훔볼트 저서의 영어역,프랑스어역,일본어역에서 발견된 오역들

신익성 한글학회 1998 한글 Vol.- No.240-241

격에 대하여

신익성 한글학회 1968 한글 Vol.- No.141

광한루편액

신익성 전북역사문화학회 2008 전라북도금석문대계 Vol.2 No.-

J.R. Firth의 언어 이론 : 의미의 문제를 종심으로

신익성 서울대학교 어학연구소 1974 語學硏究 Vol.10 No.2

The purpose of the present article is to examine the relation between linguistics and the problem of meaning with special reference to Firth's theory of linguistics and his concept of meaning. Firth concerned himself mainly with the development of two new ideas, on concerning phonology and the other semantics. The central notion of Firth's semantic ideas is that of context of situation, that is, his theory of meaning. His theory of meaning is concerned with an all-embracing theory of language structure, and not merely with semantics as this term is customarily understood.^1 Firth proposes to split up meaning or function into a series of component functions. Each function will be defined as the use of some language form or element in relation to some context. According to his point of view, meaning is to be regarded as a complex of contextual relations, and phonetics, grammar, lexicography, and semantics each handles its own components of the complex in its appropriate context. His theory of meaning is radically different from the theory, considered n the traditional point of view of semantics. It is only his semantic function that is equivalent to the meaning meant by us. By semantic funtion is meant the relations between elements of linguistics structures of terms of linguistic systems and non-verbal constituents of the situation. Situations are literally infinite in both objective and subjective characterizations, whereas linguistic categories give promise of being more restricted. In practice, it is next to impossible to analyse the situations into discontinuous and divisible elements and set up the units of situation sufficient and necessary for the elucidation of the meaning of utterance. Firth's theory of meaning has not much of value to contribute to contempory linguistics.

言語學과 隣接科學

愼翼晟 서울大學校 人文學硏究所 1982 人文論叢 Vol.9 No.-

Linguists have tended to be somewhat insistent on the need for autonomy, because they have felt that, in the past, the study of language was usually subservient to and distorted by the standards of other studies such as logic, philosophy and literary criticism. The principle of 'autonomy' as it has been applied in linguistics over the last fifty years, has led to a more general conception of the nature and function of language than was possible in the earlier periods of linguistic scholarship. (J. Lyons, 1970, New Horizons in Linguistics, England) Now that linguistics has become a mature academic discipline with its own methology there is no longer the same need to insist upon the principle of 'autonomy'. That linguisticsis now less insistent on the principle of autonomy is not the tendency that linguistics only has: it is part of a marked trend in such behavioural sciences as linguistics. The barriers between different disciplines are now rapidly weakening. and multidisciplinary approches to particular problems are increasingly being undertaken. As a direct result of this trend towards multidisciplinary synthesis there has been a growth of interest in the exploration of topics in the borderlands between the territories of the older disciplines. The complementary notions-autonomy and integration have to be intimately linked. In other words, we have to pay equal attention to the specifics in the structure and in the development of any given province of knowledge, and furthermore to their common foundations and developmental lines as well as to their mutual dependence. Shortly after the Hague Congress Edward Sapir argued that linguists, whether they like or not, must become increasingly concerned with the many anthropological, sociological, and psycological problems which invade the field of language, because it is difficult for a modern linguist to confine himself to his traditional subject matter. Unless he is somewhat un imaginative, he cannot but share in some or all of the mutual interest, which link linguistics with anthorpology and the history of culture, with sociology, with psychology, with philosophy, and more remotely, with physics and phyiology' (E. Sapir, 'The Status of Linguistics as a Science,' Language 5, 1924, p.166) At present, we are faced with an urgent need for an interdisciplinary teamwork to be pursued diligently by savants of different branches. Linguists has to examine intensively the relationship between linguistics and the adjacent sciences.

`Glossematics`의 네 층에 관한 해설

신익성 한글학회 1969 한글 Vol.- No.144

Humboldt의 '형식' (Form)의 개념에 대하여

愼翼晟 서울대학교 어학연구소 1987 語學硏究 Vol.23 No.3

Humboldt's concept of 'Form' is to be interpreted from three viewpoints as Eugenio Coseriu pointed out. Firstly his concept of 'Form' is to be applied to language and to the relation of language to extralinguistic reality in the most general meaning of the 'Form'. Secondly, the concept of 'Form' is to be applied to an individual language as well as to the relation of an individual language to extralinguistic reality. In this respect, every individual language is a 'Form'. Finally, his concept of 'Form' is to be applied to the intralinguistic reality between individual language and the principles which are on the basis of the phenomena. My aim is to verify the above-mentioned three viewpoints through the quotations from his book 'Einleitung zum Kawi-Werke'.

