logo

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN2671-8197
  • E-ISSN2733-936X
  • KCI

Article Detail

Home > Article Detail
  • P-ISSN 2671-8197
  • E-ISSN 2733-936X

The Traditional Intellectual’s Writing in Two Kinds of Language in the Japanese Colonial Era: Focusing on the Relation between Writing in Chinese Character and Writing in Hangul in the Jeong Inbo’s Writing

Korean Studies Quarterly / Korean Studies Quarterly, (P)2671-8197; (E)2733-936X
2015, v.38 no.3, pp.179-208
https://doi.org/10.25024/ksq.38.3.201509.179
Yeo Heejeong
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

Never before in the last decades of Joseon Korea and Japanese colonial era had it showed that the aspects of discourse of language and writing were terribly complicated. A written language and writing style depended on the class and values. In case of same person, it also depended on the times, situation, and purpose. So we need to examine how a written language and writing style were selected, how a writing style was intermingle with another writing style in order that we have much of an eye for those times. This paper considered Jeong‒Inbo’s perception of language and writing style as part of a research of that kind. Jeong Inbo, a representative man of the classical scholars in 1930’s, wrote in Hangul and in chinese character. First, Jeong‒Inbo regarded Hangul as true character because he thought that our spoken language could be written in Hangul. Second, He thought that chinese characters were based on Chinese spoken language. But He didn’t exclude our cultural heritages written in chinese character. He regarded Korean literature in classical Chinese as our literature. Moreover he estimated that we had had our own letters. Like this, he put emphasis on national identity and uniqueness. It is the same in writing in Hangul and writing in classical chinese. The former had be done on the basis of the tradition. The latter had be done by changing to those times and by trying finding a new route. In summary Jeong‒Inbo’s writing could be done by a succession and innovation of tradition. Although his bilingual writing did not last to posterity, his attempt of writing has a significance in national identity and uniqueness in modern transition period.

keywords
Jeong‒Inbo, writing in hangul, writing in classical chinese, bilingual writing, modern transition period, traditional intellectual, 정인보, 한글 글쓰기, 한문 문언문, 이중 언어, 근대전환기, 전통 지식인


Reference

1

김태준, 「鄭寅普論」.《朝鮮中央日報》, 1936년 5월 15‒19일자.

2

이육사, 「中國文學五十年史」(一·二). 文章 제3권 1호, 1941. 1, 134‒140쪽.

3

이육사, 「中國文學五十年史」(三·四). 文章 제3권 4호, 1941. 4, 281‒287쪽.

4

이태준, 문장강화 . 창비, 2005.

5

정인보, 「文章講話」 上篇. 廢墟以後 1호 부록, 1924. 2, 139‒151쪽( 廢墟(全) ,원문사, 1976, 수록본).

6

정인보, 담원시조 . 을유문화사, 1947.

7

정인보, 담원 정인보전집 (1‒6). 연세대학교출판부, 1983.

8

정인보 저, 정양완 역, 담원문록 (상·중·하). 태학사, 2006.

9

조윤제, 「조선문학과 한문과의 관계」 (1)‒(13).《동아일보》, 1929년 2월 10‒23일자.

10

최남선, 육당 최남선전집 5. 동방문화사, 2008.

11

황현 저, 임형택 외 역, 역주 매천야록 상. 문학과지성사, 2005.

12

김영봉, 「爲堂 鄭寅普의 墓道文字에 나타난 시대의식」. 동방학지 제141권, 2008,51‒81쪽.

13

김진균, 「정인보 조선학의 한학적 기반」. 한국실학연구 제25집, 2013, 463‒496쪽.

14

김진균, 「「조선문학원류초본(朝鮮文學源流草本)」을 통해 본 정인보의 ‘조선문학’구상」. 반교어문연구 제39집, 2015, 35‒62쪽.

15

민영규, 강화학파 최후의 풍경 . 도서출판 우반, 1994.

16

濮之珍 저, 김현철 등 역, 중국언어학사 . 신아사, 1997.

17

정양완, 「담원 정인보 선생 연보」. 애산학보 제39집, 2013, 29쪽.

18

陳必祥 저, 심경호 역, 한문문체론 . 이회문화사, 2001.

19

최재목, 「金台俊의 「鄭寅普論」을 통해 본 解放前 爲堂 鄭寅普에 대한 評價」. 양명학 제20집, 한국양명학회, 2008.

20

황호덕, 근대 네이션과 그 표상들 . 소명출판, 2005.

상단으로 이동

Korean Studies Quarterly