불통(不通)의 언어, 번역된 정치 －해방기 ‘통역정치’와 문학의 언어를 중심으로－

Abstract

This article is an attempt to read the liberation period when the perception of litterateurs and language public to the question of ‘what is language’ with the concept of ‘English’ and ‘interpreting politics’ as a footing and the concept of role and competence of language aggressively competed against each other and were established at the same time. In particular, this study has reviewed the status and the aspect of political appropriation of English engraved in literature and critique of the liberation period and what the litterateurs in the liberation period forecasted and anticipated in terms of the potential and role of ‘language’ and ‘literature’ in the midst of reshuffling political hegemony with the capital of language used as a medium. In the liberation period, the English, or the language of a new empire US in the movement of creating the ‘national language of Korea’ based on the linguistic nationalism emerged as a language to be interpreted and embraced as well as a means of success instead of remaining as an academic subject as it had been previously. In the process when a language was newly recognized as an absolute condition and means to determine the individual’s success in life the politics of the nation, ‘English’ expanded its roles and functions while being relativized throughout different hierarchical layers as a language of capital, politics and academia and culture. A variety of events and negative issues that arose under the US army Military government rule were explained or described as a gap between the Korean and the English languages, or interpretation/ translation errors. This gave rise to a newly coined word called “interpreting politics”, which led to criticism on the US military government as an “interpreter’s government”. A variety of unplanned events under the US Military government rule were labeled as an “indictment of interpreting politics” and were attributed to a communication or linguistic issue caused by the discrepancy between the English and the Korean languages instead of political issues arising from the US government’s governing policy for Korea or the unbalance of political powers between Korea and US. The ‘language of politics’ under the premise of (in)capability of interpretation of two different languages of English and Korean stitched up its inevitable gaps while putting emphasis sometimes on pure intention and sometimes on misinterpretation and cultural difference. The so-called ‘interpreting politics’ was a political by- product that occurred in the lack of linguistic environment and knowledge that could bridge between Korea and the US military government and was also a hegemonic term reflecting the desire and frustration of the Koreans at the time, and the reorganization of ‘linguistic capital/power’ was an important turning point that separated the perception and sense of ‘language’ as well as an inexorable call for ‘restoration of national language’.