The Korean Alphabet: Its History and Structure, ed. by Young-Key Kim-Renaud.  Honolulu:  University of Hawai'i Press, 1997.  xii + 317pp.  (ISBN 0-8248-1989-6 cloth; ISBN 0-8248-1723-0 paper).

Reviewed by Joe J. Ree
Florida State University

[This review first appeared in
Acta Koreana 2 (1999), pp.174-79]

The ten articles in this collection were papers presented at a special symposium that was organized by the editor herself in conjunction with the Eighth International Conference on Korean Linguistics, held at George Washington University in 1992.  The ten essays are preceded by the editor's lucid and informative introductory chapter, and are, quite appropriately, followed by Samuel E. Martin's weighty commentary.  This collection is dedicated to Professor Ki-Moon Lee, one of the contributors, as being "our most esteemed colleague and teacher, who has enlightened us not only on so many aspects of the Korean language and its history but also on the importance of studying it with love and sincerity" (Preface, xi).  How appropriate it is indeed for a special volume like this on the Korean alphabet to be dedicated to a teacher and scholar who has taught us all, Koreans and Westerners alike, so much about the Korean language.

For the purpose of linguistic analyses, i.e. structural analyses, it is always the spoken form of language that is taken to be primary, as one is likely to be "indoctrinated" in any introductory course in linguistics.  However, this is not to diminish the importance of writing.  As the Chinese proverb puts it, "The palest ink is better than the sharpest memory," so human memory is short-lived, and the brain can store only so much information, which is often subject to error or forgetfulness.  The unavoidable, cliché-like reminder, "I'd better write it down, or else I'll forget it," certainly attests to human psychological limitations.  Writing not only overcomes such immediate problems but also allows communication across the miles and through the centuries.  Needless to say, then, the creation and development of writing systems is one of the greatest of human achievements (Fromkin and Rodman, p. 363).

The invention of the Korean alphabet is the very symbol, a "powerful icon" (Lee and Ramsey), of Korea and Korean culture.  In South Korea, it is called han'gûl and is often equated with the Korean language itself.  The invention of han'gûl has been and will always be an indelible mark of national pride.  King Sejong's marvelous invention of the Korean alphabet, which he called Hunmin chôngûm (The Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People), is often and justly described as an act of epochal genius (Ledyard, p. 31).  This Korean alphabet is also acclaimed by many scholars as being unlike any other writing system in the world.  In Fromkin and Rodman's words, "... the unique style of Korean writing is unlike that of the Europeans, the Arabians, the Chinese, the Cascagians, or even 'ladies in English'" (p. 376).  Han'gûl being the only alphabet completely native to East Asia "distinguish[es] itself among writing systems of the world with its scientific qualities (Preface, ix).

Although any Korean can readily name King Sejong when the word han'gûl is mentioned, scholars have long racked their brains over the question of who really invented the alphabet, how the shapes of the letters were created, and what the "theoretical" underpinnings were.  After at least a half century's scholarship probing into the origin and background of han'gûl, its graphic structure is yet to be fully appreciated.  There has been much praise but little appraisal.  Han'gûl has been admired, and rightly so, but has not been critically analyzed (Chin W. Kim, p. 145).

As is widely known, the Korean alphabet was invented in the fifteenth century, but it was not until the discovery in 1940 of an original copy of the 1446 document called Hunmin chôngûm haerye (Explanations and Examples of the Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People) that scholars began much vigorous research into the underlying principles and the origin of han'gûl (Preface, ix).  Yet, no comprehensive study of this remarkable writing system by any specialist of the Korean language is available in one place for those unable to read Korean, says the editor.  And the purpose of this collection is to fill this gap and to meet international needs by presenting research and thought-provoking interpretations by eminent scholars of the cultural-historical and theoretical-linguistic background of the Korean alphabet (Preface, x).  Who, indeed, better than the distinguished scholars Kim-Renaud so sagaciously chose can delve into the background of the making of the alphabet and translate it into modern terms?  The idea of a symposium devoted solely to the Korean alphabet, and subsequently this invaluable volume could hardly have been conceived at a better time.  Kim-Renaud should be commended for her wisdom in initiating this important step.

