社 1956

51 이희승, "衆意아닌 聲明우습다 새말은 自然發生的인것(경향신문 1963. 5.18.)"

52 金亨奎, "漢字音은 이미 韓國化된 것, 마치 韓末의 開國과 鎖國의兩論, 偏狹하고 固陋한 생각은 버리도록(下)(東亞日報 1963.5.25.)"

53 "東亞日報社(1966. 11. 25.) “社說""

54 周時經, "朝鮮語文法. in: 歷代韓國文法大系 第①部 第4冊 ①12" 塔出版社 1913

55 김윤경, "文法論爭, 나는 이렇게 생각한다(下), 이어받아야할 ｢한글정신｣, ｢名詞｣｢動詞｣등의 術語도 사람이만든것, 국가 만년대계를 위해 쉬운 말로(東亞日報 1963.5.29.)"

56 김윤경, "文法論爭, 나는 이렇게 생각한다(上), 학술을 권력으로통제할수없다, ｢씨｣란말｢御製 訓民正音｣번역본에나와, 투표로 결정함은 언어도단(東亞日報 1963.5.28.)"

57 金亨奎, "文法論爭, 許雄ㆍ鄭寅燮敎授의 글을보고, 疑問에 대한 解明, 批判에 대한 對答, ｢이름씨｣｢움직씨｣等의述語는 造語에 不過하다, ｢씨｣란 말의語源조차도 不分明"

58 金敏洙, "文法論爭, 言語現實이란 理想만으론 解決안된다(下), 國粹的思考는 自殺行爲, 異論百出의學術따르면 統一은不能, 個人的綴字法의고집은 公約의 違反(東亞日報 1963.6.6.)"

59 金敏洙, "文法論爭, 言語現實이란 理想만으론 解決안된다(上), ｢씨｣는品詞와는 다른말, 名詞ㆍ動詞라해도 나라는망하지않는다, 造作語는 共感을 얻지 못해(東亞日報 1963.6.5.)"

60 안호상, "敎授論壇 ‘학술용어는우리말본위로-도저히 참을수 없어…(경향신문 1963.6.1.)"

61 郭種元, "學者들의 ｢文法論爭｣을읽고, 學者들硏究ㆍ討論은別途로, 우선學校文法統一, 敎育面의 混亂解消위해時急(東亞日報 1963 6.8.)"

62 李熙昇, "學校文統一是非(一), 18년째 學生만 골탕 ‘우리이름도 풀어쓸생각인가’ ‘한글학회內에도 異論(한국일보 1963.5.21.)"

63 "學校文法統一案채택 보류〓文敎部교육과정 審議會議〓｢말본｣派서退場으로 流會, 未備ㆍ모순點 많아, 다시 部分的으로 檢討(서울신문 1963.6.5.)"

64 南廣祐, "學校文法統一是非(三), 어렵고 까다로운 ｢말본｣, ｢순수한우리말도아니고｣(한국일보 1963.5.28.)"

65 김민수, "國語文法論 硏究. in: 歷代韓國文法大系 第①部 第37冊 ①98" 塔出版社 1960

66 周時經, "國語文法. in: 歷代韓國文法大系 第①部 第4冊" 塔出版社 1910

67 고영근, "國語學硏究史" 學硏社 2005

68 국어국문학회, "中高校國語敎科書國定解除와 學校文法統一에關한建議書" 1963

69 김근수, "中學 國文法 책. in: 歷代韓國文法大界 第①部 第28冊, ①71" 塔出版社 1947

70 "‘기사’ (경향 신문 1963. 5. 13.)"