지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper, in light of the historical Korean documents and the modified transcription system, examines and evaluates some issues that Korean philologists have posed on the decoding of Seodongyo since the early pioneering works on Hyanga (鄕歌) by Yang, Ju-dong (942) and sets a foundation for further cooperative joint researches on it by both Korean philologists and literati.
In retrospective, for the last 65 years since the seminal work by Yang Seodongyo has generated a large number of researches on the decoding of Hyanga by both Korean literati and linguists and other scholars. Despite a great number of views on this topic, there is still no standard analysis of Hyanga the history of the Korean language renders support to, which results in hindering researchers from carrying out a more reliable literary analysis of it,
This paper is composed of four chapters. Starting to compare the Jeongdeokbon(正德本) of Samgungnyusa(三國遺事) with its Gopanbon(古板本) and examine the forms of character and styles of writing employed there, the chapter two argues convincingly that the Chinese character 〈?〉 in the original text of Seodongyo is a doublet form of 〈卵〉.
The chapter three focuses on the two parts of Seodongyo, 〈善化公主主隱〉 and 〈薯童房夜矣?乙抱遣去如〉, which the previous researchers have suggested different interpretations on. After examining the validity of the interpretations in light of both the history of the Korean language and the modified transcription system, we propose a new decoding of them as follows:
1. 〈善化公主主隱〉 should be read as "善化公主니림(or 님)은" and is a subject of the sentence. We argue that it is wrong to analyze the phrase into two parts "善化公主의+님은" with the genitive marker intervening, in particular as we take into account such factors as the writer's intention and the Korean honorific system.
2. 〈薯童房乙〉should he read as "薯童방을/맛둥방을" and is an object of the sentence, meaning "the young man named Seodong"(薯童이라는 남자를). It is hard to find the structure …을(location)#기-" in middle Korean. Rather what is attested in the documents is either …에(locative case)#기-" or …으로(directional case)#기-". On these grounds we disapprove the previous analysis of"*薯童방을" either as "薯童의 房으로"(toward Seodong's room) or"薯童의 房에" (to Seodong s room).
3.〈?乙〉 should be read as "*알을". The standard form of 〈?〉 is 〈卵〉. The character 〈?〉 is not a doublet form of either 〈卯〉 or 〈?〉. In particular, it seems that the latter character 〈?〉 meaning "the posture of wrestling around"(轉臥也) is a good candidate for 〈?〉 as it can be appropriately read into the text and is also found in the dictionary of classical Chinese. But this interpretation cannot be adopted, in that the character '乙' was not used as representing the ending of the verb stem 'ㄹ(1)' in the 14 poems of Silla Hyanga, nor are such 26 letters made of 〈?〉 in Samgungnyusa as [宛ㆍ腕ㆍ婉ㆍ?ㆍ怨] attested to have transformed into the ones similar to 〈?〉.
4. The part 〈卵乙抱〉 of 〈?乙抱遣去如〉 was read as the modified transcription of "*알을 안-" in the 15 to 19 century Korean documents. The character 〈遣〉 is a successive linking suffix. Based on these readings we interpret 〈?乙抱遣去如〉 as "*알을 안견 가다". As the character '알'[卵] permits polysemous interpretations, we advance the view that '알을 안다'[抱卵] is a metaphoric expression of an sexual act. In addition we propose that to interpret this phrase correctly, we have to add '宮闕로'(toward the royal palace) between '抱遣'[*안견] and '去如'[*가다]. On the basis of these analyses we provide a whole decoding and modern Korean version of Seodongyo(薯童謠) at the end of section 3.4.
Hyanga is one of the important topics both Korean philologists and literati have researches on. It is expected that this work sheds new lights on it, inviting more collaborative discussions and researches on it in the future.
In retrospective, for the last 65 years since the seminal work by Yang Seodongyo has generated a large number of researches on the decoding of Hyanga by both Korean literati and linguists and other scholars. Despite a great number of views on this topic, there is still no standard analysis of Hyanga the history of the Korean language renders support to, which results in hindering researchers from carrying out a more reliable literary analysis of it,
This paper is composed of four chapters. Starting to compare the Jeongdeokbon(正德本) of Samgungnyusa(三國遺事) with its Gopanbon(古板本) and examine the forms of character and styles of writing employed there, the chapter two argues convincingly that the Chinese character 〈?〉 in the original text of Seodongyo is a doublet form of 〈卵〉.
