『校註歌曲集』을 통해 살핀 前間恭作의 한국어사관의 일단면―前間恭作 인식 속의 ‘近代/近古’ 한국어―

Abstract

Even from its planning stage, Maema Kyôsaku’s Gyoju Gagokjip/Kôtyû Kakyokusyû (1931) was intended as research material for studying the Korean language. Despite this fact, this book has only been the subject of research for literary history up to this day and never has been verified or considered as research material on the history of the Korean language. The purpose of this paper was to reexamine the significance of Gyoju Gagokjip/Kôtyû Kakyokusyû in the field of the study of the history of the Korean language. The gagok text in the Gyoju Gagokjip/Kôtyû Kakyokusyû shows that the language was intentionally arranged to be consistent, following a fairly coherent principle across various dimensions, such as its notation, phonology, and form. This paper compared some of such characteristic linguistic facts with other publications of Maema Kyôsaku, such as Haneotong/Kangotû and Yonggagoeojeon/Ryûkakogosen, to highlight Maema’s position and significance in the study of the history of the Korean language. This study focused on each of the first volumes, which concern the “works of unknown authors”, out of the 17 volumes that comprise the first and second editions of Gyoju Gagokjip/Kôtyû Kakyokusyû. The hypothesis of this study was as follows. As Maema disclosed in the book, Gyoju Gagokjip/Kôtyû Kakyokusyû intended to describe the Korean language from 200 to 300 years before (as seen from the first half of the twentieth century). This is the language of ‘the early modern age’, as detailed in Haneotong/Kangotû, and ‘the early modern period’ as specified in Yonggagoeojeon/Ryûkakogosen. Maema’s description indicates that his definition of ‘the early modern age or period’ ranged from the late seventeenth century to the mid-nineteenth century. Maema wrote Haneotong to focus on the contemporary language and Yonggagoeojeon/Ryûkakogosen to write about what today’s scholars call the ‘middle Korean language’. However, Maema did not leave any professional publications on the language between the two periods. This study posited that Gyoju Gagokjip/Kôtyû Kakyokusyû was Maema’s attempt to realize the typical language of ‘the early modern age or period’ in the form of a sourcebook. While Gyoju Gagokjip/Kôtyû Kakyokusyû may not take the form of a grammar book or a grammatical commentary as Haneotong/Kangotû and Yonggagoeojeon/Ryûkakogosen, Maema’s attitude of compiling the works for Gyoju Gagokjip/Kôtyû Kakyokusyû fully reflected his views on the language of the ‘early modern age or period’. Aspects of Maema’s research on the history of the Korean language may be further revealed through more detailed and comprehensive research in the future.