『韓國漢字語辭典』에 수록된 한국고유한자의 주석 내용에 대한 오류 검토 연구

Abstract

This thesis examines errors with the annotations on the traditionalKorean Chinese characters, especially the Sino-Korean characters includedin Dictionary for Chinese characters and compound words of Korean Origin(韓國漢字語辭典) published by Dankook University Academy of AsianStudies. Since I have found errors in some of the dictionary's head words andtheir annotations, I believe their correction is necessary. So, a thoroughexamination of all the annotations in the dictionary is required to reviewand collect errors and possibly misleading contents. In this light, the currentstudy has been conducted out of such dire need. Therefore, the purpose ofthis study is to examine and collect the annotations on the Korean Chinesecharacters included in Dictionary for Chinese characters and compoundwords of Korean Origin to review the discovered errors and correct them. For robust substantiation, the study has focused on the Sino-Koreancharacters and their annotations included by the dictionary. First, I have checked for any errors with the selection of theSino-Korean characters. The dictionary includes a total of 201 Sino-Koreancharacters. But a comparison with the Sino-Korean characters previously collected by scholars of the traditional Korean Chinese characters showssome variance with the Sino-Korean characters selected for the dictionary. To address the variation, the research by scholars should be reflected in theselection of the Sino-Koean characters. Second, I have checked for any omission or repeat of head words. Andit has been verified that ‘㭐’ is found twice on p. 1105 of Vol. 1 and p.1033of Vol. 2, and ‘羘’ on p.838 of Vol. 3 and p.896 of Vol. 3. while a chinesecharacter is omitted as head word on p.323 of Vol. 2. These appear to beerrors made from the failure to perform a thorough comparison andproofreading. But such errors greatly impair the credibility of a dictionary. Third, I have checked for any possibly misleading etymologicalexplanations or regulations on the six methods. The dictionary limits itsclassification into the six methods to one ideogram, one combined ideogram,and two radical plus phonetic characters. And this fact has led to thefollowing criticism. When the dictionary provides etymology on its headwords based on the character formation principle of six methods, thenumber of entries provided with such information is too small to soundconvincing. Moreover, it does not provide sufficient explanation forcombined characters and racdical plus phonetic characters. Etymology helpsa more accurate understanding of head words. If etymology that shouldfacilitate understanding of a head word turns out ambiguous, it shouldrather hamper it. Fourth, I have checked for any instances that require correlation andconsistency between the examples in the annotations and the head wordsas well as disclosure of the editions of the literature from which theexamples are taken. The investigation reveals that one same example isprovided for two entries of ‘㠳’ and ‘㒲’ of which the former is defined asthe simplified form while the latter as the popular form. Examples are important in that they help understand head words by showing their usageand also serve as part of the index. If examples and head words losecorrelation and consistency, it hampers an understanding of Chinesecharacters and will eventually impair the credibility of the dictionary. Insuch light, the issues must be properly addressed. In another case, while ‘㠬’is given as the popular form of ‘巭’, the examples given for the two entriesare exactly the same. This causes confusion in the understanding of thehead words, as editions are not provided for the literature from which theexamples are taken. This study is designed not to find fault with Dictionary for Chinesecharacters and compound words of Korean Origin, but to promote theadvancement of the dictionary toward peefection.