[KS] Questions about Style and Students-Abroad : 113,000 Korean-national Students receiving 100% 英語講義 英語沒入 敎育 every year in the US....

[Kye C Kim]

Thanks Jim for your many insightful observations.

I would like to add some comments to your many, straight-talking
observations.

*Obligations of nationalism vs. freedom of foreigners as source of
difference in perspectives*:

Of course, in private conversations, the non-native observers have
commented more freely on the relationship between Japanese and Korean
extending beyond English-Korean and English-Japanese dictionaries, easily
finding in Korean many reflections of Japanese across all modern
disciplines.  This is largely attributable, I think, to the simple fact
that the East Asian studies in the West is and has always been dominated by
comparativist and historical perspectives, a fact which holds true through
the pre-postmodernist, the postmodernist, and even the post-postmodernist
reincarnations.  I think this is well illustrated by the recent
trans-nationalist scholarship of Professor Thornber in "Empire of Texts in
Motion," where both the scholar and the scholarship exemplify that very
tradition, taking on a topic not easily approached within any nationalist
framework, exploring the love-affairs and hate-affairs that are precisely
the no-touch topics within each "nationalist" framework.

*나몰라! or 없던 일로! or just posturing*

With Chinese, Japanese, and Korean reference materials published over the
last 200 years all readily at hand at major libraries in the West, it is
hard to escape the observations that Jim makes.  While the charge of
"simply copying" is rather harsh, here the Korean publishers have to bear
some responsibility as Korean sentiment and historical ill-feelings do make
it problematic for them to make clear that their English-Korean
dictionaries are based on Japanese-English dictionaries, despite the
commercial contractual relationships they maintain today with the Japanese
publishers and the Japanese internet/electronic dictionary makers.

