in North Korea

Chin- Wu Kim
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

Linguistics and language policies

IN discussing the development of linguistics and language policies in North Korea since World War II, I will divide this article into the following three areas and discuss them in this order: general linguistics in North Korea, Korean linguistics in North Korea, and language policies in North
Korea.1

There is not enough evidence to indicate that general linguistics developed significantly or became a field of active interest in North Korea. Although I have come across a reference to two books in introductory linguistics with no information on date or place of publication, one by Song S-ryong and the other by R. A. Budagov (Korean edition), I have not seen a book in general linguistics, original or translated, published in North Korea since 1945.2 North Korean books and journal articles do not show any exposure to or influence of recent developments in linguistic theories in the West.3 Most references to and citations of foreign works are limited to those published in Europe and Russia prior I have come across only two articles in comparative linguistics, one by Hong Ki-mun (1959b) and the other by Ch'oe Jng-hu (1964). The former, titled "Relationship Between Korean and Mongolian," was presented to the first congress of Mongologists (in language and literature), held in P'yngyang September 1-8, 1959. Participating were scholars
from nine nations: China, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary,
to 1950.

1. General Linguistics in North Korea

Mongolia, Poland, Rumania, the Soviet Union, and North Korea. This is the only international meeting in linguistics held in North Korea that I

160???

know of. I do not know whether subsequent congresses were ever held, either in North Korea or elsewhere. Hong cites some shared vocabulary between Korean and Mongolian and some Korean borrowings from Mongolian (an interesting example: Korean selleng-thang is said to be from the Mongolian sulu 'soup'). Hong also notes that among the four languages (Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian, and Yuchen) that were subjects of study and translation at the Sayk-wn (Office of Language and Translation), which was established in 1393 during the Yi dynasty, only Mongolian had an alphabetic, not syllabic, writing system. The implication is that han'gl, which King Sejong invented in 1443, may have been modeled after the Mongolian script in principle if not in form. Ch'oe's 1964 article, entitled "Problems in Ural-Altaic Hypothesis," is an example of how much North Korean scholars are unaware of recent developments in the field. He accuses Ramstedt (the Finnish scholar who first proposed the Korean Altaic affinity) of having worn "Altaic glasses" biasing everything he saw, brands the view of such Japanese scholars as Kanazawa and Kono that Korean and Japanese are ge-

netically related as "imperialistic and colonialistic," and concludes that the Ural-Altaic hypothesis has made no change or progress since Strahlenberg's first postulation in 1930. He seems to be unaware that the UralAltaic hypothesis is no longer held by scholars and that Altaic linguistics
has made significant progress.

tion and methodology in linguistic studies. Thus, compared with Korean linguistics in South Korea, which was primarily concerned with genealogy, historical phonology (especially that of Middle Korean), and morphology, Korean linguistics in North Korea emphasized lexicology (word structure), grammatical categories and syntax. This trend is statistically borne out. Of 132 journal articles that I have been able to consult,4 nearly half (48.5 percent) are devoted to the latter areas, while

had access were Russian, and Russian studies served as a model in direc-

2. Korean Linguistics in North Korea Due to the particular political environment of postwar North Korea, the only foreign publications to which North Korean linguistic scholars

phonological and morphological articles constitute only one-third of this

number.3 There may also be a political current behind this trend in the sense that it reflects the party's policy that sought from the beginning to socialize the language, refine the vocabulary, and prescribe correct usage of the language, rather than to delve into the past of the language. In any case, it is worth mentioning that in the areas of grammatical categories and syntax, until recently North Korea was ahead of South Korea by as
much as a decade in some individual cases. For instance, Lym Chong-

LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE POLICIES161

nyul's (1959a) article on Middle Korean genitives (in particular, his differentiation between animate and inanimate genitives) preceded a similar article in South Korea by An Pyong-hi (1968). Articles on the problem of double cases (for example, kumkang-san-i kyengchi-ka coh-ta 'Mt. Kumkang is beautiful'; na-nun paym-i cinggulep-ta ? hate snakes') by Hong Ki-mun (1959a; Hong terms the sentences with double cases the most difficult to analyze in Korean) and Kim Paek-nyn (1960) by exactly ten years preceded those in South Korea by Park Soon-ham (1970) and Lee Hong-bae (1970) on the same subject. This is not to imply that all articles are of the same merit or that the scope of the subjects is the same, but only that the initial observations on some subjects were made in
North Korea earlier than in South Korea. The relative merits and scopes

of study vary widely. For example, LyOm (1959) does not discuss the honorific genitive -5 in Middle Korean that An (1968) does, nor does he approach An's meticulousness in analysis. Park (1970) is an application of Fillmore's theory of case grammar, and Lee (1970) is a dissertation written within the framework of generative semantics in which the subject of double cases is only a part of a larger argument. One can mention three major achievements of linguistic scholars of grammar) in two volumes in 1960-1961; the second is publication of Cosen-mal sacen (A dictionary of the Korean language) in six volumes in 1960-1962; and the third is the language policies they formed and implemented. Of the last feat, more in the final section of this article. About the dictionary, I have little to say as I have not gone through it, except to note that, with 187,137 entries in 5,054 pages, it compares favorably in size and contents with its South Korean counterpart, Khun sacen (Big dictionary; Ulyu-munhwa-sa, 1947-1955), also in sue volumes. What I will do next will be to discuss several items and points in Cosen-e
munpep and a few notable articles. postwar North Korea. One is publication of Cosen-e munpep (A Korean

