임화와 김수영의 ‘언어관’ 비교

Abstract

In this article, we attempted to elucidate how Yim Hwa and Kim Suyoung comprehended the meaning of ‘language’ in literature. It is understood that literature is an art of language. As such, it is a common knowledge that the relationship between ‘literature’ and ‘language’, particularly the significance of ‘language’ in literature, is important. It is not an easy task to explain how ‘language’ in literature is same with or different from the language used in daily life as a tool of communicating information. Variations have been made on a claim that ‘literature is an art of language,’ ranging from an extreme argument that poetry is an outcome of experiments and modifications of ‘language’ rather than a matter of contents or subject matters, to a conservative argument that poetry is a genre of art that pursues beauty of language. These arguments have varied depending on the time period, social context, trends of literature and individuals who made claims, and changed a commonplace claim that ‘literature is an art of language’ into a realm of conflicts and tension. Within this context, we first examined how the relationship between ‘literature’ and ‘language’ has been comprehended in modern literature, particularly in poetry. Modern literature regards ‘literature’ as a ‘linguistic event’, thereby fortifying a distinction between daily use and literary use of language. While the former puts ‘meaning’ in the center by emphasizing the role of communicating information, the latter has striven for linguistic function at a different level. That is why linguistic experiments or use of language that cannot be reduced to ‘meaning’ are often found in modern literature, especially poetry. From a standpoint of understanding ‘language’ in modern literature, Yim Hwa and Kim Suyoung formed an interesting confrontation. Yim Hwa’s work hailed from romantic poem and negativity of Dadaism, and in critiques he published around the time of disbanding KAPF, he emphasized that literature should be written in language easily understandable to the public, and argued for the importance of ‘language of Joseon.’ His arguments converged into a viewpoint that underscored the importance of ‘language’ in literature, but he also criticized a reactionary nature of a view that emphasized ‘language’ in understanding literature, in debates over mannerism. In the 1930s, his thoughts on ‘language’ developed along a seemingly contradictory line between acceptance of ‘Joseon language’ and denial of ‘language.’ Meanwhile, Kim Suyoung’s views on language became visible as a matter of freedom of expression, that is, as a tool to resist oppressive political authority and unconscious repression between the timing of national liberation and the 1960s. To Kim Suyoung, a poet is a being who fights to guard ‘language’, which is at the core of a society’s culture. Both Yim Hwa and Kim Suyoung regarded ‘language’ important in literature, but for Yim Hwa, the peculiar conditions of Japanese colonization and proletariat literature need to be considered, and for Kim Suyoung, political conditions of remains of colonization, that is, post-colonial circumstances, post-war anti-communism and lack of freedom need to be considered. This article examined along which trajectory these two poets’ thoughts on ‘language’ evolved within the special context of the discourses above.