Sung-Gi JON

지금까지 한국어 화법의 언어학적 연구가 직접화법과 간접화법에 거의 국한되어 있었던 것은 그동안 문학 텍스트가 화법의 본격적 연구 대상이 아니었다는 사실과 무관하지 않을 것이다. 자유간접화법(문체)이나 자유직접화법(문체)을 언급한 일부 서술학자들도 이 화법들의 포괄적 분석에 대해서는 미흡했다고 말할 수 있다. 한국어 자유간접화법의 연구는 한국어 화법의 전반적 탐구를 위해서도, 문학 텍스트의 서술적 이해를 위해서도 꼭 필요한 작업이다. 그러나 문학 텍스트의 한불번역 대조분석이 주안점의 하나가 되는 이 글은 심화된 연구보다는 시안적 연구의 성격이 보다 크다. 한국어 자유간접화법은 그 사용이 적어도 이광수의 『무정』(1917)까지 거슬러 올라갈 뿐 아니라, 2-30년대, 40년대 작가들도 즐겨 사용했으며, “사평역”이 시사하듯, 현대 작가들도 빈번히 활용하는 기법이고, 특히 서정인의 『달궁』에서는 자유간접화법이 서술의 핵심 기법으로 등장한다는 점에서, 보다 심화된 연구가 필요하다. 개화기부터 부단히 진행되어 온 ‘언문일치운동’과 무관하지 않은 것으로 보이는 이 자유간접화법은 언어학적ㆍ문학적으로도 깊이 연구되어야 하겠지만, 번역 등을 통한 대조언어학적인 작업도 연구자들은 소홀히 하지 말아야 할 것이다.

ABSTRACT Traditionally, rhetoric is defined as the study and practice of persuasion, which is, according to Richards, “the theory of the battle of words and has always been itself dominated by the combative impulse”. This seems to have remained true. Foss/Foss even say that conquest rhetoric and conversion rhetoric have become almost “default modes of communication”. Scholarly communications do not seem to operate differently. Nonetheless, we can observe the emergence of diverse wave rhetorics, community oriented, in contrast with traditional “particle rhetorics”, individual centered. In this search toward wave rhetorics, recent Asian communication studies are not to be omitted. To deepen the research on these wave rhetorics, we need to reconsider the problem of language and misunderstanding, which is a main cause for communicational conflicts. This is a long and difficult process, which demands much imagination, creativity, and endeavor, but which is also well worth it.

La critique des traductions est une considération évaluative et critique sur les pratiques traductives, et elle est en rapport incon- tournable avec l'interprétation. Pour pouvoir surmonter les problèmes de ‘traductions fautives', point vulnérable de la 'culture de traduction' coréenne, et dépasser la fidélité et la lisibilité qui sont des critères et des tâ̂ches basiques de la critique des traductions, la nécessité de la réflexion sur le rapport en question s'impose. Pour cela, nous tentons de réfléchir d'abord sur la nature du langage humain et celle de la traduction, en recourant, entre autres, à la 'sémantique générale' de Korzybski. Nous parlons ensuite d'une grammaire de traduction qui peut servir à lire et à analyser minutieusement le texte original et le texte traduit, et à les comparer d'une façon évaluative et critique. C'est un travail très largement herméneutique et rhétorique, qui dépasse la distinction binaire et simpliciste de traduction correcte/ fautive et laisse des places au choix multiple pour diverses raisons, surtout lorsque le texte original comporte une densité herméneutique, qui demande des ’lectures épaisses'. comme dans la plupart des textes de sciences humaines, y compris les textes littéraires. A la suite, nous nous interrogeons sur le processus de la traduction et celui de la critique des traductions, qui peut ê̂tre envisagée de façon interne ou externe, à l'aide d'un certain nombre de herméneuticiens et de rhétoriciens, afin de trouver une alternative à notre pratique actuelle de la critique des traductions. C'est un chemin qui peut nous conduire, espérons­nous, à une nouvelle 'science humaine traductive', qui deviendra sans doute des facteurs de l'innovation et de la réfor­ mation des sciences humaines coréennes actuelles.

On peut difficilement dire que la sémiologie du langage est une source
importante dans la considération traductologique d'aujourd'hui. Mais, les
Ecrits de linguistique générale de Saussure, récemment découverts, et les
études concernés nous font sentir le besoin de reconsidérer la traduction
et la critique des traductions du point de vue de la sémiologie du
langage. Cette reconsidération, qui doit être complétée nécessairement par
la prise en considération de la grammaire de traduction, de la rhétorique,
et de l'herméneutique, peut être un chemin ouvert qui nous mène, au-delà
de la “culture de mauvaises traductions”, vers les sciences humaines de
traduction de demain.

On peut difficilement dire que la sémiologie du langage est une source
importante dans la considération traductologique d'aujourd'hui. Mais, les
Ecrits de linguistique générale de Saussure, récemment découverts, et les
études concernés nous font sentir le besoin de reconsidérer la traduction
et la critique des traductions du point de vue de la sémiologie du
langage. Cette reconsidération, qui doit être complétée nécessairement par
la prise en considération de la grammaire de traduction, de la rhétorique,
et de l'herméneutique, peut être un chemin ouvert qui nous mène, au-delà
de la “culture de mauvaises traductions”, vers les sciences humaines de
traduction de demain.