For those interested in the history of the first English-Korean dictionary
and the beginnings of English studies in Korea, there is a very moving
account in "한국 영문학의 어제와 오늘 : 한국 영문학의 형성 - 권중휘 선생을 찾아서,"  an interview with
Prof. 권중휘 in 안과 밖 (영미문학연구), Vol.2,1997. Here is a little snippet of 영한사전 형성
사정, link here:
한국 영문학의 어제와 오늘 : 한국 영문학의 형성 - *권중휘* 선생을 찾아서
<http://www.riss.kr/search/detail/DetailView.do?p_mat_type=1a0202e37d52c72d&control_no=d5929f586346cc14ffe0bdc3ef48d419>신현욱
(안과 밖 (영미문학연구)<http://www.riss.kr/search/detail/DetailView.do?p_mat_type=3a11008f85f7c51d&control_no=fdc8d0a78c756c03>,
Vol.- No.2<http://www.riss.kr/search/detail/DetailView.do?p_mat_type=3a11008f85f7c51d&control_no=fdc8d0a78c756c03&v_control_no=7c45358c2bc09678ffe0bdc3ef48d419>,
[1997]**
...최정우 집에 하숙올 하고 있어서 항상 둘이 같이 다니고 그랬는데， 나중에 알았지만， 그뒤에 그 둘이 사전을 만들려고 시작을
했단다. ‘ ABC’까지는 되어 있었대. 나하고 합작을 한 것은 6.25 직전쯤인데 ‘ABC’는 되어 있으니까 나더러 ‘DEF’를
하라는 거야.  일본사전올 베끼는 거지. 우리가 어찌 금방 사전을 만드나. 이찌가와(市河) 선생이 만든 ‘포켓용 리틀 딕셔너리’를
베껴서 하기로 했지. 그걸 하다가 이양하는 미국에 갔지. 내가 마무리를 하기는 했다만. 그건 거의 비슷하게 번역을 했는데 말을 어떻게
하느냐가 문제란 말야. 일본시대 때는 한국말을 못 썼으니 영어 단어 하나하나를 우리말로 어떻게 해야 하는지 ...... 한자는 그냥
쓰기로 했지. 가령 ‘school’이면 ‘學校’라고 한자로 써놓고 그것올 우리말로 ‘학교’라고 썼지. 그러니까 ‘school’에 대해
같은 한자를 쓰고 일본말과 우리말은 서로 달리 읽는 셈이지. ‘哲學’이라면 일본말로는 ‘데쓰가꾸’지만 우리 말로는 ‘철학’이란 말야.
한자는 안 쓰고 한자 음을 가지고 우리말이라고 하고 일본말은 일본사람이 쓰던 한자를 그냥 쓰는 거지. 그것밖에는 방법이 없었다. 안
그러면 몇십 년을 기다려야 우리말이 생겨날지 알 수가 없는데 어찌하나. 일본사람들이 그뒤에 말하는 걸 들으니， 서양사람들 말을 번역하는
데 수십 년이 걸렸는데 그것을 배워서 한국사람들은 절약이 되었다는 거야. 그것은 사실이야. ‘철학’(哲學)이란 말에 대해 들으니
일본에서는 처음에 ‘이학’(理學)이라고 했다네. 그랬다가 ‘이과’(理科)의 ‘이’(理)와 같아져 분간하기 어렵다고 명치시대 때 고쳤다고
하더라. 대체로 서양말이 번역되어 쓰이는 데 반세기 정도 걸렸다더군. 어쨌든 전부를 우리말로 고칠 수는 없었어. 고친다 해도 다른
이들이 동조해주는가도 문제이고. 그렇잖아도 최현배하고 이희숭이가 갈등이 나서 한국말 사전이 상당히 오래되어 나왔으니까. 그러니까 지금
학생들이 배우는 영어 번역어는 일본사람들이 번역한 것을 한자로 바꿔서 그 한자를 우리말로 읽는 식이 된 거야. 어떤 사람들은
일본사람들이 하던 것이라고 싫어라 해. 처음에 ‘벤또’ I辦當]라는 말의 경우 우리말로 ‘변당’이라고 하는 것은 너무 심하다고 해서
최현배가 고쳤을 거야. ‘도시락’이라고. 예전에 그런 말이 었었다드만. 그것은 당장 되더라. 비행기에서 화물을 취급한다고 할 때의
‘취급’(取扱) 같은 거는 요즘은 없어졌다만 일본말 ‘도려아스까이’라는 걸 우리말로 그대로 옮기니까 ‘취급’이 됐거든. 그게 싫다고
그거 안 쓰더구만. 일본말 냄새가 많이 나는 건 안 쓴다는 등 일본말 냄새가 나지만 ‘수표’는 쓴다는 등. 어음의 경우 일본말로
‘데까다’[手形]라 하는데 우리말로는 ‘수형’으로 꽤 오래 그 말을 썼다가 ‘어음’으로 된 거는， 상업이 발달했던 개성에서는 그것을
‘어음’이라고 했으니 일반으로 통용을 하자，그래서 ‘어음’으로 쓰게 된 거지. 이렇게 해서 나온 처음 사전은 6.25 전에 한 건데，
미국에서 나왔지. 그것을 조판해서 초판이 나오고 재판은 인쇄만 해놓고 6.25 당했단 말야. 그러자 인민군이 틀어와서 조판한 납을
가져갔으니 다시 더는 찍을 수가 없었지.

A fuller and more current account of the history of English-Korean
dictionaries, and especially the role of Japanese publishers, is available
in the memoir by Mr. Young-bin Min in "영어강국 KOREA를 키운 3.8 따라지 (영어를 경영한 CEO
이야기)," YBM Sisa, 2004.

A more general survey of all the English dictionaries in Korea can be found
in an important work by Professor 이재호 of 성균관대 in his 2005 "영한사전 비판."   Here
he gives a list of which Korean dictionaries came from which Japanese
publishing house.

These are food for thought.

But overall, the general public's approach is rather accurately reflected
by one of '나몰라' and '없던 일로.'

