본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

국어와 일본어의 틈새, 재일 한인 문학의자리 - 『漢陽』, 『三千里』, 『靑丘』의 이중 언어 관련 논의를 중심으로 -

Niche between the Korean language and the Japanese language, the place of the Korean-Japanese literature. - On the discussion related to the dual language of 『Hanyang』, 『Samcheonri』, 『Cheonggoo』

0

조회

0

다운로드

13

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류한국어와문학

초록

The Japanese language of Korean-Japanese writers are constantly interfered with the Korean language(Choseon language). During the colonial period, Kim Saryang and Jang Hyuckjoo could work in the literary world of Japan on the basis of the understanding that Japanese is the standard language in Asia. However, it greatly aroused a sense of linguistic incongruity to express something Korean in Japanese because it is difficult to describe exactly something Korean in Japanese and it is easy to be affected by Japanese logic. Japanese, which was firmly placed as the national language or the standard language during the colonial period, was replaced by the Korean language after the independence of Korea. Japanese was degraded as the invader's language or the imperialist's language that supported the distorted colonial history of the past and the Choseon language enhanced its status as the Korean national language. Korean-Japanese writers still wrote their works in Japanese. Because the Korean language did not form the base of abstractive thought and it was recognized as if it was a foreign language, they could not help choosing Japanese. In reality, most of them were educated in Japanese, which was considered as the national language. And thus, even though they could use the Korean language, most of them needed the procedure of translation into Japanese. The mainstream of Korean-Japanese literature was written in Japanese, and in this case, the literature written in Japanese inevitably created the tension with the Korean language (the Choseon language) as the national language that recovered its purity. Moreover, Korean-Japanese writers's linguistic agony could not help deepening because of the special situation that the mother tongue and the national language were separated. It may be the reason why the creation in Japanese has been endlessly disputed since the independence of Korea. Also the constant criticism on the writings in Japanese has acted as the pressure that the logic for the creation in Japanese should be established. Decolonial appropriation, which intended to inform the Japanese reader of the expression of something Choseon in the Japanese language or the unreasonableness in the course of colonialization, appeared in this process. As we can see in the example of Kim Seokbum, so is the attitude that considers the relationship between the Korean-Japanese writers and the Japanese language as the strained conflicting relation and recognizes it as the important literary quality. In this case, the tension and conflict between the Korean language (the Choseon language) and the Japanese language becomes the essential condition for the existence of the Korean-Japanese literature. That is, the Korean-Japanese literature exists between the Korean language and the Japanese language and the Korean (Choseon) language creates constantly the tension in their Japanese. This linguistic relation is also the major point where the greatest characteristics and peculiar creativity of Korean-Japanese literature appear.

Abstract

The Japanese language of Korean-Japanese writers are constantly interfered with the Korean language(Choseon language). During the colonial period, Kim Saryang and Jang Hyuckjoo could work in the literary world of Japan on the basis of the understanding that Japanese is the standard language in Asia. However, it greatly aroused a sense of linguistic incongruity to express something Korean in Japanese because it is difficult to describe exactly something Korean in Japanese and it is easy to be affected by Japanese logic. Japanese, which was firmly placed as the national language or the standard language during the colonial period, was replaced by the Korean language after the independence of Korea. Japanese was degraded as the invader's language or the imperialist's language that supported the distorted colonial history of the past and the Choseon language enhanced its status as the Korean national language. Korean-Japanese writers still wrote their works in Japanese. Because the Korean language did not form the base of abstractive thought and it was recognized as if it was a foreign language, they could not help choosing Japanese. In reality, most of them were educated in Japanese, which was considered as the national language. And thus, even though they could use the Korean language, most of them needed the procedure of translation into Japanese. The mainstream of Korean-Japanese literature was written in Japanese, and in this case, the literature written in Japanese inevitably created the tension with the Korean language (the Choseon language) as the national language that recovered its purity. Moreover, Korean-Japanese writers's linguistic agony could not help deepening because of the special situation that the mother tongue and the national language were separated. It may be the reason why the creation in Japanese has been endlessly disputed since the independence of Korea. Also the constant criticism on the writings in Japanese has acted as the pressure that the logic for the creation in Japanese should be established. Decolonial appropriation, which intended to inform the Japanese reader of the expression of something Choseon in the Japanese language or the unreasonableness in the course of colonialization, appeared in this process. As we can see in the example of Kim Seokbum, so is the attitude that considers the relationship between the Korean-Japanese writers and the Japanese language as the strained conflicting relation and recognizes it as the important literary quality. In this case, the tension and conflict between the Korean language (the Choseon language) and the Japanese language becomes the essential condition for the existence of the Korean-Japanese literature. That is, the Korean-Japanese literature exists between the Korean language and the Japanese language and the Korean (Choseon) language creates constantly the tension in their Japanese. This linguistic relation is also the major point where the greatest characteristics and peculiar creativity of Korean-Japanese literature appear.

