Making Principles of Han'geul and its Graphic Shapes

Chang-Seok Kang

(Chungbuk National University)

1. Preface

Han'geul is a very conspicuous--different from every other writing systems in various aspects--writing system. It is needless to explain here again which is conspicuous, and where does such a characteristic originate. It is because innumerable researches and explanations on it have been made, and as a result, nowadays its scientific distinction and originality are world-widely recognized. Nevertheless, everytime discussing Han'geul, we can not but mention its peculiarity again and again which no one denies, and cannot emphasize its right implications too frequently. To know well and always speak of the distinctions of Han'geul theoretically is one, and not to fail to overlook and neglect it in discussing and describing Han'geul pratically is another.

Roman alphabet and Japanese Kana are derived from other writings. This was not true of only these two, but most of extant and extinct writings were known brought about in this way. But Han'geul was not the case. It was invented by King Sejong in the 15th century. And the way in which King Sejong used in inventing it, was scientific and creative, never at random. The fact that Han'geul has many traits appearing in no other writing system, was due to its unique process of birth.

All writings except Han'geul could be said to have the same origin. Before Han'geul was known to the academic circles of the world, special works in Western world in fact had described it in this way.

The various theories and methodologies applied to the invention of Han'geul are called ‘the principles of making graphemes’ as a common designation. The very ‘principles of making graphemes’ this present paper will chiefly deal with. As is revealed in the title, the graphic shapes will be discussed in this paper. Yet as the principles fixing graphic shapes or the content implied in graphic shapes are ultimately the principles of making graphemes, the two subjects could be identical.

The principles of making graphemes can not be discussed in every writing system. They can be discussed only in Han'geul and can be meaningful. In the other cases of writing systems, as a result of long transformation of the existing writing system, the very term ‘making principles’ is meaningless. Yet even in the other cases of writing systems the ‘graphic shapes’ could be possibly discussed and necessary to be. However, even in this case the content can not be the same as that of Han'geul. The graphic shapes of Han'geul are not only mere symbols which distinguish themselves each other, but the significant signs which contain various theories and pieces of information in their shapes.

The principle of making graphemes of Han'geul, that is, the various theories and methodologies appearing in the process of newly inventing writing system could not be handed down in their actual aspects afterwards. What could not handed down afterwards was not only the making principles of graphemes. The very fact that King Sejong himself invented Han'geul had been almost forgotten for a long time. As a result even so far the former part of this century, not a few people thought that Han'geul was also derived from the other existing writing systems. Many hypotheses presented under the name of the origins of Han'geul, were eloquent of the things of affairs at that time. It could not be said that the similar opinion completely disappeared. Anyway, in the case of Han'geul if we took no notice of the invention or denied it, the subject of ‘making principles’ itself could not come into existence. In other words the discussion of the making principles presupposes the scientific invention. The author does not dispute this fact. There could be seen few counter-examples to doubt or upset the very fact of the invention at least for the present time.

Even in a book titled ｢Yongjaechonghwa｣(傭齎叢話) the phrase that the graphic shapes of Han'geul imitated Sanskrit scripts(其字體依梵字爲之), was seen. So if the phrase was not the fact, misunderstandings of Han'geul seem to have emerged shortly after the invention. Han'geul was invented personally and covertly by King Sejong. Therefore, if he had not made the process of the invention open somewhat detailedly after the invention, people at that time might have not fully known how to make Han'geul. How could we, even though living in these modern times, know all the occurrences in their deepest aspect in these modern times?

In the article of Hyon-Bae Choi's(1961) the summary and criticisms of the various opinions on the origin of Han'geul, were seen.

As was mentioned in the above, the distinctions of Han'geul including graphic shapes originated from the distinguished principles of making graphemes. Therefore, it is needless to say that the making principles must be wholly studied, if the distinctions of Han'geul are to be rightly understod and described. Now we can count originality and the scientific system as the distinction of Han'geul. It is due to the fact that the content of making principles has been somewhat revealed through the research so far. Yet all the questions related to making principles have not fully answered. And the already grasped content could not be asserted to be rightly described. To know something is one, and to summarize and describe it in its essential aspect is somewhat another.