Cosen-e munpep, together with Cosen-mal sacen, is a collective work of North Korean linguistic scholars belonging to the Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Academy of Social Sciences. Both were published to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of liberation. They are thus a culmination of fifteen years of work by North Korean linguists. (It may be mentioned here that they were originally intended to commemorate the tenth anniversary, but it is claimed that they were delayed due to the Korean War.) It is to their credit that such collective and authoritative works were accomplished. In the preface (vol. 1, p. 4) of Cosen-e munpep, it is insightfully stated that munpep (grammar) can be either a description of structures of a language or a scientific study of this first-order grammar, a distinction

162

KIM

that was only recently emphasized in post-Chomskian linguistics in the

West.

On page 12 is given the following vowel chart:

Front closed half-closed Central Back

U) wi [U] M flU) ey [e] oy [0] ay [ae]

u[i]

(-T-) wu [u] U) o[o] e [3]

i

half-open
open

a [a]

( ) = rounded

It is worth noting that (a) both [] -ri and [0] -^l are regarded as simple pure

vowels (not as complex vowels [wi], [we]) and (b) [a] 1 is regarded as a
back vowel rather than as a central vowel, although a note on page 8

The consonant chart is given on page 16. One interesting point is that s, ss, and / U , ^ , s ) are classified as prepalatals together with c, ch, and cc U , ^- , ** ). It has been traditional to group them together with t and ? ( c , *- ) as dentals. I am not sure the chart reflects the pronunciation of the standard (P'yngyang) dialect. There are thirteen diagrams showing various tongue positions (whether they are actual X-ray tracings is nowhere specified), but none substantiates the claim that s, ss, In discussing umlaut (pp. 55-56), for example, [mak-hi-ta] ? [moek-hi-ta], [cep-hi-ta]? [arp-hi-ta], [ami]? [emi], [mak-i-ta] ? [mek-i-ta], [sok-i-ta] *-[s g k-i-ta], and so on, and in discussing ldropping (p. 61), for example, so(l)-namu, atu(l)-nim, pu(l)-sap, pu(l)cok, pu(l)-tang, and so on, there is no mention that the intervening consonant must be a peripheral one (p, m, k) in the former case, but that the consonant following / in the latter case must be a central one (n, t, s, c). It is observed (p. 62) that intervoicing A -deletion applies only to native Korean words (for example, co(h)uni, il(h)uni, man(h)i) but not to Sino-Korean words. I think this is true only in true intervocalic position (for example, poho, kihu, ihay), for [kano] from kanho and [kysron]
from kyelhon are quite possible. and / are prepalatals.

mentions that some scholars have different views on this vowel.

LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE POLICIES163

made that the affixai vowel following the verbal stems that end in i 1 , ay ? ,ey fl ,oy -A , and wi -H is ye i , for example, ki-ye, may-ye, pey-ye,

While discussing vowel harmony (pp. 56-59), an interesting claim is

toy-ye, ttwi-ye, and so on. This shows that they have given the full morphophonemic status to the excrescent sound [y] that is often present between the vowels just mentioned and the following affixal vowel e or a. One consequence of this is that to account for the forms like tanye from tanie, hulye from hulie, salphye from salphie, and so on, they are forced that is tani-ye+-tan-ye, rather than say that /' is devocalized before another vowel, a quite general phenomenon in Korean. A more serious problem arises with the verb stems like may- 'to tie' . To me, may-ye-ss-ia [maeystta] is only a Passive Past from may-i-ess-ta, never an Active Past, which is simply [maetta] from may-ess-ta. In discussing phonological alternations, they do not seem to distinguish between obligatory alternation (for example, o-a-se+-wase, ci-ese 'lose'*~ce-se) and optional alternation (for example, po-ase+-pwase, kaci-e*-kace). I will now mention a couple of phonological articles before returning to Cosen-e munpep, vol. 2. Kim Yng-hwang (1959a) makes the interesting statement that in the [1] ~ [r] alternation in Korean, [r] should be regarded as the basic form and [I] as its unreleased variant. This is quite the opposite of the traditional view but is in conformity with other cases where the basic form appears intervocalically and the unreleased variant syllable-finally. Kim's view is quite attractive and insightful. He also makes two generalizations about Korean phonology: (a) the manner of articulation takes more functional load in Korean than the place of articulation and (b) a phonetic variant involving a change in the place of articulation never invades the territory of another phoneme. Lee Se-yong (1960) discusses in two parts the syllable, its structure, and sai sios (Bindungs-s). Most startling are his disagreement with Alena SkaliCkava (1950), who described Korean stops in terms of the way- they connect to the following vowel (p, t, A:basic normal connection; ph, th, khloose connection; pp, tt, kkclose connection) and his own proposal (observation?) that Korean stops are characterized by the degree of vocal cord opening (p, t, Ar-medium opening of the vocal cords; ph, th, khopen vocal cords; pp, tt, kkclosed vocal cords), something that I (Kim 1970) could verify experimentally much later. I return now to Cosen-e munpep, vol. 2. This syntax volume is roughly divided into three parts: (a) grammatical relations of words (endocentric, exocentric, and so on), (b) types of sentences (declarative, into say that the final stem vowel / is deleted before the affixal vowel ye,

164KiM

terrogative, imperative, and so on), and (c) structures of sentences (simple and complex). The last part occupies much of the volume (pp. 94-287) and may be indicative of the fact that North Korean linguists regard it as constituting the central concern of grammar. Yet their methodology here is largely taxonomic and amounts to an exercise in nomenclature and classification. For example, complex sentences are divided into the following structures: I.combinatory complex sentences a)subject clause b)predicate clause c)modifier clause e)adverbial clause II.conjunctive complex sentences a)coordinate
1.connective 2.contrastive 3.isolative

d)complement clause

b)subordinate 1.temporal

2.causal 3.conditional

III.mixed complex sentences: combination of combinatory and conjunctive complex sentences.

this section.

