構造主義의 관점을 통해 본 『釋名』

Abstract

This article has intended to analyze Seok-myeong of the Han period, based on ‘Structuralism’, the modern philosophy of the West. The classification of dictionary words Seok-myeong, which was published in the late days of the Later Han period, has greatly influenced as the interpretation of the Chinese characters ever since its publication. In particular, Seok-myeong interprets the Chinese characters by 聖訓法(Seong-hoon-beob), which finds meanings based on the phonetic value. The approach of 聖訓 is quite suitable for objectifying and justifying the relations between signifiers and the signified by utilizing the poetic function of languages. Consequently, we unconsciously equate ‘reality’ with ‘signs’ as if the relations between signifiers and the signified were inevitable and absolute, which are actually arbitrary and discretionary. The reason for this is that we see and understand things through languages, recognizing what the language refers to as ‘reality.’ This process of perceiving what a linguistic sign symbolizes is the pointed object itself proceeds naturally as we use a language, and so people take it natural without a doubt. With this unconscious aspect at work in language, people have never been free from their ruling classes who have controlled the languages to dominate them. Chinese characters of China were no exception. The traditional Confucian idea of language ‘正名(Jeong-myeong)’ emphasizes that a name must be in concordance with its reality. The idea claims that if names are not defined clearly it leads to a social disorder, on the premise that ‘Only with a name comes the truth(名定而實辨).’ The system of intention to bring two different things to the exact same line that never can be the case is destined to make distortions. Therefore, 所記(So-gi) and 能記(Neoung-gi) of Chinese, or signifiers and the truth must be firmly combined with each other with the reasonable and unchangeable pretext. For rationalizing the cause, the pronunciation-based meaning finding method 聖訓法(Seong-hoon-beob) should have been the best way. Seok-myeong does not explain the notions that the characters or signifiers indicate. Instead, it borrows other signifiers to explain the characters in ways of metaphor and metonymy. In other words, characters can be endlessly repeated as A=B, B=C, and C=D, and this sort of relations seem undoubtedly reasonable, by poetic license of metaphor. The interpretations of all the words “視, 是也,” “仁, 忍也,” “人, 仁也,” “斧, 甫也,” “女, 如也,” have been explained in the metaphoric approach by sonic similarity. The implicative nature in strong visual and auditory images of Chinese characters makes us infer and imagine again, thereby creating new notions and myths in the Chinese characters. Hence, such a method of structural interpretation on Chinese characters should be a significantly important approach that allows us to newly understand the way we perceive about Chinese characters and to discover our unconscious way of thinking.