헤본·브라운역 「新約聖書馬可傳」의 문법적 특징에 관한 고찰

Abstract

There were many expressions used against the normative grammar in the literary style in the early period of Meiji. This made the Ministry of Education make a public announcement allowing the use of the 16 ungrammatical expressions. This study investigated the consciousness of Hepburn and Brown on grammar by examining how often these 16 ungrammatical expressions appear in the 『Gospel of Mark by Hepburn and Brown』 . We studied both 『Gospel of Mark by Hepburn and Brown』 and The Meiji Version. The result showed that 9 ungrammatical expressions among the 16 ungrammatical expressions appeared in 『Gospel of Mark by Hepburn and Brown』 and 7 in The Meiji Version. Notably, the examples of 「shi (し)」 used as Shushikei (the predicative form) of 「ki (き)」 were 66 in 『Gospel of Mark by Hepburn and Brown』 , whereas only 4 examples were found in 『The Meiji Version of the Bible』 . In addition, there are 2 examples of 「ki (き)」 used as Shushikei in 『Gospel of Mark by Hepburn and Brown』 and 25 in The Meiji Version. Since The Meiji Version was translated by the official Committee for Translation, the grammaticality was guaranteed. However, 『Gospel of Mark by Hepburn and Brown』 was translated by individuals, and it is believed that it was relatively free from the norm. Moreover, Green and 4 other Japanese assistants as well as Hepburn and Brown participated in translating, the correction of the press must have been affected thoroughly with religious care. It is believed that this is a main factor causing the difference of grammatical use and grammatical misuse of the two books on grammar. In addition, 『Gospel of Mark by Hepburn and Brown』 reflected the colloquial styles strongly to approach the public. We can think a possiblity that this caused lots of grammatical misuses. It is also believed that the characteristics of the language and the Japanese proficiency which Hepburn acquired are the factors causing the result above‒mentioned. He had several Japanese instructors, one of whom participated in proofreading. But, Hepburn's first draft was the fundamental framework of the text. He learned Japanese not from the written language but from the colloquial language through communicating with the Japanese. In the process of acquiring Japanese, he must have learned the spoken Japanese and grammatical misuses. We can give thought to the possibility that Hepburn's Japanese could have affected his work.