The chapter three focuses on the two parts of Seodongyo, 〈善化公主主隱〉 and 〈薯童房夜矣?乙抱遣去如〉, which the previous researchers have suggested different interpretations on. After examining the validity of the interpretations in light of both the history of the Korean language and the modified transcription system, we propose a new decoding of them as follows:
1. 〈善化公主主隱〉 should be read as "善化公主니림(or 님)은" and is a subject of the sentence. We argue that it is wrong to analyze the phrase into two parts "善化公主의+님은" with the genitive marker intervening, in particular as we take into account such factors as the writer's intention and the Korean honorific system.
2. 〈薯童房乙〉should he read as "薯童방을/맛둥방을" and is an object of the sentence, meaning "the young man named Seodong"(薯童이라는 남자를). It is hard to find the structure …을(location)#기-" in middle Korean. Rather what is attested in the documents is either …에(locative case)#기-" or …으로(directional case)#기-". On these grounds we disapprove the previous analysis of"*薯童방을" either as "薯童의 房으로"(toward Seodong's room) or"薯童의 房에" (to Seodong s room).
3.〈?乙〉 should be read as "*알을". The standard form of 〈?〉 is 〈卵〉. The character 〈?〉 is not a doublet form of either 〈卯〉 or 〈?〉. In particular, it seems that the latter character 〈?〉 meaning "the posture of wrestling around"(轉臥也) is a good candidate for 〈?〉 as it can be appropriately read into the text and is also found in the dictionary of classical Chinese. But this interpretation cannot be adopted, in that the character '乙' was not used as representing the ending of the verb stem 'ㄹ(1)' in the 14 poems of Silla Hyanga, nor are such 26 letters made of 〈?〉 in Samgungnyusa as [宛ㆍ腕ㆍ婉ㆍ?ㆍ怨] attested to have transformed into the ones similar to 〈?〉.
4. The part 〈卵乙抱〉 of 〈?乙抱遣去如〉 was read as the modified transcription of "*알을 안-" in the 15 to 19 century Korean documents. The character 〈遣〉 is a successive linking suffix. Based on these readings we interpret 〈?乙抱遣去如〉 as "*알을 안견 가다". As the character '알'[卵] permits polysemous interpretations, we advance the view that '알을 안다'[抱卵] is a metaphoric expression of an sexual act. In addition we propose that to interpret this phrase correctly, we have to add '宮闕로'(toward the royal palace) between '抱遣'[*안견] and '去如'[*가다]. On the basis of these analyses we provide a whole decoding and modern Korean version of Seodongyo(薯童謠) at the end of section 3.4.
Hyanga is one of the important topics both Korean philologists and literati have researches on. It is expected that this work sheds new lights on it, inviting more collaborative discussions and researches on it in the future.
목차
1. 序論
2. 〈薯童謠〉의 원문 텍스트 검토
3. 〈薯童謠〉 解讀의 爭點
4. 結論
참고문헌
참고문헌 (38)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
鄕歌解讀의 反省的 考察
모산학보
1997 .05
-
韓國童謠文學의 特性
한국아동문학연구
1996 .06
-
21世紀の 童謠ㆍ童詩
한국아동문학학회 학술대회
1990 .08
-
21世紀의 童謠ㆍ童詩
한국아동문학학회 학술대회
1990 .08
-
嚴弼鎭著 朝鮮童謠集 解說
한국민속학
1975 .12
-
傳來童謠에 대한 나의 생각
한국아동문학연구
1995 .08
-
어린이들의 사랑을 받는 童謠ㆍ童詩
한국아동문학연구
1995 .08
-
“童謠”의 發展을 促進한 歐美의 詩人들
한국아동문학연구
1997 .08
-
韓國 童謠의 源流糾明을 위한 試攷
어문론집
1986 .01
-
口傳童謠 受容의 몇가지 問題
한국아동문학연구
1995 .08
-
배달 겨레 傳來童謠의 念願性 : 統一念願으로 昇華된 우리의 童謠
한국아동문학연구
1995 .08
-
細讀《孟子》―從文篇語法切入的解讀
한국어사 연구
2020 .07
-
韓國傳承童謠의 主題
한국민속학
1984 .03
-
傳來童謠의 現代的 受容
한국아동문학연구
1995 .08
-
향찰(鄕札) '복 '과 '지(支)'의 해독(解讀)
국어국문학
1990 .12
-
동요
한글
1940 .10
-
동요가 사라지는 것은 슬픈 일인가?
창비어린이
2004 .06
-
우리 동요가 일본 동요를 만나다
실천민속학 새책
2003 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-810-016240489