참고문헌 (37)

  1. 김윤식, "일제말기 한국 작가의 일본어 글쓰기론" (2003), 서울대 출판부
  2. 유숙자, "재일 한국인 문학 연구" (2000), 월인
  3. 이양지, "한 재일동포 작가의 자전적 이야기 : 나에게 있어서의 모국과 일본" (1990)
  4. 이연숙, "디아스포라와 국문학", 19, pp.55~70 (2001), 민족문학사학회
  5. 이재봉, "재일 한인 문학의 존재 방식", 한국문학논총, 32, pp.14~393 (2002), 한국문학회
  6. 이재봉, "해방 직후 재일한인 문단과 ‘일본어’ 창작문제 - 朝鮮文藝를 중심으로", 한국문학논총, (42), pp.359~389 (2006), 한국문학회
  7. 이헌홍, "『漢陽』所載 在日韓人文學의 연구 방향과 과제", 한국민족문화, (25), pp.97~118 (2005), 한국민족문화연구소
  8. 이헌홍, "재일 한인 생활사의 수필문학적 형상과 의미", 한국문학논총, (42), pp.319~357 (2006), 한국문학회
  9. 정백수, "한국 근대의 식민지 체험과 이중언어 문학" (2000), 아세아문화사
  10. 하상일, "재일 한인 잡지 소재 시문학과 비평문학의 현황과 의미 - 조선문예, 한양, 삼천리, 청구를 중심으로", 한국문학논총, (42), pp.391~417 (2006), 한국문학회
  11. 황호덕, "동아시아 근대 어문 질서의 형성과 재편 ; 국어(國語)와 조선어(朝鮮語) 사이, 내선어(內鮮語)의 존재론-일제말의 언어정치학, 현영섭과 김사량의 경우", 58, pp.135~182 (2007), 성균관대학교 대동문화연구소
  12. 姜在彦, "在日朝鮮人?であることの意味" (1987)
  13. 고모리 요이치, "일본어의 근대-근대 국민국가와 ‘국어’의 발견" (2003), 소명출판
  14. 高史明, "彼方に光を求めて" (1973)
  15. 近藤?一, "太平洋戰下終末期朝鮮治政" (1961)
  16. 金達壽, "八?一五 まで-金聖珉との思い出を中心に?" (1976)
  17. 金達壽, "植民地のなかからの作家?" (1976)
  18. 金石範, "民族虛無主義の所産?について?" (1979)
  19. 金石範, "ことばの呪縛-在日朝鮮人文學と日本語" (1972)
  20. 磯貝治良, "在日?文學の變容と繼承?" (1992)
  21. 磯貝治良, "新世代の在日朝鮮人文學" (1987)
  22. 磯貝治良, "第一世代の文學略圖" (1994)
  23. 磯貝治良, "在日 文學論" (2004), 新幹社
  24. 白石省吾, "在日文學?二十年の印象" (1989)
  25. 山本眞弓, "在日朝鮮人と言語問題" (1985)
  26. 吳林俊, "日本語と朝鮮人" (1971)
  27. 柳美里, "不自由な言語" (1996), 角川春樹事務所
  28. 이연숙, "국어라는 사상" (2006), 소명출판
  29. 林浩治, "張赫宙論-一五年戰爭下の朝鮮人作家の軌跡" (1983)
  30. 林浩治, "在日朝鮮人 日本語 文學論" (1991)
  31. 林浩治, "戰後非日文學論" (1997), 新幹社
  32. 川村 溱, "植民地文學から在日文學へ-在日朝鮮人文學論序說(1)", 22, pp.151~159 (1995), 夏
  33. 川村 溱, "在日朝鮮人文學とは何か" (1994)
  34. 川村 溱, "生まれたらそこがふるさと-在日朝鮮人文學論" (1999), 平凡社
  35. 針生一郞, "その批判は正當か-金達壽, 金石範の近作をめぐって" (1979)
  36. Bill Ashcroft, "The Empire Writes Back-Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures" (1996), 민음사
  37. 부산일보, "부산 온 일본 아쿠타가와상 수상 재일동포 현월 씨", pp.24면~ (2007), 부산일보

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)