[KS] KSR 1999-08: _The Korean Alphabet: Its History and Structure_,

[Stephen Epstein]

_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.  _Acta
Koreana_ is published by Academia Koreana of Keimyung University.]


	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, clichŽ-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'gžl and is often equated with the Korean language itself.  The
invention of han'gžl 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 ch™ngžm (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'gžl 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'gžl 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'gžl, its graphic structure is yet to be fully appreciated.  There
has been much praise but little appraisal.  Han'gžl 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 ch™ngžm 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'gžl (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 ch™ng'žm 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'gžl.

       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 S™ng
Hy™n (1439-1504).  I quote: "Sejong established the ïnmun ch'™ng
(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 Sigy™ng,
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 ™nmun (vernacular writing) to han'gžl), 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 (™nmun).'" 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'gžl 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 ™ yo, not palamipul™yo.  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" (chungs™ng), 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'gžl 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'gžl letters.

       Sinhang Kang shows a correlation between the actual Sino-Korean
readings and the readings of Chinese characters presented in Tongguk
ch™ngun (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 ch™ngun, 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'gžl, 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 (Chiphy™nj™n).  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'gžl, 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.).


Citation:
Ree, Joe J.  1999
Review of Young-Key Kim-Renaud, ed., _The Korean Alphabet: Its History and
Structure_ (1997)
Korean Studies Review 1999, no. 8
Electronic file:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/korean-studies/files/ksr99-08.htm
[This review first appeared in Acta Koreana 2 (1999), pp. 174-79]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%