Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T12:41:54.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Middle Korean ㅿ and the Cheju dialect*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2011

John Stonham
John Stonham*
Affiliation:
Pukyong National University, Korea
*
stonham@pknu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

All records of Middle Korean are exclusively in the Central dialect, the prestige form spoken in the capital, and all printed material in the newly-created Hangǔl script emanated from there. For this reason, historical studies must rely on modern dialect data for comparison and reconstruction, since there are virtually no early dialect materials. In this study, I investigate the nature of the MK ㅿ, which is most often realized as /Ø/ in Modern Standard Korean, but which often surfaces as /s/ in Southern varieties, including the most conservative of these dialects, Cheju Korean. Sino-Korean forms in Cheju dialect containing an /s/ reflex of ㅿ demonstrate not only that ㅿ was realized as /z/ in such forms, but also that the dialects must have had special phonological rules to deal with their pronunciation. A further important issue concerns the nature of doublets and their treatment in both Middle Korean and Cheju dialect.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 97 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Pukyong National University for its financial support of this research through a University grant no. PKS 2006-017, for the project “Study of Cheju dialect”. I would also like to thank Eun-Sook Kim for her tireless assistance in working through the Korean textual material and her many substantive comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and two anonymous referees for their perceptive comments.

References

——, . 1588. Non.e enhay [Translation of the Confucian Analects].Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta J. and Sankoff, David. 1974. “Variable rules: performance as a statistical reflection of competence”, Language 50/ 3, 333–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheju Special Autonomous Province. 2006. Melthi-midie Ceycwu Minsok Kwankwang Taesacen [Great Cheju Folk Multimedia dictionary] (= CSAP).Google Scholar
Cho Seung-Bok, . 1967. A Phonological Study of Korean. (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensa, No 2.) Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Choi Hyon-Bae, . 1940. Hankul Kal [The Study of Hangul]. Seoul: Chongeum Sa.Google Scholar
Choi Myong-Ok, . 1978. “ㅸ, ㅿ wa Tongnam Pang'en” [ㅸ, ㅿ and Southeastern Dialects]. Ohak Yongu 14/ 2, 185–94.Google Scholar
Chung Sung-Cheol, . 1995. Ceycwuto Pang'en.uy Thongshi Umwunlon [Cheju Dialect Historical Phonology]. Seoul: Taehaksa.Google Scholar
Culin, Stewart. 1895. Korean Games with Notes on the Corresponding Games of China and Japan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. “Diglossia”, Word 15, 1959, 325–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huh Woong, . 1983. Kukohak [Korean Linguistics]. Seoul: Saem Munhwasa.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1915–20. Études sur la phonologie chinoise [Studies on Chinese Phonology]. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1923. Analytic Dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang and Norbert Dittmar, . 1979. Developing Grammars: The Acquisition of German Syntax by Foreign Workers. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1994. “Morphosyntactic variation”, in Beals, K. et al. (eds), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Kwen Cey, , Ceng Inci, and An Ci, . 1445. Yongpi echen ka.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. “Some principles of linguistic methodology”, Language in Society 1, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, Gari K. 1966. “The Korean Language Reform of 1446: The origin, background, and early history of the Korean alphabet”, PhD Thesis, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lee Iksop, and S. Robert Ramsey, . 2000. The Korean Language. Buffalo, NY: State University Of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lee Ki-mun, . 1961/1998. Kuk.e um.wun-sa yenkwu [Research on Korean Historical Phonology]. Kwuk.ehak chongse, No. 3. Seoul: Thap Chwulphan-sa.Google Scholar
Lee Ki-Mun, (comp.). 1997. Sae Kuk.e Sajon. [New Korean Dictionary] Dong-A Chulpan.Google Scholar
Lee Sung-Nyong, . 1956. “ㅿ Non-Go” [A Study of ㅿ]. Seoul National University Nonmun Chip: Inmun Sahoe Kwahak Phyeon 3, 51–235. [in Kukohak Non.go. Seoul: Tongyang Chulpansa, 1960.]Google Scholar
Legge, James. 1861. The Chinese Classics, vol. 1. London: Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1982. “On the consonant distinctions of earlier Korean”, Hankul 175, 59–172.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1994. A Reference Grammar of Korean. Rutland, VT: Tuttle Publishing.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1997. “How did Korean get -l for Middle Chinese words ending in -t?” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6/ 3, 263–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Samuel E., Yang Ha Lee, and Sung-Un Chang, . 1967. A Korean–English Dictionary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ogura, Shinpei. 1944. 韓国語方言の研究 Chōsengo hōgen no kenkyū [A Study of the Korean Dialects] v. 1–2. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1970a. “Late Middle Chinese I”, Asia Major, New Series 15/2, 197–239.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1970b. “Late Middle Chinese II”, Asia Major, New Series 16/1–2, 121–68.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1983. Middle Chinese: A Study in Historical Phonology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David and Cedergren, Henrietta J.. 1976. “The dimensionality of grammatical variation”, Language 52/ 1, 163–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1974. Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Sohn Ho-min, . 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sohn Ho-min, . 2006. Korean Language in Culture and Society. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Song Sang-Jo, . 2007. Ceycwumal Kun Sacen [Great Cheju Dictionary]. Seoul: Hankuk Munhwasa.Google Scholar
Stonham, John and Kim Eun-Sook, . 2010. “The phonetic value of Middle Korean ㅿ”, in Lee, Sang-Oak (ed.), Contemporary Korean Linguistics: International Perspectives. Seoul: Taehaksa, 348–78.Google Scholar
Swuyang (> Seyco), . 1447. Sekpo Sangcel.+Seyco),+.+1447.+Sekpo+Sangcel.>Google Scholar
Yi Hee-Seung, . 2007. Kuk.e Taysacen [Great Korean Dictionary]. Seoul: Minjung Seorim.Google Scholar
Yu Changton, . 1964/1987. Ico.e sacen [Choseon Language Dictionary]. Seoul: Yonsei Taehakkyo Chwulphan-pu.Google Scholar