4.oppositional

I will mention only one or two more articles of interest before I close Chng Lyl-mo (1959) is noteworthy because it states clearly that

theory is inducible from sentences. This view of grammar is precisely the same as that of structuralists but is quite incompatible with that of the generative-transformationalists. Interestingly enough, however, Chng departs from structuralism and approaches transformationalism by observing that the following three sentences, despite their structural disparities, are semantically the same:

sentences are not generated by deduction from a theory but rather that a

nay-key ton-i iss-ta (to me, money exists)}

na-nun ton-ul kaci-ko iss-ta (I possess money)

na-nun ton-i iss-ta (as for me, money exists)

and therefore that forms or structures alone should not define sentential characters.

! <

? have money'

Chang Sk-hun (1967) examines a special relation that exists be-

LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE POLICIES165

tween certain nouns and their predicates that are unique and predicable, for example, hes-mul khye-tasayng-ttay ssu-ta nwunchi-pap mek-takwun-chim samkhi-ta He observes further the different degrees of freedom of grammatical Voice of such sentences, for example, Word______________Active________________Passive/Causative____
ssu-ta ssi-wu-ta

kamthwu

hes-mul

kawi_______________*nwulu-ta______________nwul-li-ta___________

khye-ta

*khi-i-ta

Time and space do not permit me to discuss other areas in Korean linguistics, for example, dialectology, historical linguistics, Chinese loanwords, sound symbolism, and so on, although I have seen a considerable number of articles on these. (In dialectology, for example, see Lee Kkno 1963 and Chng Lyl-mo 1963; in historical linguistics, see Kim

Yng-hwang 1959b and Ch'oe ng-Che 1960; for the problem of Chi-

nese loanwords, see Chng Lyl-mo 1960a, Hong Ki-mun 1961, and Kim Chu-ch'l 1966; and for sound symbolism in Korean, see Lee Ik-sn 1959.) Suffice it to say that most significant developments in Korean linguistics in postwar North Korea seem to have been made in the areas of lexicology, grammatical categories, and syntax. I have already men-

tioned that studies on Case seemed to be ahead of those in South Korea

by as much as a decade. Studies in Tense and Aspect were just as active (see Lee Ch'ang-gn 1959, Kim Paek-nyn 1964, and Ha Ch'i-jin 1964).6 Since much of lexicology was related to language policy, I defer its discussion to the following section.

3. Language Policies in North Korea In general, there can be several different types of language policies. There are language policies for one's own country; there are language policies for colonies and territories; and there can be language policies toward or against foreign nations. The first case can be further subdivided into that of a monolingual society and that in which one political union consists of multilingual speech communities. Language policies in North Korea are largely those of one monolingual nation. If North Korea ever formed a language policy for or against South Korea, it was never made public. (One exception will be cited later.) This contrasts with military and political strategies against South Korea that North
Korea has adopted over the years .

166???

In discussing language policies in North Korea, I will not adopt the periodization that Professor Kim Min-su makes in his two articles on language education and policy in North Korea (Kim, 1972, 1973). He divides the thirty years following the war into three periods of roughly one
decade each:

Period 1 1945-1954 Thongil-an sitay (Period of Unified Orthography) Period 2 1954-1966 Chelca-pep sitay (Period of Divided Orthography) Period 3 1966-present Kyupem-cip sitay (Period of Prescriptivism) This demarcation is primarily based on different orthographic conventions that North Korea adopted. During Period 1, the Unified Orthography (thong-il-an) that was devised in 1933 by a pan-Korean panel of linguists was used. Since this system was also adopted in postwar South Korea, both North and South had the same orthographic conventions during this period. In April 1954, however, a new set of orthographic conventions (Cosen-e chelca-pep) was proclaimed,1 heralding Period 2, which ended in July 1966, when Cosen-mal kyupem-cip (A collection of prescriptions on the Korean language) was published (Period 3).* While Kim's periodization is not arbitrary, it is also not significant. Language policy is more than an orthographic convention. If an event makes a demarcation point, Kim Il Sung's 1964 "conversations with linguists" (more about this later) is a much more significant and epochal milestone in language policy in North Korea than is the publication of a book on orthographic conventions. Here I will not attempt any periodization; instead, I will examine three general directions in which North Korean language policies were led, largely by the party. They are: (a) socialization, (b) nativization, and (c) prescriptivism. While initiation of these movments was chronologically done roughly in that order, a new movement went in parallel with an old one, and it seems pointless to atSocialization of the language, especially the written language, started very early. At the end of the war, the number of illiterates in North Korea was 2,300,000, almost one-quarter of the population. In January 1946, the establishment of "adult schools" (sengin hakkyo) and han 'gl schools began in every village of the country, and it is claimed that, as a result, illiteracy totally disappeared by the end of 1948 (see editorial, Cosen ehak, 1965.4). If true, this is a remarkable achievement and contrasts with the situation in South Korea, where, as of the winter
tempt a forced demarcation.

