훈민정음 언해는 ‘언어 내 번역’인가?
Is Hunmimjeongeumeonhae a kind of Intra-lingual Translation?
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper has discussed Kim Wook Dong’s argument of ‘Hunminjeongeum Eonhae is intra-lingual translation’ (2010: 261-270). The author considers it in the negative sense. The reason is as follows:The source language of Eonhae is Chinese characters and its target language is Korean. And the intra-lingual translation occurs when SL and TL are identical. Therefore, if Eonhae is to be an intra-lingual translation, the SL or Chinese characters and the TL or the Korean should be the same. The Kim’s false argument originates from his confusion of language style and language itself. In other words, Kim (2010) believes that there existed a language with two varieties in the late middle Korean. The co-existence of language styles cannot automatically guarantee that the two should belong to a same language. The written Chinese is still a foreign language which originally represents the spoken Chinese, and it cannot be the same language as Korean. In its final analysis Kim’s argument of ‘Hunminjeongeum Eonhae or Eonhae is intra-lingual translation’ (2010: 261-270) has been based on insufficient evidence, and it should be revised as ‘Hunminjeongeum Eonhae or Eonhae is inter-lingual translation.’
Abstract
This paper has discussed Kim Wook Dong’s argument of ‘Hunminjeongeum Eonhae is intra-lingual translation’ (2010: 261-270). The author considers it in the negative sense. The reason is as follows:The source language of Eonhae is Chinese characters and its target language is Korean. And the intra-lingual translation occurs when SL and TL are identical. Therefore, if Eonhae is to be an intra-lingual translation, the SL or Chinese characters and the TL or the Korean should be the same. The Kim’s false argument originates from his confusion of language style and language itself. In other words, Kim (2010) believes that there existed a language with two varieties in the late middle Korean. The co-existence of language styles cannot automatically guarantee that the two should belong to a same language. The written Chinese is still a foreign language which originally represents the spoken Chinese, and it cannot be the same language as Korean. In its final analysis Kim’s argument of ‘Hunminjeongeum Eonhae or Eonhae is intra-lingual translation’ (2010: 261-270) has been based on insufficient evidence, and it should be revised as ‘Hunminjeongeum Eonhae or Eonhae is inter-lingual translation.’
참고문헌 (15)
- 김욱동, "번역과 한국의 근대" (2010), 소명출판
- 김욱동, "번역의 미로" (2011), 글항아리
- 김정우, "한국 번역사의 기술과 자료", 통번역교육연구, 3(1), pp.5~20 (2005)
- 김정우, "이두, 향찰, 구결은 번역인가?", 통번역교육연구, 6(2), pp.77~92 (2008), 한국통번역교육학회
- 서강선, "번역과 문체의 습합 및 변용", 우리말글, 56, pp.397~420 (2012), 우리말글학회
- 유명우, "한국 번역사에서 본 조선조 언해(諺解) 번역", 번역학연구, 5(2), pp.69~91 (2004), 한국번역학회
- 이상규, "시 속에 배어 있는 방언의 향기. 언어로 보는 지역의 역사와 문화", 경남대 인문과학연구소 가을학술대회 발표, pp.25~51 (2012)
- 이영훈, "한국에서의 번역 개념의 역사", 통번역학연구, 15(1), pp.129~151 (2011), 통번역연구소
- 북한 신문 용어 조사 연구, "전수태", 국립국어연구원, ~ (2002)
- 정호정, "제대로 된 통역 번역의 이해" (2007), 한국문화사
- 최현배, "고친 한글갈" (1950), 정음사
- 한국번역학회, "Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies" (2009), 한신문화사
- Jakobson, R., "On linguistic aspects of translation, In On Translation" (1959), Harvard University Press
- Newmark, P., "A Textbook of Translation" (1988), Prentice Hall
- Nida, E., "Towards a Science of Translation" (1964), E. J. Brill