Humboldt의 言語觀과 變形生成理論의 深層構造

愼翼晟 서울대학교 어학연구소 1979 語學硏究 Vol.15 No.1

The concepts of Sprachform, innere Sprachform and Energeia are the concepts Wilhelm von Humboldt thought very important to construct his theory of language. “Sprachform” is not an abstract form like the deep structure that is hypothesized as common to all languages. “Sprachform” is the concept in relation to an individual langage. “Innere Sprachform” is not basically different from “Sprachform” in its concept. “Innere Sprachform” too is a concept related to an individual language. “A¨ussere Sprachform” (Louis Hjelmslev’s Expression) plus “innere Sprachform” is “Sprachform”. According to Wilhelm von Humboldt, “Verbindung des Lautes mit der inneren Sprach­form” is “Sprachform”. Some transformationalists interpret Humboldt’s “Energeia” in a narrow sense. “Energeia” is not a concept only in relation to syntax. The concept of “Energeia” is not to be restricted only to the infinite use of finite rules. “Energeia” is to be interpreted in such a wide sense that “Energeia” covers the concept of “das Worten der Welt”, the word coined by Leo Weisgerber, a German linguist.

現代言語學의 觀點에서 본 Hermann Paul의 言語理論

신익성 세계평화교수협의회 1975 아카데미論叢 Vol.3 No.1

그 當時의 學問的 傾向 때문에 Paul이 추상으로 본 Usus를 더욱 많이 硏究하지 않았다는 데에 아쉬운 點이 있는 것이다. 그 當時가 實證主義 時代가 아니었다면 Paul의 學問的 方向이 달라졌을지도 모르는 일이다. 하여튼 Paul 理論은 史的言語學을 構造言語學으로 전환시킨데 있어서의 중요한 교량역할을 한 것이다. Saussure가 langue를 實質的으로 보지 않고 形式으로 본 槪念외의 중요한 槪念들이 Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte에서 많이 시사되었다는 것은 言語學史에 있어서의 Paul의 地位를 더욱 높게 하는 것이라고 筆者는 생각한다.

한국말의 구조의미론을 위한 서설

愼翼晟 서울大學校 人文學硏究所 1985 人文論叢 Vol.14 No.-

According to Pottier, Greimas and Coseriu, lexical meaning can be analyzed into sememes. Sememes are the units which correspond to the distinctive features in phonology. The methods by which we analyze the meanings of lexemes are approximately the same as th ones by which we analyze phonemes. We adopt the approach from the functional-structural point of view in semantics. Many scholars think that the methods mentioned above can be applied to the study of lexical meaning. However, we cannot but be confronted with difficult problems which cannot be overlooked. Namely, the number of units to be studied in lexematics is enormous while the number of units in phonology and grammar is much limited. Thus, one cannot but decrease the number of units to be dealt with. On has to exclude the units that cannot be structuralizable from the object of study. Eugenio Coseriu presents a criterion by which the units are excluded from consideration : terminology, metalanguage, repeated discourse are to be excluded. Meaning is generally divided into five kinds of meaning : lexical meaning, categorical meaning, instrumental meaning, syntactic meaning and ontological meaning. Our concern here will be restricted to the lexical meaning of Korean lexemes. The lexical meaning is to be investigated with respect to the lexematic structures as following: (A) Paradigmatic Structure a) Primary structure : lexical field, lexical class b) Secondary structure : modification development composition (B) Syntagmatic structures : Affinity Selection Implication Among these, lexical field, primary structure is based on Trier-Weisgerber lexical field theory. Lexical class is the concept which was reinterpreted from Coseriu's point of view. Syntagmatic structure is based upon the wesenhafte Bedeutung-Beziehungen of Porzig. In this paper I tried to investigate the lexical meaninings of Korean words in accordance with the above lexematic structures. I would like to emphasize that the method which analyzes the lexical meanings of Korean words is to be applied appropriately to such fields as language education, dictionary compilation and translation.