of 1954, there were 3,105,000 illiterates. In a speech given at a general meeting of party members, educators, and artists,' Kim Il Sung himself

LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE POLICIES

167

called for socialization of the language. As a result, exclusive use of han 'gl was adopted. The use of Chinese characters was abolished on the grounds that the knowledge of Chinese (characters) was a property of only a few, that it was, therefore, feudalistic, and that only the exclusive use of han 'gl would make publications readable by the general public. This socialization movement gradually and naturally led to nativization of the language. Not only was the use of Chinese characters abolished, but also Sino-Korean words and phrases were either disused or translated into pure Korean words. Recent loanwords from Japanese, Russian, and English were not spared the axe either. Some examples of change are: kum-il+- o-nul 'today'; kwan-cel+-ppye-mati 'bone joint'; cen-lyel+-aph-cwul 'front row'; cek-ki+~cey-ttay 'the right time'; chwun-chwu+-pom-kaul 'spring and autumn'; theym-pho ? sok-to 'speed'; ppul-lan+- kyey-hoyk 'plan'; ecu-pong+- yang-pok paci 'Western trousers'; wuwagi +-yang-pok cekoli 'Western jacket'. The nativization movement did not stop here. Extinct words were resurrected, for example, tung-kwul-i 'peeled log', min-chwum-ha-ta 'foolish and immature', and new words were created in analogy to some existing word pattern, for example, kalang-pha 'thin green onion' in analogy to kalang-pi 'light misty rain' and nal-panul 'a needle without thread' in analogy to nal-koki 'raw meat'. In some cases, a German example (of the type Unterseeboot "under-sea-boat" for 'submarine', Fernsprecher "a long-distance-speaker" for 'telephone', and so on) was followed. Thus we find examples like mil-phuleki 'soup with wheatflour', kaul-keli (Sino-Korean chwuswu) 'harvest', and mom-may-tti ("band-for-body-style") 'corset'. Scientific and technical terminology was also given new Korean dressing (for linguistic terminology, see Appendix 3). All of these efforts were commendable, but I feel that in some cases, the zeal was a little excessive. Following are some amusing examples from Hong Yn-suk (1973):
South Korean, Sino-Korean,
or loanword

North Korean

pokkum-meli kyun kkangkuli cwukiki

cik-sung pihayng-ki olunccok cwung-kan pang-e-swu kin yel-lak

ttok-ttak tanchwu

phama myel-kyun

'disinfection'

'perma'

'helicopter' 'right halfback' 'hook' (button)

'long pass' (of a ball)

168KiM

While some of these examples admittedly are far-fetched, it is not clear

whether the nativization movement itself was also far-fetched. Professor

Kim Min-su is of the opinion that it was an act of camouflage, "linguistic engineering to treat the complications developed from the exclusive use ofA7i'g/"(1973,p.267).

strengthened and was given new direction in a "dialogue with linguists" on January 3, 1964. In this "dialogue," Kim Il Sung called for refinement of the Korean language and defined the task of linguists. Kim said
that linguists should coin scientific and technical words and should "straighten out" loanwords. As for Sino-Korean words especially, Kim
tion of Sino-Korean words and then should decide which Sino-Korean

Whatever the reason, the nativization movement was further

said that linguists should investigate the extent of the use and the proporwords should be discarded and replaced by native Korean words (for example, sang-cen+~ppong-path, yang-cam+- nwuey-chiki, sek-kyo
? tol-talith) and which Sino-Korean words should be kept (for examthis was done, those Sino-Korean words to be discarded should be taken

ple, hak-kyo, sam-kak-hyeng, nong-ep). Kim recommended that once

out of public sight by removing them not only from public school textbooks but also from dictionaries. Kim lamented that the six-volume

Cosen-mal sacen looked like a Chinese dictionary (ok-phyen). (One immediate result of this was compilation of a "modern" dictionary of Korean, Hyen-tay Cosen-mal sacen. ) Not only should Sino-Korean and other loanwords be controlled out of use, but Kim also directed that "undesirable and arbitrarily used" (native) words should be barred from use, and "desirable" words should be coined and put to use by introducing them in school textbooks and by training language teachers to train others to refine their language. Prescriptivism was born. A dictionary was no longer a reference dictionary but a prescriptive one. Language guided by a specific policy. Kim reiterated his policy in a directive given on May 14, 1966. He suggested that children and villages be named in native Korean words and proposed the term munhwa-e ("cultured language") as the name for the standard and polished ("cultured") language of North Korea based on the P'yngyang dialect, since the term phyocwun-e ("standard language") can be taken to be the South Korean language based on the Expectedly, Kim's directive was followed by a host of supporting editorials (see editorials Cosen emun, 1966.3 and 1967.3), articles (see Lee Kn-yng 1966, Kim Su-gyng 1967, Pak Hong-jun 1967), a new dictionary (previously mentioned), a new journal, Munhwa-e hak-sup
Seoul dialect. was not to be left alone to live its own Ufe but was to be molded and

LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE POLICIES1 69

(Cultured language learning) for the purpose of carrying out language refinement and its propagation, and a book of prescriptions, Cosen-mal kyupem-cip (A collection of prescriptions on the Korean language, 1968). In the periodicals Lotong sinmun and Mincwu Cosen, a column has been established to introduce a dozen or two "refined" words every
week.

evitable consequence is probably a greater linguistic divergence between Yn-suk 1973 for some examples). Kim Il Sung himself must have had

It is difficult to see where such language policies would lead. One in-

North and South Korea. Signs of this are already appearing (see Hong

this in mind when in his 1964 "dialogue" he objected to and halted Kim Tu-bong's attempt to revise the Korean alphabet. Even if some revision is scientifically and linguistically justifiable, he said, it should wait until the day of unification (of North and South Korea), lest there be too great a divergence between the two writing systems. Much as Sino-Korean words were abhorred, he directed that Chinese characters be kept alive on the grounds that South Korea was still using them and that mutual intelligibility should be maintained. As a result, public education in Chinese characters was resurrected at the rate of one hour per week in high school. Interestingly enough, English was also revived to the same level, but Russian instruction was reduced from three hours to only one hour per week. One can only speculate whether this is, at least in part, an admission and an excuse for the failure of the policy of exclusive use of han 'gl and whether it reflects the change in North Korea's foreign policy with respect to the Soviet Union and the West.
NOTES

1 . I will use the popular name North Korea instead of the official Democratic People's Republic of Korea. For contrastive purposes, I will also refer to the Republic of Korea simply as South Korea. For the romanization of Korean, I have used the Yale system, except for proper names. In carrying out this study, I was hampered by the paucity of data as well as by the difficulty of obtaining access to available data. Only a few items concerning North Korean language and linguistics have been published in South Korea (Hong, Y. S., 1973; Kim, M. S., 1972, 1973), and I could only glance at the data that the Central Intelligence Agency of South Korea has compiled on vocabulary and language policy in North Korea. This study is largely based on the collections of North Korean journals and books in the libraries of Harvard University, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Hawaii, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I would like to acknowledge the following people for assisting me with data collection: Dr. Y. K. Kim-Renaud (NSF), Mrs. K. Richards (Berkeley), and Mr. S. O. Lee (Illinois). In Korea, I had the generous assistance of Prof. Min-Su Kim of Korea University and Prof. Soo-Hee Toh of Choong-nam University. Despite efforts to obtain as much data as possible, it must be said that this study is quite incomplete and limited in scope. No library had a complete series of journals and books, and furthermore no item bore a publication date of 1970 or thereafter. I take this, of course, not as an indication that linguistics stopped abruptly in 1970 but

170KiM

simply as a reflection of the normal time lag required for North Korean publications to

reach the West. I defer a fuller study to the future. 2.For a list of major publications in linguistics in North Korea since World War II, see Appendix 2. 3.One can conveniently divide the short history of linguistics into four periods: (1)

historical-comparativethe nineteenth century; (2) traditional-prescriptivethe first third

of the twentieth century; (3) structural-descriptivethe second third of the twentieth cenhas not received any impact from the last two periods. Achievements in Russian linguistics during the first half of the century naturally had an easier way to reach North Korea and gave a grammatical model to Korean linguistics there. 4.Although there are three periodicals dealing with language, there is (was?) only one scholarly journal in Korean linguistics. This journal changed its name several times. It apparently started in March 1949 under the name Cosen-e yenkwu [Studies in the Korean language]. Sometime in the early 1950s, it wed literature and changed its name to Cosen emun [Korean language and literature]. The marriage lasted until 1961 when the two separated, the name of the journal then becoming Cosen ehak [Korean linguistics]. After five years, the two reconciled and became in 1966 Emun yenkwu [Studies in language and literature]. The last issue of 1967 bears the serial number 60. I have not seen any issue subsequent to this. In February 1958, a magazine designed for the general public was started. Named MaIkwa kul [Speech and writing], it was first bimonthly, then became a monthly in 1959. was started. The term munhwa-e *culture(d) language' refers to the standard North Korean language based on P'yngyang dialect. The fact that there was a rather drastic change in language policy at that time and the fact that I have not seen any issue o Emun yenkwu dated after 1967 lead me to suspect that this new quarterly, more political but less scholarly, replaced Emun yenkwu. 5.The 132 articles consisted of 15 (1 1 .4 percent) in phonetics and phonology, 7 (5.3 percent) in morphology, 21 (15.9 percent) in lexicology, 14 (10.6 percent) on grammatical categories, 24 (18.2 percent) on syntax, 5 (3.8 percent) on semantics, 17 (12.9 percent) historical and comparative articles, 8 (6 percent) on dialectology, 15 (11.4 percent) on language education, and 6 (4.5 percent) on other topics. 6.To review only one, Lee Ch'ang-kOn (1959), examining the tense morpheme ass that conveys both Past and Present Perfect, rejects the view (of Ch'oe Hyn-bae and Holodovich) that it is a case of homonyms, that is, the two different morphemes happen to have the same pronunciation, and rejects the view (of, for example, Hong Ki-mun) that it is one morpheme with two meanings. Lee contends that Korean has no separate tense categories of Past and Present Perfect and that the two are simply different Aspects of one and the same Tense. His position on ass-ess (Pluperfect) is that this is also an Aspect of Past Tense in which the meaning of Pluperfect is simply derived from the aspect of older Past; this is less convincing. 7.The new orthographic convention (Cosen-e chelca-pep) was based on morphological principles rather than on phonetic/phonological principles. Thus, ^7 tal-kyal was to be / intervocalically, but as or 0 initially) were to be written with / throughout, for example, ^-%[ lak-wen 'paradise' (SK: ^Q nak-wen), %1=4 lyang-sim 'conscience' (SK: a*\ yangJWi). Sai hiuh -4o] *l t (intervening A) was recognized to be written independently, rather than as an aspiration of the following obstruent, for example, cf^j ~&{- ta-ceng-h-ta (SK: t\*? B)- ta-ceng-tha), S] * ^tH] lyey-h-ken-tey (SK : ?\ ?i\ yey-khen-tey), and so on, and sai sios -40I A (intervening s) that intensifies the following consonant or gives rise to ? before a vowel was to be represented simply as an apostrophe, for example, y\ ' "J; ki'pal (SK: H*t kis-pal), ' ? il'kun (SK: "I^ il-kuri), ? nac 'il (SK: nac-il), d|* 0J tay'iph (SK: tayn-niph <^?), and so forth. It is also Cosen-e chelca-pep that specifies that the affixal vowel following the verbal stems ending in i, ay, ey, oy, should be ye, which I have already discussed in the text. It also specifies that some vowels must be written in the umlauted form (for example, *j o] cayng-i, not ^J-] cang-), and that the word wen-su 4It

