ScholarWorks@Y-Scholar Hub

초록

This study critically reviewed whether the Joseon Language Society’s ≪han-geul ma-chum-beob tong-il-an≫ (1933)(hereinafter referred to as ≪tong-il-an≫) could function reasonably as a standard orthograpy after unification. For this purpose, based on the ≪tong-il-an≫ as the standard, ‘Names and order of Hangeul characters’, ‘Whether initial law is applied’, ‘Whether Sai-siot is allowed’, ‘Several endings that are written differently’, and ‘Word spacing’, which are controversial issues between the South Korean and North Korean orthogrpahy are compared. As a result of the review, it was found that ≪tong-il-an≫ was not suitable as an alternative to the post-unification orthography in terms of fairness because it was too similar to the orthography of South Korea. If a standard orthograpy is established after unification based on ≪tong-il-an≫, users of Culture Language ​​in North Korea have to unilaterally give up the orthography that contains their identity. Previous studies insisted on using ≪tong-il-an≫ as a standard orthography after unification, considering the historical nature of ≪tong-il-an≫, meanwhile it is also highly probable that the technicalities of ≪tong-il-an≫ were felt to be familiar to users of the orthography of South Korea. This paper argued that in order to solve the problem of fairness, efficiency, and the function of individual orthography as a social stigma in the establishment of the standard orthography after unification, the future integrated orthography should be a compromise that does not allow multiple regulations. Also, as a compromise solution, the so-called ‘big deal in orthography’ was proposed, in which the two Koreas concede the most difficult issues to each other one by one. This paper suggests that the initial law is applied to the orthography according to the South Korean method, and Sai-Siot is to be limited on the orthography according to the North Korean method.