The first six articles are devoted to some important linguistic, cultural, and philosophical issues underlying Hunmin chông'ûm although the very first essay, the one by Ki-Moon Lee, stands out in that he makes a very cogent argument in support of his view that King Sejong alone was the inventor of the alphabet.  The essays by Chin W. Kim and Kim-Renaud examine the alphabet in light of contemporary theories of phonology, particularly in terms of phonological units.  Ho-Min Sohn's article which succinctly compares divergent orthographic conventions of South Korea and North Korea is extremely interesting and informative.  The North Korean orthographic practice seems to manifest, at least to a certain extent, a living example of how arbitrary or even nationalistic a language policy could be made to be.  Ross King's article, which is topically placed after all the others, is a fascinating account of experimentation with the "on-line" (linearized) writing of han'gûl.

The prevalent view on the invention of the alphabet has been and still is that King Sejong did not personally create it.  This interpretation seems to go back to the Yongjae ch'onghwa (volume 7) of Sông Hyôn (1439-1504).  I quote: "Sejong established the Ônmun ch'ông (Vernacular Script Headquarters) and gave orders to Sin Sukchu, Song Sammun, et al., to create the Vernacular Script ..." (Ki-Moon Lee, p. 11).  That is, Sejong gave orders to certain scholars to create the alphabet, which Ki-Moon Lee calls a "command" hypothesis.  Subsequently, Chu Sigyông, a linguist-patriot and a member of the enlightenment movement (who is believed to have been instrumental in changing the original name of the Korean alphabet ônmun (vernacular writing) to han'gûl), is reported to have said that "there had been collaborators in the invention of the alphabet," which is labeled as the "cooperation" hypothesis by Ki-Moon Lee (p. 12).

What Ki-Moon Lee convincingly argues against these views, among other pieces of evidence, is this:  "... the earliest record of the Korean alphabet (Sejong sillok, vol. 102) begins as follows:  'This month, His Highness personally created the twenty-eight letters of the Vernacular Script (ônmun).'" Lee offers this assessment:

It is easy to imagine that it might have been customary at the time to ascribe all accomplishments to the king.  But in fact such was not the case.  Rather, of all the many accomplishments of Sejong, this is the only instance in which the Sejong sillok described the accomplishment as ch'inje (the personal creation of the king) ... it is clear that the phrase ch'inje was not a mere figure of speech (p. 13).

This certainly changes the dynamics of the theory to which many scholars adhere.  Personally, I find it difficult to accept a one-inventor theory on the basis of this particular piece of research, enlightening though it is.  The extensive research that has been carried out by other scholars tends to point to the probability which Chin W. Kim has articulated:  han'gûl is "... a synthesis of many writing systems in Asia, all of them coexisting in subtle harmony, subtle enough to make [their] presence not readily recognizable, but each element detectable enough to invite diverse theories of origins" (1988, pp. 732-733).

What makes the Korean writing system unique is that it is half-alphabetic and half- syllabic.  It is alphabetic in that one letter represents one sound, be it a vowel or consonant; i.e., k + a = ka (go) or a + k + i = aki (baby).  This way of writing a word coincides with the convention of "on-line" (linear) writing in English, whose writing system is also alphabetic.  However, the parallelism ends here.  Words with closed or checked syllables are written in syllable blocks, which makes the writing non-linear.  For example, the Korean counterpart of "The wind is blowing" is written as:  pa lam i pul ô yo, not palamipulôyo.  Since every Korean has grown up in the non-linear system, it is difficult to be objective about this alternative of linear writing.  However, Ross King's detailed and fascinating account of experimentation with the "on-line" system in Russia and the USSR in 1914-1937 certainly leaves us wondering if we could have avoided the heated discussions and controversies about spelling and spacing problems that haunt us today.

Gari Ledyard's main point is that King Sejong's knowledge of the Mongolian 'Phags-pa practices enabled him to critically examine the Chinese riming theory and to see the need for the "middle sound" (chungsông), which was the vowel or diphthong.  Ledyard suggests that King Sejong's analysis of vowels represented new thinking that transcended traditional Chinese phonological thought (p. 40).

Pyong-Hi Ahn offers views that are similar to Ledyard's.  His extensive research leads him to the conclusion that "in developing the Korean alphabet, knowledge of Neo-Confucianism and Chinese phonology was used to a great extent" (p. 100).  Ahn goes on to say that Sejong and his counselors thought it necessary to study the writing systems of 'Phags-pa, Sanskrit, and Japanese kana.

