[KS] Se habla Han'gul?

[Gari Keith Ledyard]

	Good discussion on "hankul."  (When discussing the Korean language
on diacriticless email, I've come to the conclusion, after trying various
alternative strategies over the last four or five years, that Yale is
preferable to McC-R.  Besides, in the midst of the present romanization
embroglio, I think that we international scholars of Korea should display
ALL our assets.)  
	I found Youngkey's citation of names of Korean schools in the
Washington area quite interesting, and agree with her that if we're
looking for signs of the times, attention must be paid.  Of the forms she
cited, 30 out of at least 51 --just under 60%-- contained "hankul" as the
key word.  If nothing else I think we can say that, for these school
operators, who promote Korean culture but whose primary business is
instruction in the Korean language, "hankul" is a significantly more
potent symbol of Koreanness than "hankwuk.e" (25%).  And when I think of
that, I appreciate more the emotive factor in this discussion.  This does
not make it "right" (and I also appreciate Youngkey's valiant attempt to
hold the linguist's ground in the prescriptive/descriptive battle) for us
to use "hankul" in the sense of "Korean language"--I won't, anyway-- but
at least it is a relevant consideration when trying to understand the
Korean-American young woman who came in last week for an interview about
graduate school.  When I asked her, "How's your Korean?" she said, "I know
hankul." "Fine," I said, "but how is your spoken Korean?"  Whereupon, she
answered me in normal kyopho Korean.
	When I visited North Korea in 1988, I had prepared well to always
say "Chosen" and not "Hankwuk," but I hadn't thought to also replace all
the other "Han" words, such as hankul, hanpok, han.ok, etc.  After meeting
raised eyebrows when I used "hankul," I asked my north Korean interlocutor
how I should refer to the Korean alphabet, and the answer was:
"Chosen.e," which of course means Korean language.  When I pressed for
clarification, it was made explicit that "Chosen.e" stood for both the
language and the script.  But I sensed a certain artificiality to the
discussion.  North Koreans use "Chosen.e" when they are speaking of the
Korean language as a formal subject, but in general references they use
"urimal" and "Chosenmal."  
	All of our discussion so far has focused on exchanges involving
foreigners or the overseas Korean community, and that always implies 
circumstances that can be abnormal or irregular from a main line, Korean-
Korean point of view.  So the significance of any of this in terms of
genuine Korean usage in Korea itself is questionable.  Still, I would like
to repeat that "hankul" does seem to evoke a more positive emotional
response than the more correct alternatives for "Korean language" among
those who have chosen to use it.  As Youngkey suggests, this bears
watching.   

P.S.  I just looked over some of the more recent postings and see that
some of these points have been echoed or returned to.  Youngkey's and Bob
Ramsey's remarks on "Hankul" in the sense of the language, and as the now
iconic title for one of the earliest and certainly the longest lasting of
the all the journals devoted to the study of the whole Korean language and
literature, and the parallel usage of Zhongwen for "Chinese" seem to me
both instructive and cogent.  In connection with Zhongwen, recall that the
earliest modern word for Korean as a subject of learning and consciousness
was "kwukmun," which surfaced in the mid-1890s.  It was intended as a
replacement for "enmun" or "vulgar writing," a non-complimentary name for
the Korean alphabet that went all the way back to the anti-alphabet
scholars of Seycong's time, and in that sense was, in primo, clearly a
reference to the script.  But one can find many references in Korean
writings of the 1890s and 1900s to "kwukmun" in the sense of the written
Korean language or Korean text.  As has already been noted, the term
"Hankul" does not appear until about 1913 or 1914.  An actual textual
citation for that year seems to be lacking, but scholars of Korean
language history are fairly unanimous in accepting the term as an
invention of the Cwu Sikyeng.
	Just as I was concluding this Ross King also weighed in to say the
same thing, amongm other things. I agree with many of his sentiments but
think he's just a little too rigid insofar as the prescriptivism is
concerned.
	I'm hitting "send" before anything else can happen in this
discussion, but it looks as if the mail box will be full again tomorrow!