*Korean scholar's perspectives-다행 중 불행?*

This is not to say that the Korean academia has completely turned a blind
eye to this rather significant point of language contact between Japanese
and Korean. Still, when the topic is discussed, such discussions still must
begin by prefacing it with the formalities of "이 사실을 안다면 학생들이 우리를 원망할까바
두렵다" or "불행한 역사가 남긴 앙금"  or "청산해야할 일본이 우리 말에 남긴 엄청난 앙금" and the likes.
Given such realities on the ground, and given that this accurately reflects
current Korean 정서, it is not surprising that such studies are rare and
extraordinary in the Korean context.

One rare group of such studies was published in a special issue of
새국어생활<http://www.riss.kr/search/detail/DetailView.do?p_mat_type=3a11008f85f7c51d&control_no=cb4a00dc486c640e>,
Vol.5 No.2<http://www.riss.kr/search/detail/DetailView.do?p_mat_type=3a11008f85f7c51d&control_no=cb4a00dc486c640e&v_control_no=eb6a10699e9c33b9ffe0bdc3ef48d419>,
[1995].  The keynote article for the special issue was written by Prof. 김광해
where he expands the points of contact beyond "words and phrases" to widely
used "Korean idiomatic expressions."  His account of 김동인 was to inspire
several important later studies on 근/현대문체형성 research.  Prof 강신항 provides us
with an historical linguistics perspective on "일본 한자어."   Prof. 정광's "일본어투
표현 연구" is also an important summary of historical grammatical changes in
Korean, although this articles seems to have also spawned a slew of 일어투사냥
amongst Korean purists,  still continuing, oddly. despite the fact that all
the 일어투사냥꾼 are invariably 일어투애용자.

There are other articles of interest, but of particular interest was the
observation by Prof 황찬호 in "영한 사전의 번역어 문제"
앞 으로 10-15년 후에는 한/일어의 '2개국어 통'들이 거의 업어질 것이고 일어를 각별히 공부한 소수의 사람들만이 '2개국어 통'이
될 것이다. 따라서 전에 그렇게 성행했던 중역 문제도 일단 해소될 것이라 생각된다. 그러나 그 중역 문제는 뜻밖의 곳에서 여전히 문제가
되고 있다.

그것이 바로 우리의 영한 사전이다. 수많은 영한 콘사이스 사전이 쏟아져 나왔고 최근에는 대사전만해도 5종이 나왔다. 전부라고는 말할 수
없을런지 몰라도 거의 대부분의 사전이 영일 사전을 대본으로 삼고 있다고 감히 말할 수 있다. 여기에 졸역 뿐만이 아니라 중역의 문제가
아직 남아 있다는 것을 우리는 주목할 필요가 있다.

Of course, above is the fundamental fact and irony of Korean, particularly
given that modern Korean's relationship to English: the more Koreans study
"English" the more they are learning their "Japanese" translations.  For
the disingenuous, it can be a rock and a hard place.

*.. complain that texts in those languages were more accessable than
translations and corollary texts in Korean*

This always struck me as boastful, but ultimately sad.  I've heard it too
often, even in my Bible classes.  Jim, I think further discussions with
old-hand Asianists will reveal that this seemingly boastful comment has a
rather long history in Korea.  It is a good trick, but one that seems to
suggest a need for some thought by those who might make such comments.