Not until the method--terminology and theory--to express(or explain) it comes into being, does the distinction of something not reveal its real aspect. Similarly, the distinctions of Han'geul could not be fully explained or described without the appropriate theory and terminology suitable for them. A good example for this is. From earlier times Korean scholars had already known that Han'geul is a writing system written with a phonemic unit like Roman alphabet, but it also has some different characteristics from a Roman alphabet. But with the introduction of expressing method of ‘feature system’ the distinction of Han'geul can be rightly described. That is to say that they have described Han'geul only as a phonemic system which was the existing term, even they clearly knew the difference between the two. Ultimately, if not deliberately, it was a distortion or a neglect of the distinctions of Han'geul. Hence, if there remained such aspects, it would be very serious and important problems.

As many papers pointed out, the first who explicitely designated the fact that Han'geul was different from a phonemic system in a general sense of the term, was not a Korean scholar, but rather a foreign scholar(Sampson, 1985). It was not because Korean scholars did not know of Han'geul less than he knew, but because they would not correctly describe even what they knew.

There have been quite a few discussions which indicated and emphasized the peculiarities of Han'geul. Yet little attention and few efforts have not been directed to the way how to understand and describe those peculiarities. As was revealed in the above discussion, the unique distinctions of Han'geul have ultimately become non-distinctions as a result of the same viewpoint as in the case of a general writing system. In this context ‘the principles of making graphemes’ and ‘their graphic shapes’ which this paper will deal with are not exceptional. ‘The principles of making graphemes’ are the distinctions of Han'geul themselves, but the terms used for the description of the principles have not been suitable for them.

If we count the most basic ones among the currently used terms related to the writing system, the term muncha(文字, writing or letter) could be listed at first. In addition, the term cha(字, letter or grapheme) and kulcha(글자, letter), being used now in almost same sense, could be candidates. As these terms are included in two titles ‘cheja wolli’(制字原理, principles of making graphemes) and ‘kulchkkol’(글자꼴, graphic shapes), the discussion of writing could be impossible without these terms for the time being. This could be compared to the situatioin in which we can not argue on mankind without using the terms of ‘mankind’, ‘man’, and ‘woman’. Yet those basic terms did not resulted from the sufficient consideration of the distinctions of Han'geul. It presented a serious problem that even the most basic terms can not be used for the right description of the distinctions of Han'geul. If the first step fails, the next naturally fails in ninety nine cases out of one hundred.

The basic terms including muncha(letter) are used for Han'geul and the other writing systems. But this same word muncha is clearly meant when used in the other writing systems; it becomes ambiguously and vaguely meant when used in Han'geul. In the case of the other writing systems except Han'geul muncha(letter) is a writing unit itself. In other words simply to arrange letters horizontally or vertically, is enough to write words or sentences. Therefore, no other writing unit than letter, which is and must be different, does not exist. There can not be a conceptual confusion about ‘writing’(muncha), and the mutual substitution of three terms of ‘writing’(muncha), ‘letter’(kulcha), and ‘grapheme’(cha) one another does not cause any trouble at all. Whatever we call a Roman letter, the referent which it refers is always the same. A family is a good example. It does not matter to use his name or just ‘son’, ‘boy’ in calling its unique son in a house with only one son. This metaphor is true of the case of a Roman alphabet or Chinese character, Japanese Kana. But the case of Han'geul is completely different. The reluctant present author can not but repeat the uniqueness of Han'geul here again.

In Han'geul, as everyone knows very well, we do not simply arrange graphic units(consonantal and vocalic graphemes such as ㄱ, ㄴ, ㄷ, etc.), but put them together according to a certain principle to write words or sentences. For example, we do not write ‘ㄱㅏㅇㅅㅏㄴ’ , but ‘강산’. This very principle unchanged from the time of tne invention, requires another writing unit different from a graphic unit in Han'geul.