Gari Ledyard


	 On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, kimrenau wrote:

> Both of you are right, in principle.  However, in practice such
> "errors" are quite common, although "orthodox" Korean speakers will
> say this is wrong.  For one thing, the fact that it required your (Ken
> Kaliher's) badgering for them to "correct their mistake" is a piece of
> evidence.
> 
> I have just checked the '99 Washington, DC directory, where week-end
> Korean schools are listed.  The most common name is "... Han'gUl
> Hakkyo" (30), the second most common is "...Han'guk Hakkyo" (13), the
> third is "...Han'gugin Hakkyo" (4), the fourth is "Han'gugO Hakkyo"
> (1)/"...MunhwawOn" (1)/ ...  Sejong Hakkyo (1)/ ...YuawOn (1).  
> Presumably they all teach the same things.  As far as I know, all the
> teachers and administrators of these schools are full-fledged
> "literate" Koreans, some of whom don't even speak English well.
> 
> We linguists take speech errors seriously.  Language change often originates 
> from misanalysis/analogy.  Speech variation is a sign of language change in 
> progress. If more people start accepting Han'gUl to mean also the spoken 
> language, then one day, if not already, it will be understood as such.
> 
> Young-Key Kim-Renaud
> kimrenau at gwu.edu
> >===== Original Message From "Horace H. Underwood" <hhu at fulbright.or.kr> =====
> >At last!  Something Ken and I agree about!
> >
> >I have never in my life heard any Korean refer to the spoken language as
> >"han'gul," since hangul means "korean writing".  (In fact, the spoken
> >language is seldom even hanguk-mal - it is usually "urinara-mal," but that's
> >a separate issue.)  The ones Ken asks seem to be at least polite.  I wonder
> >if they are being polite in adapting to the incomprehensible idiocy of a
> >guest, the U.S. Army.  The ones I ask just laugh.
> >
> >On the other hand, Ken, are you sure you want to sit on that chair and tell
> >the tide not to come in?
> >
> >Horace H. Underwood
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Kaliher, Kenneth L. <KaliherK at usfk.korea.army.mil>
> >To: 'Korean studies' <korean-studies at mailbase.ac.uk>
> >Date: Friday, January 28, 2000 2:56 AM
> >Subject: Se habla Han'gul?
> >
> >
> >>As a civilian employee of USFK for nearly two decades, I am accustomed to
> >>hearing some Americans in the military community butcher the Korean
> >>language.  A frequent offense is the use of "Han'gu^l" to mean the Korean
> >>language; the worst offenders compound the infraction by pronouncing it
> >>"Hahn-GOOL."  Perhaps these perpetrators wish to show off what little
> >Korean
> >>they think they know, and can't be bothered to learn "Hangungmal" -- the
> >use
> >>of which would be silly, anyway; how often do we use "Deutsche" or
> >>"Nihonggo" in an otherwise English sentence?
> >>
> >>What concerns -- and befuddles -- me at present is the apparent willingness
> >>of KATUSAs (Korean soldiers serving in U.S. units), and perhaps other
> >>Koreans working for USFK, to endorse what I perceive as a clear misuse of
> >>the language.  The on-post weekly Seoul Word carries a regular feature now
> >>titled "Korean Phrase of the week" (after I badgered them into changing it
> >>from "Hangul Phrase...").  The Korean language subhead underneath, however,
> >>still reads "Han'gu^ru^l paeupsida."
> >>
> >>My own limited, informal poll of reasonably well educated Korean
> >>acquaintances has turned up not a single one who says it is correct to use
> >>"Han'gu^l" to mean the Korean language, rather than the alphabet.  (To me,
> >>it is analogous to saying someone "speaks Cyrillic.")  I would like,
> >>however, to poll a wider range of sources.
> >>
> >>Thus my question to the List:  Do literate Koreans use "Han'gu^l" to refer
> >>to their spoken language, as opposed to the alphabet?
> >>
> >>-- If not, I will continue my quixotic quest to keep the AFKN airwaves and
> >>Defense Department discourse free of such abuses.
> >>-- If so, I promise to curtail any further curmudgeonly commentary on the
> >>subject, and to resign myself to the inevitable mongrelization of the O^mma
> >>Tongue.
> >>
> >>Thank you for your research assistance!
> >>
> >>Ken Kaliher
> >>
> >>P.S.  At least we're no longer subjected to volleys of "taksan" and
> >>"sukoshi" from the would-be linguists of the 1960s and 1970s who thought
> >>THEY were speaking Korean....
> >>
> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >>- - - -
> >>Address:  PSC 303, Box 40 (OSA), APO AP 96204-0040
> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >>- - - -
> >>Phone:  82-2-793-2612  (Seoul, Korea; within USFK:  723-3631/3192)
> >>FAX:     82-2-7913-7813 (Yes, EIGHT digits; within USFK:  723-7813)
> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >>- - - -
> >>If cats and dogs didn't have fur, would we still pet them?
> >>
> >>
> 
> 





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