본문 바로가기

추천 검색어

실시간 인기 검색어

학술논문

이두, 향찰, 구결은 번역인가?

이용수 510

영문명
Could Idu, Hyangchal, Gugyeol be thought as translations?
발행기관
한국통번역교육학회
저자명
김정우(Kim Jeong Woo)
간행물 정보
『통번역교육연구』제6권 제2호, 77~92쪽, 전체 16쪽
주제분류
어문학 > 영어와문학
파일형태
PDF
발행일자
2008.12.31
4,720

구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

1:1 문의
논문 표지

국문 초록

영문 초록

This paper has started from the question: Could it be true that three writing systems, Idu, Hyangchal, and Gugyeol, using Chinese characters in the Ancient Period of Korean, are related to translations in some ways. To hit this target, we have established the proper boundary of translation by ascertaining its definition in the first place. Based upon this, we have in turn proposed four criteria to decide whether a given text is thought of as a translation or not. In order for a given text to be regarded as a translation : a. there should exist both SL and TL, and SL must be different from TL. b. there should exist an original source text. c. it should satisfy a target language s specific syntax. d. there should be a producer of ST and a consumer of TL, and the two must be different from each other. The result of our analysis are as follows : As for Idu text, it is not a translation but a simple written product, in that it cannot reflect the Chinese specific syntax as a TL, and a producer of a ST is identical with a consumer of a TT. (Consequently, Hyangchal as an extended system of Idu is naturally just a written product.) But, Idu text read in Korean, which is translated from Chinese text, could be regarded as a translation. As for Gugyeol text, divided into Gugyeol text read phonetically and Gugyeol read semantically, the former is regarded as a reading process of ST in that it cannot reflect a complete syntax of TL, Korean, and the latter, even though regarded as a translation in that it can satisfy all of four criteria above, could be regarded as a pseudo-translation in that the comprehension of a ST is basically different from that of translated text.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 한자 차자표기법의 발달
Ⅲ. 표기인가, 번역인가?
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract

키워드

해당간행물 수록 논문

참고문헌

교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!

신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.

바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!

교보e캐시 1,000원
TOP
인용하기
APA

김정우(Kim Jeong Woo). (2008).이두, 향찰, 구결은 번역인가?. 통번역교육연구, 6 (2), 77-92

MLA

김정우(Kim Jeong Woo). "이두, 향찰, 구결은 번역인가?." 통번역교육연구, 6.2(2008): 77-92

결제완료
e캐시 원 결제 계속 하시겠습니까?
교보 e캐시 간편 결제