What is the humanities? How to study the humanities? These are the
fundamental questions that Korean researchers of the humanities should ask,
if they really want to overcome thoroughly the problems or the obstacles
they face painfully nowadays. Among many possibilities, I strongly
recommand the Hakmun-Seon(學問禪), which intends to inherit the
Wonhyo’s philosophy and his Seon(禪), through the Problematology, and
particularly the Philosophy of Conscience and its Conscience-Seon(良心禪).
The main axes of the Hakmun-Seon, in which IQ, EQ and specially SQ cowork
harmoniously, are two inseparable parts: (1) Metacognitive Analysis by
“Gyeong-in-ui-ye-ji-sin”(敬仁義禮智信) of Confusianism, or Six Paramitas
of Bouddhism, in the Spiritual level; (2) Research Approach by means of
“Hak-mun-sa-byeon-haeng”(學問思辯行) of “Chungyong”(中庸). The
Hakmun-Seon, which is a sort of “Meta-Research” in the Scholarly Studies,
is also a Inmun-Seon(人文禪), comprising Hwajaeng-Seon(和諍禪) and
Translation-Seon(飜譯禪). This InmunSeon, much more inclusive than the
traditional Bouddhist Seon[Zen], can be hopefully a good way of Research
for Korean Humanities Studies.

Historically, the Hwajaeng(和諍) theory of Wonhyo(617-686) can not be rightly understood without the consideration of the two main axes: Ilsim­Hwajaeng­Muae(一心-和諍-無碍) and Gwi-il-sim-weon Yo-ik-jung-saeng(歸一心源 饒益衆生). From the perspective of recent Wonhyo­Seon(禪) researches, where these two axes seem to play the same role, Hwajaeng need to be inevitably Hwajaeng­Seon(禪). However, the Wonhyo­Seon(禪), as presented in these researches, is not only easy to understand ‘theoretically’, but also seems very difficult to practice, because it needs particlularly a very high level achivement in Ilsim(一心). In this situation, the Conscience­Seon(良心禪) of the Philosophy of Conscience lead us to understand and practice relatively easily Hwajaeng as Hwajaeng­Seon(和諍禪), even before the Experience of Enlightment, no matter what is our level in Ilsim(一心). The Conscience­Seon, which can be said to be a modern version of the Wonhyo­Seon, is ‘Six Paramitas­Seon’, for Six Paramitas are the very Virtues of the Conscience(良心). The Whajaeng­Seon can be defined as «Immersion and Immersion­Thinking about Hwajaeng or Hwajaeng research, as Jungyong’s ‘Hak­mun­sa­byeon­haeng’(學問思辯行), accompanied by Metacognitive Six Paramitas Analysis». The Immersion­Thinking is possible only if the True­Self is awaked by Immersion in our Ego(generally more than 51%). The interpretation of Seonjeong(禪定) and Jihye(智慧), two basic axes of ‘Seon Practice’(禪修行), into ‘Immersion and Immersion­Thinking’ means the «Humanistic Turn», that of Buddhist Wonhyo­Seon into Spiritual Conscience­Seon. To search continously the insightful «Way of Jungyong(中庸)», intending ‘the Perfecting of Self for perfecting Others’(自利利他), based on the True­Self, this ceaseless pursuit of harmony between Six Paramitas and Jungyong, in various cases of Hwajaeng or Hwajaeng research, is the core of the Whajaeng­Seon.

Historically, the Hwajaeng(和諍) theory of Wonhyo(617-686) can not be rightly understood without the consideration of the two main axes: Ilsim­Hwajaeng­Muae(一心-和諍-無碍) and Gwi-il-sim-weon Yo-ik-jung-saeng(歸一心源 饒益衆生). From the perspective of recent Wonhyo­Seon(禪) researches, where these two axes seem to play the same role, Hwajaeng need to be inevitably Hwajaeng­Seon(禪). However, the Wonhyo­Seon(禪), as presented in these researches, is not only easy to understand ‘theoretically’, but also seems very difficult to practice, because it needs particlularly a very high level achivement in Ilsim(一心). In this situation, the Conscience­Seon(良心禪) of the Philosophy of Conscience lead us to understand and practice relatively easily Hwajaeng as Hwajaeng­Seon(和諍禪), even before the Experience of Enlightment, no matter what is our level in Ilsim(一心). The Conscience­Seon, which can be said to be a modern version of the Wonhyo­Seon, is ‘Six Paramitas­Seon’, for Six Paramitas are the very Virtues of the Conscience(良心). The Whajaeng­Seon can be defined as «Immersion and Immersion­Thinking about Hwajaeng or Hwajaeng research, as Jungyong’s ‘Hak­mun­sa­byeon­haeng’(學問思辯行), accompanied by Metacognitive Six Paramitas Analysis». The Immersion­Thinking is possible only if the True­Self is awaked by Immersion in our Ego(generally more than 51%). The interpretation of Seonjeong(禪定) and Jihye(智慧), two basic axes of ‘Seon Practice’(禪修行), into ‘Immersion and Immersion­Thinking’ means the «Humanistic Turn», that of Buddhist Wonhyo­Seon into Spiritual Conscience­Seon. To search continously the insightful «Way of Jungyong(中庸)», intending ‘the Perfecting of Self for perfecting Others’(自利利他), based on the True­Self, this ceaseless pursuit of harmony between Six Paramitas and Jungyong, in various cases of Hwajaeng or Hwajaeng research, is the core of the Whajaeng­Seon.