Joobai Lee
3/3/2012






2011/12/7 Jim Thomas <jimpthomas at hotmail.com>

>  Greetings Kye,
> Let's not forget the influences of Japanese language and postmodernism on
> Korean.
>
> I can't really speak to anything before the 1970s; but I believe that at
> that time many texts (usually of mixed script) had the stamp of
> Japanese language structure due to the profound effect of Japanese language
> on Korean language during the colonial period and the residual effects of
> the the generation who learned Japanese and Korean simultanteously during
> the colonial period and were influential writers into the 50s 60s and 70s.
> In those years, many "Korean-English" dictionaries were simply copies of
> Japanese-English dictionaries, because they were so much cheaper to produce
> and at least a handful of publishers apparently didn't care.
>
> Then came post-modernism and the great pre-internet transformation in
> academic Korean in the 1980s, which I believe occurred through the
> circulation of western (mostly French and German--or French and German
> influenced Anglo-American) social theory texts in translation. This had the
> effect of making many Korean texts so complex to read that Koreans who are
> well versed in English or other European languages began to complain
> that texts in those languages were more accessable than translations
> and corollary texts in Korean. It nonetheless has had a lasting effect on
> Korean language structure (with Korean academic discourse mimicing the
> grammatical structures as well as the lexicon of the West), particularly in
> cultural studies and related fields.
>
> Perhaps because the modernization of Japanese language came earlier (in
> the late 19th and early 20th century) and because Japanese universities did
> not have such a fetish for hiring those with American or European Ph.D.s,
> academic and literary Japanese appears to have changed far less than Korean
> over the last three or four decades.
> jim
>  ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:07:22 +0900
> From: kc.kim2 at gmail.com
> To: koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
> Subject: [KS] Questions about Style and Students-Abroad : 113,000
> Korean-national Students receiving 100% 英語講義 英語沒入 敎育 every year in the
> US....
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is actually a query about "students-abroad" and "literary style",
> from the looking-glass of writing styles and their changes throughout the
> history of Korean.  I hope the Korean literature specialists would help
> with their insights.  I would also like to ask for the attention of Chinese
> and Japanese specialists as I believe some comparative perspective would be
> very helpful.
>
> *Impact of students-abroad on the literary styles of home languages:*
> I guess I am thinking here of early changes, or innovations, to the
> literary styles of East Asian languages in modern times.  This area seems
> to be have been rather extensively studied in the case of Japanese and
> Chinese.  We have for example the 1991 classic ""Rewriting Chinese: style
> and innovation in twentieth-century" by Edward M. Gunn, providing even a
> full time-lined and sourced catalog of rhetorical innovations in Chinese,
> introduced largely by Chinese students-abroad.  And in the case of
> Japanese, the recent innovations in style, grammar, and even vocabulary
> have been extensively explored in the many works of Yanabu Akira.  His
> works have become the focal point of renewed interest by Western scholars
> examining the transformative role of translation in East Asia; and many of
> his works are now available in English translation in "Translation in
> Modern Japan" edited  Indra Levy, recently reissued through Rutledge to
> meet the growing demand.  Of course, here too, it was the cadre of
> "Japanese students-abroad" that were at the center of that great literary
> and stylistic transformation that Yanabu Akira explores for the Japanese
> case.
>
>
> *The impact of students-abroad, 100 years ago*:
> It is probably no exaggeration to say students-abroad's impact was
> fundamental and decisive.  In Korean, somewhat chronologically, we could
> list, 유길준 (서유견문), 서재필 (독립신문), 윤치호(영어일기/찬양가).  I am inclined to include
> James S. Gale and Underwood family, as instances of "reverse"
> students-abroad. I obviously shouldn't omit 이광수 and 김동인.  I am somewhat at
> a loss as to how to categorize those stylists who never traveled out of the
> country but nevertheless received 한문몰입, 국어몰입,  일어몰입  or 영어몰입 education. The
> question is, How did their study-abroad inform/impact their own writing
> styles?  And how is one to characterize how their styles relate to the
> writing/literary style that dominates writing/speaking today?
>
> *What will the impact of current students-abroad be?*
> 113,000 is a very significant number, and this has been the approximate
> level for the last ten years.  Still, when I look at the writing style of
> 홍정욱, the iconic student-abroad in Korea, in 7막7장 (vol. 1 and 2),  I can
> detect no "stylistic innovation" or "any significantly different.stylistic
> features"   Are there other stylistic innovations that have taken hold
> introduced by the New Student-Abroad generation that I am missing?  The
> general impression is that the smaller cadre of students-abroad of a
> century ago practically altered the stylistic landscape while the new
> cadre, numbering in the million now, seems to have little or no impact on
> the styles.  What is going on?
>
> Regards,
>
> Joobai Lee
>
> 12/6/2011
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20120309/a732410c/attachment.html>