Leave Your Language Alone!
저자
문경환 (연세대학교)
발행기관
학술지명
권호사항
발행연도
1990
작성언어
Korean
KDC
840.000
자료형태
학술저널
발행기관 URL
수록면
181-233(53쪽)
KCI 피인용횟수
0
제공처
소장기관
Risking banality, let us have it said that language is a mixture of various elements and factors intertwined in a complex web. Its multifariousness, coupled with its vast typological diversity, somehow buries the possibility of appreciating this entity from any one vantage point. What appears to be a quite plausible account of a particular aspect or type of language often disappears in thin air as soon as other aspects or types are taken into account. New discoveries almost always bring in their wake modish theories to explain them, which normally do not mesh with older theories.
Perhaps no other individuals are more painfully aware of the difficulty of defining the intrinsic attribute of language with some systematicity than those who may fall under the rubric of “linguists”(or “linguisticians”if you will). Be that as it may, many people who are otherwise very well-informed but know little or nothing of the principles underlying the professional study of language love to speculate about linguistic phenomena, much as some otherwise intelligent outsiders to medical science have fantastic notions about physiology and pathology and express them vehemently, sometimes even to experts. (After all, everyone has a body of one sort or another, and everyone has language of one sort or another.) An attempt by the linguist to show that their speculations are groundless is likely, with overwhelmingly greater than chance frequency, to fall across heartfelt resentment. For, their speculations do not come out of the blue but are the upshot of their most authoritative opinions about what they fancy language is, or more often, ought to be.
Notably, though, more speculations about language derive from redoubtably emotional value judgment than not Consider, by way of example, those gentry who put British English high on a pedestal while giving a wide berth to American speech, or vice versa: or those who are prejudiced against the speech of regions of their own land other than those in which they acquired their own speech habits. We are even told of an American cirtic (Van Wyck Brooks by name) who has condemned all varieties of his own national speech, namely American English, as “the mud-turtle language … spoken as if one had mud in the mouth … [with an] accent which is not so much an accent as a whiffle, a snuffle, a twang.” Such commentary by distinguished literary men certainly reflects personal tastes and attachment. But it throws no light at all on the real nature of the language at hand. One might as well feel advised to remind oneself that poems are written to be read in a native language (or dialect) and that operas are written to be sungin one's native tongue.
More opinionated, perhaps, than the esthetic appraisal is the moral attitude toward language, known as “prescriptivism.” A grammar of the prescriptive persuasion sets up normative standards about how a language should be used, rather than lay out, as a grammer of descriptive (or “languistic”) vein purports to, an account of why a language is in fact used the way it is. (The double meaning of the term “grammar” has too often given rise to confusion and misunderstanding that in turn galvanize a battery of misdirected criticisms against linguistics.) A grammar, in the current lingo, is essentially a collection of opinions about the propriety of using certain words and phrases, and about the social status of those who use certain verbal expressions. (A descriptive grammar, it should be stressed again, passes no judgment on such matters and makes no claim whatsoever about which lingusitic forms one should actually use in performing a speech act.) Not surprisingly, prescriptive grammarians would hew steadfastly to the traditional line of “usage and abusage” commentary that is largely on the order of “This is a bad form” or “This does not make sense.” What is surprising is that even those expressions that are used so often and so innocuously are frequently taken up as the target of puristic strictures. The sad truth here―sad to the professed vanguard of linguistic purity, whatever this word may mean to them―is that languages of the world have gotten along only too well without prescriptive policing. In fact, there is no dearth of evidence suggesting that, if a language shows a sign of degenerating into the state of chaotic gibberish, it is just because of external regulation.
What has been said so far outlines the rudiments of what my paper is all about. Since, however, my intention is to make this abstract more or less self-contained on its own, a qualification may be in order lest I convey the impression that esthetic evaluation and policing is out of the question right through. A command of graceful, artistic and effective language is surely an accomplishment that a linguist, a linguist of decent quality for that matter, would readily appreciate and would himself be more than happily in pursuit of (Unfortunately, I stumble upon some linguists who seem to believe that being a linguist is not having to worry about one's poor and sloppy use of language, which, by the way, reveals itself only under the curious guise of “metalanguage” one habitually resorts to.) The point is, such a talent does not already qualify one to make authoritative statements about language, any more than leading a righteous, sober and even godly life (say, in love and charity with one's neighbors) qualifies one to set himself up as a theologian. As for normative policing, let them say who will it is a quite efficient way of containing the ever―changing characters of language within certain limits of communicability, provided (beware!) their claim is not based on mere dogma―false dogma at that.
분석정보
연월일 | 이력구분 | 이력상세 | 등재구분 |
---|---|---|---|
2027 | 평가예정 | 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증) | |
2021-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) | KCI등재 |
2018-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | KCI등재 |
2015-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) | KCI등재 |
2013-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) | KCI후보 |
2011-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) | KCI후보 |
2007-08-20 | 학회명변경 | 한글명 : 인문과학연구소 -> 인문학연구원영문명 : Institute for Humanities -> Institute of Humanities |
기준연도 | WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) | KCIF(2년) | KCIF(3년) |
---|---|---|---|
2016 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.24 |
KCIF(4년) | KCIF(5년) | 중심성지수(3년) | 즉시성지수 |
0.24 | 0.23 | 0.67 | 0.17 |
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
학술연구정보서비스(이하 RISS)는 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 | 보유기간 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 파일 | 한국교육학술정보원법 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 |
구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
---|---|---|
KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 김태우 | - 이메일 : lsy@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0439 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 이상엽 | |
RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 대학학술본부 장금연 | - 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)