북한의 어휘연구/사전편찬 : 남한과의 동질성 회복을 위한 기초 연구 = North Korean Lexicology and Lexicography

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this paper I intend to survey and evaluate the scholastic works in the area of lexicology and lexicography that have been written since the division of Korea into North and South. I will also offer my suggestions for the reconciliation of differences between North and South in this field, to aid in the preparation for eventual reunification.
I do not limit this discussion to lexicology and lexicography alone, but extend it to related fields such as linguistic purification. In as much as such practical matters are a vital part of North Korean linguistics, I will not fail to mention them, but will maintain a basic attitude of respecting the traditional boundaries of lexicology and lexicography.
Vocabulary and word definitions are undoubtedly the most obvious and fastest growing differences between the languages of North and South Korea. Recent South Korean works making reference to lexicology and lexicography in North Korea tend to be self-restrained in their criticism, offering little more than cautious reports on the current state of affairs and cursory evaluation. But as the time for unification talks craws near, it seems that there are some analyses and suggestions we should not withhold.
First, the approach of tainting linguistic issues with political coloring, as seen in the Kim Il Sung Directives of North Korea, and of forcibly following a policy, such as the Cultured Language Campaign, dictated by other than strictly linguistic principles, should be corrected. Thus, such artificially created forms as 원쑤, and newly added usages for words such as 상전 and 동무 should not be continued. Language should be pure, free from ideological bias and politics.
Second, also as a result of the Cultured Language Campaign, the P'yoˇngan dialect has been made the standard in North Korea, thus adopting as standard many vocabulary items different from the traditional standard language of the Seoul area. As done in South Korea's "Multiple Standard Word Recognition" of 1989, it may be possible to accept more than one standard word in cases where there is a good reason, but there is no need to accept as standard all the words in the P'yoˇngan dialect if the only purpose is to assert P'yongyang as of equal standing with Seoul. For a word such as 건달, which is a Sino-Korean word of Sanskrit origin, using the dialectal Korean word 노라리, as in the north, may be a good idea. On the other hand, calling a train a 불술기, from the Hamgyoˇng dialect, instead of the familiar 기차, seems to be going a bit too far.
Third, an excessive avoidance of Sino-Korean words and other foreign loanwords has created an artificial constraint on the natural expansion of language. In North Korea, where language is considered a tool of the state, subjectable to manipulation and control, this problem is settled simply by brute force. In the history of language, however, no purist effort to completely banish foreign influence from a language has been very successful. It is fine to encourage the use of native words such as 남새 in place of the Sino-Korean 채소, or to speed up processes of natural selection such as 화차참→정거장 or 에끄자멘→시험. The indiscriminate preference of indigenous words as in 파동→물결움직임, however, tends to cause more problems than it solves.
In spite of their efforts to reduce the use of Sino-Korean words, North Koreans continue to use them to a considerable extent in academic papers and political terminology, but, unlike in the South, they have placed definite limits on them and have determined not to add to their number in the future. It must also be recognized that their criticisms about the degree th which words from English and Japanese have infiltrated the language of Seoulites have more than a grain of truth to them. Thus, while recognizing that we in the South have our own problems to attend to, it is my recommendation that in preparation for the reunification of the peninsula the Korean language be freed as much as possible from politics, dialects, and artificiality.