tury; (4) transformational-generativepresent. It can be said that North Korean linguistics

In 1968, a new quarterly journal titled Munhwa-e haksup [Cultured language learning]

rewritten as ^"-k talk-al, and Sino-Korean morphemes that begin with / (pronounced as

LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE POLICIES171 'enemy' must be spelled and pronounced wen-ssu -^ ? , probably to avoid a quite undesirable homonymity with wen-su 'marshal, head of state' as in Kim Il Sung wen-su. (By analogy, ^? pok-sswu is 'revenge', -4-t pok-su 'a plural number'. In South Korea, both are -^=pok-su.) 8.Cosen-mal kyupem-cip is divided into four sections: (1) orthography, (2) spacing, (3) punctuation, and (4) pronunciation. Changes in orthography include reversion to an old practice of abolishing sai hiuh (intervening h) and apostrophes representing sai sios (intervening s) and recognition that Sino-Korean morphemes that originally began with /, which is never pronounced, and show no alternation with / anywhere may be written as pronounced, for example, na-phal 'bugle', yu-li 'glass'. New regulations governing spacing stipulate that there should be no spacing between words in a compound noun, for example, Pyeng-yang = cong-hap = tay-hak-kyo 'P'yngyang University' (= indicates a potential space); between verbal stem and its auxiliary, for example, po-ko = siph-ta 'like to see', ilk-ko = iss-ta 'is reading', ol-tus = ha-ta 'likely to come'; between a quantifier and the following noun, for example, il=nyen 'one year', sel-hun = khyeley 'thirty pairs'; within an idiomatic phrase, for example, kot-i = kot-tay-lo 'insistently', a-nin-key = a-ni-la 'indeed'; or in technical and academic terminology, for example, na-to = kwuk-su= na-mu (name of plant), cak-un = mul=pyeng-a-li (species of chicken). In the pronunciation section, it is prescribed that the complex vowel wi (t| ) should be pronounced as a simple monophthongal vowel [U] (= IPA [y]), that Sino-Korean morphemes 3] kyey, N] lyey, and 3] hyey should be pronounced simply as ? key, si] ley, and 11 hey, and that the syllable-final h should be variously pronounced as in the following: coh-ta [cotha], coh-ni [conni], tah-a [taa], ma-hun [mahin], hi-uh [hiit], hi-uh-i [hiisi]. It is also prescribed that the initial / in SinoKorean words be pronounced as / [r], for example, lo-tong [rodon] (SK: [nodon]). 9.This speech was given in May 1946. The text appears in Kim Il Sung Cecak Sencip [Selected works of Kim Il Sung], vol. 1 (1963), pp. 97-98, under the title "ene taycwung-hwa" [socialization of language].
APPENDIX 1

Selected Bibliography and References Unless otherwise indicated, all are journal articles published in North Korea. See note 4 for a list of journals. For a list of books, see Appendix 2. An Pyng-hi. 1968. Cwungsey-kwuke-uy sokkyek-emi s-ey tay haye [On the genitive ^s in Middle Korean], Lee Sung-nyng Festschrift. Seoul: Ulyu-munhwa-sa. Chang Sk-hun. 1967. Cosene-uy myeng-sa + tong-sa (hyengyong-sa) cel-uy kongko-han tane-kyelhap-uy kwucocek thukseng-ey tay-haye [On the structural character of lexical Chng Lyl-mo. 1959. Muncang-lon-eyse ceyki-toynun myech-kaci muncey [Some problems in syntax], Cosen emun 1:70-83. _______ 1960a. Cosen-e-ey chimthwu-toyn han'ca-e-ey tay-han muncey [Problems of Chinese loanwords in Korean], Cosen emun 2:22-31. _. 1960b. Cosen-e muncang-lon-eyse lonuy-toynun kwu-uy kwuco-cek kinung-cek thukseng-kwa pokhap-mun-uy lyuhyeng [Structural and functional character of phrase and types of complex sentences in Korean syntax] , Cosen emun 6:20-34. _. 1963. Cosen-e muncang-lon-eyse ceyki-toynun cey-muncey-uy lyeksa-cek kochal [Observations on the history of problems in Korean syntax], Cosen ehak 2. Chng Yng-ho. 1963. Hamkyeng-nam-to pangen-eyse-uy kwukayum-hwa hyensang-uy thukseng [Palatalization in Hamkyeng-nam-to dialect], Cosen ehak 4:34-40. Ch'oe Chng-hu. 1964. Wulal-Althai kasel-uy palsayng-kwa paltal-ey kwan-han myechkaci muncey [Problems in Ural-Altaic hypothesis], Cosen ehak 3:71-77. _______ 1966. Cosen-e ehwi-kwuseng-uy paltal-ey tay-haye [On the development of word formation in Korean], Emunyenkwu 3:4-7.