Sang-Oak Lee offers an interesting idea about the designing of han'gûl letters.  The essential characteristics of the shapes of the letters are the creation of related letters by the addition of strokes to basic letters, and writing words in syllabic units (p. 107).  In addition to these characteristics, says Lee, some calligraphic principles have been applied:  (1) maintaining equidistance in adding strokes and in creating syllabic units, and (2) limiting the size of syllabic units to the inside of squares in equal sequence.  What is particularly interesting with regard to these characteristics is Lee's insightful idea of density, which is impossible to show without the actual graphic representations of related han'gûl letters.

Sinhang Kang shows a correlation between the actual Sino-Korean readings and the readings of Chinese characters presented in Tongguk chôngun (Correct Rhymes of the Eastern Country) in 1447.  He says that "these correspondences are especially striking in the two vowel systems" (p. 125).  In Tongguk chôngun, character readings were transcribed in the Korean alphabet and arranged in such a way as to show clearly the initial consonants, the vowels, and the endings of the finals, whose arrangement corresponded to the phonological system of initials, vowels, and final endings found in the promulgation document of the Korean alphabet (p. 118).

Robert Ramsey's essay reveals some interesting findings concerning consonant clusters, aspirated consonants, and complex tonal patterns that were lost in some dialects.  Many geminated consonants (written with double consonant letters) are explained by the process of syncope (deletion of medial vowels) (pp. 139-140).

As a person whose area of linguistics is outside of the expertise that is required to review a book of this magnitude, which encompasses nothing less than King Sejong's invention of han'gûl, I am afraid I may have done injustice to some of the essays either by representing the author's views incorrectly, or by not offering the comment they definitely deserve.  In either case, I beg the author's forgiveness.  There is hope yet, however, for thoroughly appreciating the wealth of information and analyses that are presented in each of the essays.  The final commentary chapter by Professor Martin, the "founding father" of Korean linguistics in the West, provides that hope.  Also, the reading of the editor's introductory chapter is a must in this regard.

Martin seems to accept the prevailing view that Sejong was an expert on Chinese theories of phonology, and that some of the scholars around him were even more sophisticated, particularly Sin Sukchu, one of the brilliant young men in the Academy of Worthies (Chiphyônjôn).  No scholar today questions the influence of Chinese phonological theories on the designing of the Korean alphabet.  However, a major breakthrough was that Sejong was able to reanalyze Chinese riming theory.  In the Chinese theory of the rime, the vowel was never separated from the final consonant, and the phonemic identity of initial and final consonants was not recognized.  That is to say, Chinese phonologists had failed to split the vowel from the final consonant and to identify final consonants with initial consonants (Martin, p. 264).  Martin seems to support Ledyard's assumption that the achievement of that analysis was the result of a familiarity with the Mongolian 'Phags-pa alphabet.

In commenting on Chin W. Kim's suggestion of the featural characteristic of the Korean script, he admonishes us against the "modernist fallacy of ascribing to King Sejong notions set forth as the latest fads of linguistic theory" (p. 268).  On this point I will have to agree with Professor Martin.

Martin's rich comments on the other essays, such as Kim-Renaud's idea of "psychological saliency" for Korean speakers in grouping letters into syllable blocks, Sang-Oak Lee's description of the horizontal and vertical "density" of syllable blocks, and Ramsey's discussion of consonant clusters, cannot easily be summarized, and to be properly savored must be read in each scholar's own words.

The editor should be applauded for providing a useful index, which is somewhat unusual for a collection of essays.  Undoubtedly, the publication of essays written in English offering scholarly analyses of the Korean alphabet is long overdue, and ought to be most welcome for the insights it provides to the Western audience.  For all students or devotees of han'gûl, this book should prove to be an immeasurably helpful source of a wealth of hitherto inaccessible information, and a powerful impetus for further research.  In all fairness, however, the book is unfortunately not for the reader without considerable sophistication in phonology and historical linguistics.

References

Fromkin, V., and Robert Rodman.  1993.  An Introduction to Language.  New York:  Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Kim, Chin-W.  1988.  "Origin and Structure of the Korean Script."  Sojourns in Language II, 721-734.  Seoul: Tower Press.
Lee, Iksop, and S. Robert Ramsey.  "The Korean Language" (ms.).