The two units can and must be differentiated rigorously, as a phoneme and a syllable are differentiated in phonology. However, the unknown reason have prevented this differentiation until now. It can not be that scholars do not know the existance and difference between the two units. Yet they do not prepare the dividing terms and do not even attempt to tell them. This could be compared to a family with more than two sons in which all sons are called just ‘son’ or ‘boy’ without each name. The consequent confusion may well arise.

(a) Now Han'geul has twenty four cha(=letters or graphemes), but originally it

had twenty eight ones.

(b) A name with only one cha(=syllable) like ‘Hur, Chun’(허 준) is called a

single cha-ed name.

(c) Sound symbolic kulcha(=writing or letter) is called sound-representing

muncha(=writing or letter) in another name.

(d) Please fill in the blank with a four cha-ed(=syllabled) word.

As we see in the above examples from (a) to (c), the three Korean terms ‘cha’, ‘kulcha’, and ‘muncha’ are indiscriminately used in two senses. They sometimes meant a letter(=writing or grapheme), sometimes another unit with united letters. Thus, a sentence like (d) is ambiguous. This undesirable phenomenon is caused by the fact that the terms and concepts for other writings are intactly used for Han'geul. In other words we say that we know of the distinctions of Han'geul very well, but pratically we do not give it special treatment appropriate for the distinctions. A phonological theory even without any division between a phoneme and a syllable could be rightly treated. If this is so, today's theory on Han'geul can not avoid a similar estimation. The division of two units is the very basic work, and pratically the failure of this very division becomes an enormous burden for us. The author can not understand the reason why they have neglected this problem so far, and they have put up with the ensueing burden.

That is the most dificult point in writing this paper. As the suitable terms are not established, the author also has no simple and clear way of speaking. Yet he can not arbitrarily coin new terms because of a latent confusion. It certainly is problematic that necessary terms do not exist. However, it is more problematic that inaccurate terms are extremely expressed in all directions.

Also in the process of realizing Han'geul with a computer, the so-called problem of ‘a completion-type’ and ‘a combination-type’ was arisen, and a lot of quarrell and opposition around the problem still continues to be. The author thinks that a good solution will come into being, if they must understand the distinctions of Han'geul and prepare the standpoint appropriate for them. It is because the problem was caused by the distinction of Han'geul.

It is thought that readers have just become aware of the reason why the author could not start immediately main argument, but he must tediously prolong a preface. At least for the time being, the subject of this paper itself, ‘principles of making graphemes and their graphic shapes’ is somewhat ambiguous. It is impossinle for a clear discussion to be born in an unclear subject. Therefore, the author will at first take a general survey on the concept of terms, ‘principles of making graphemes’ and ‘their graphic shapes’ which will appear in this paper, and start the discussion about it.

However the term of graphic shape may have only one meaning in the case of the other writings, it practically has two meanings in the case of Han'geul. It can be meant for both the shape of a writing unit and the shape of a graphic(=grapheme) unit. This again means that the discussion of the graphic shape can and must be made in two aspects in the case of Han'geul. The shape of a grapheme is important, and the shape of a writing unit with the combination of graphemes is more important. It is needless to say that the two facts must be divided in terminology. But now, as even the division of two units are not made, the terminological division is also difficult to be made.

Now there appear many terms similar to ‘the graphic shape’ in sense. They are ‘a type style’, ‘a typeface’, ‘a font’, and ‘a handwriting’, etc. None of these terms is not satisfactorily. At first the meaning of cha or kulcha is clear, let alone that of a type of cha to which another word is added.

It is hopeful that the names of two units are suggested, but the author has no good alternative all for the time being. The task to prepare the appropriate names is not merely a matter of two new terms, but rather a basic skeleton of the whole theory of Han'geul. Therefore, it should be discussed systematically and integratedly. Please refer to the article of the author's(1995).

The author will discuss the graphic shape with reference to the ‘principles of making graphemes’(制字原理) in this paper. The term ‘cha’(字) means the same graphic unit as ‘cha’ in a phrase 新制二十八字. Therefore, ‘kulcha’ of a compound word ‘kulchakkol’(* A Korean word ‘kkol’ means a shape.) will be interpreted likewisely.