cohesion in noun + verb (adjective) clauses in Korean], Emunyenkwu 1:7-13.

Ch'oe ng-che. 1960. Lyongpi-echenka-ey panyeng-toyn moum-cohwa hyengsahg-uy

myech-kaci muncey [Problems of vowel harmony in Lyongpi-echenka], Cosen emun,
3:15-29.

172KiM Ha Ch'i-jin. 1964. Cosen-e si-thay-ey tay-han lyeksa-cek kochal [Observations On the history of tense and voice in Korean], Cosen-e yenkwu-eyse-uy myech-kaci muncey [Problems in Korean linguistics], pp. 257-361 . Han Yng-sun. 1964. Hyentay cosen-e eum-cheykyey swulip-uy yakkan-uy muncey-ey tayhaye [Problems in modern Korean phonology], Cosen ehak 6. Hong Ki-mun. 1959a. Cosen-e muncang-lon-ey tay-han na-uy yenkwu panghyang [My view and methodology in Korean syntax], Cosen emun 3:8-19. ______ 1959b. Cosen-e-wa mongko-e-wauy kwankyey [Relationship between Korean and Mongolian], Cosen emun 6:77-82. _. 1961. Cosen-e han-ca-ehwi-uy cey-muncey [Problems of Chinese loanwords in Hong, Yn-suk. 1973. Nam-puk tayhwa-wa ene-muncey [South-North negotiations and problems of language], Puk-han 2, no. 1 :236-245; 2, no. 2:257-264; 2, no. 3: 158-165. Kim Chin-Wu. 1970. A theory of aspiration, Phonetica 21 : 107-1 16. Kim Chu-ch'l. 1966. Mincok kocen penyek-eyse-uy han-ca-e cheli muncey [Problems of Sino-Korean words in translation of Korean classics], Emun yenkwu 2:46-48. Kim Il Sung. 1964.1.3. Cosen-e-lul paleen sikhi-ki wi-han myech-kaci munceyene hakcatul-kwa han tamhwa [Problems in the development of Koreana dialogue with linguists], Munhwa-e haksup, 1968.2: 1-7. Also in Kim Il Sung cecak sencip [Selected works of Kim Il Sung] 4 (1969): 1-7. ______ 1966.5.14. Cosen-e-uy mincok-cek thukseng-ul olhkey sallye-nakal-tey tay-haye [On fostering national characteristics of Korean], Munhwa-e haksup, 1969.3: 1-9. Kim Km-sk. 1960. Hyentay cosen-e tongsa-uy pep-pemewu mencey [Mood in Modern Kim Min-su. 1972. Pukhan-uy ene-cengchayk [Language policy in North Korea], Asea ______ 1973. Pukhan-uy ene-kyoyuk-cengchayk [North Korea's language education policy], Puk-han 2, no. 7:263-271; 2, no. 8:251-259. Seoul. Kim Paek-nyn. 1960. Hyentay cosen-e-eyse-uy icwung-cwukyek icwung taykyek muncey [Problems of double nominative and accusative cases in modern Korean], Cosen emun ______ 1964. Cosen-e tongsahyengyongsa-uy sang-pemewu [Aspect in Korean verbs and adjectives], Cosen-eyenkwu-eyse-uy myech-kaci muncey, pp. 127-256. 1966. Cosen-e-uy tane-coseng swu-pep muncey [Problems of lexical formation in Kim Pyng-je. 1960. Haypang-hwu sip-o-nyen-tongan cosen-enehak-uy paleen [Development of Korean linguistics during fifteeen years since liberation] , Cosen emun 4:6-19. Kim Su-gyng. 1967. Wuli-mal hakswul-yong-e-lul cwuchey-cek-ulo tatum-ki wi-han myech-kaci muncey [Problems in nativizing scientific words], Cosen emun 1:1-6. Kim Tay-rok. 1966. Swule-uy munpep-cek phyosik-kwa ku kinung [Grammatical marks and functions of predicates], Emun yenkwu 2:21-27. Kim Yng-hwang. 1959a. Hyentay cosen-e caum-cheykyey yenkwu-eyse ceyki-toynun myech-kaci muncey [Problems in the consonantal system of Modern Korean], Cosen ______ 1959b. Cosen-e caum cheykyey-ey tayhan lyeksa eum-lon-cek yenkwu silon [A preliminary study of historical phonology of Korean consonants], Cosen emun Lee Ch'ang-gn. 1959. Hyentay cosen-e-uy kwake-siching-ey tay-han kantan-han kochal [Observations on the past tense in Modern Korean], Cosen emun 2:30-41. Lee Hong-Bae. 1970. A Study ofKorean Syntax. Seoul: Pemhan. Lee Ik-sn. 1959. Hyentay cosen-e-uy uyseng-uythay-cek hyengyongsa coseng-ey tay-haye [On sound symbolism in Modern Korean], Cosen emun 6:14-27. Lee Kk-no. 1963. Pukcheng pangen-uy co-yenkwu [A study of tone in Pukcheng dialect], Lee Kn-yng. 1960. 8.15 haypang-hwu konghwa-kwuk pukpan-pu-eyseuy wuli-kul-uy pyenhwa [Linguistic change in Korea since liberation], Cosen emun 4:40-50.
Cosen ehak 3 . 6:28-42. emun 4:27-41. 5:48-69. Seoul.

Korean], Cosen ehak 4.

Korean verbs], Cosen emun 1 :31-44.

yenkwu 15, no. 4:1-53. Seoul.

Korean], Emunyenkwu 1:19-26.

LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE POLICIES173 1963. Kangco-ey tay-han munchey-lon-cek kochal [Observations on the style of emphasis], Cosen ehak 4:27-33. 1966. WuIi mincok kocen-uy ene-nun swiwun hyentay cosen-e-lo olm-kye-cye-ya han-ta [Korean classics must be translated into easy Modern Korean], Emun yenkwu Lee Se-yong. 1960. Cosen-e eum-lon yenkwu-eyse ceyki-toynun myech-kaci muncey [Problems in Korean phonology], Cosen emun 5:31-47 and 6:2-6. Lym Chong-nyul. 1959a. 15-16 seyki cosen-e-uy sokkyek-kwa ku uymi [Genitives and their meanings in Middle Korean], Cosen emun 2:42-60. ______ 1959b. Cosen-e-uy kyek-pemcwu muncey [Problems of case in Korean], Cosen Pak Chong-t'ae. 1960. 8.15 haypang-hwu cosen-e ehwi-kwuseng-sok-eyse llenan pyenhwa [Changes in Korean vocabulary since liberation], Cosen emun 4:51-64. Pak Hong-jun. 1967. Cemcha-cek pangpep-ulo ehwi-lul tatum-e naka-nun saep-kwa Park Soon-ham. 1970. Kyek-munpep-ey ipkak-han kwuke-uy kyep-cwue-ey tay-han kochal [Observations on double nominatives in Korean within the framework of case gramScaliCkava, Alena. 1960. The Korean Consonants. Praha: Rozpravy Ceskoslovensk Akademie Ved, Rocnik 70, Sesit 3. Sin Chng-a. 1964. Cosen-e caum-cheykyey-uy myech-kaci thukseng [Several characteristics of Korean consonantal system], Cosen ehak 2.
emun 3:79-91. emun 2:15-22. emun 6:1-13. 4:7-13.

kwanlyen-han myech-kaci muncey [Problems in gradual refinement of words], Cosen

mar], Ehakyenkwu 6, no. 2. Seoul.

Won Ong-guk. 1959. Hyen-hayng chelca-pep-uy patchim-kwa umwun-ey tay-han kantanhan kochal [Observations on syllable-final sounds in current orthography], Cosen ______ 1960. Cosen-e umcel-ey tay-han myech-kaci uykyen [Thoughts on syllables in ______ 1961. Hyentay cosen-e-uy umwun-cheykyey-ey tay-han kantan-han so-ko [Notes on the phonological system of Modern Korean], Cosen ehak 2. ______ 1962. Hwunmin-cengum-ey tay-han eum-lon-cek kochal [A phonological study of Hwunmin-cengum], Cosen ehak 1. ______ 1963. Hwunmin-cengum-uy chelea wenchuk [Orthographic principles in Hwunmin-cengum], Cosen ehak 4. 1964. Hyentay cosen-e-uy umwun-kwa umwun-kyochey-ey tay-han kochal [Phonological alternations in Modern Korean], Cosen-e yenkwu-eyse-uy myech-kaci
muncey, pp. 1-126.
Editorials

Korean], Cosen emun 2:32-41.

Cosen-e-lul tewuk-te paltal-sikhi-ki wi-han wuli ene-hakea-tul-uy tangmyen-kwaep [The task of linguists in the development of Korean] , Cosen emun, 1 966. 3 . Ene-hak-punya-eyse tang-cengchayk-kwa hyekmyeng-centhong-ul tewuk kiphi yenkwuhaca [Let's study the party policy and the tradition of revolution in linguistics], Cosen Wuli-tang-uy ene-cengchayk-kwa cosen-e-uy pattai [Language policy of our party and the development of Korean], Cosen ehak, 1965.4:3-7. Major Books in Korean Linguistics Published in North Korea, 1949-1971 Lee Kk-no. Cosen-e umseng-hak [Korean phonetics] . Cosen-emun Yenkwu-hoy [Society of Korean Language and Literature, Kim Il Sung University]. Cosen-e munpep [A Korean grammar]. 1954. Kim Su-kyng. Cosen-e munpep [A Korean grammar] . 1949. 1949.
1956. tionary]. APPENDIX 2 emun, 1967.3.

Linguistics, Academy of Social Sciences]. Cosen-e so-sacen [A little Korean dic-

Sahoy-kwahak-wen, Cosen-ehak Yenkwu-so [Institute for Studies in Korean

174
1957. 1958. 1960. 1961. 19601962. 1964.

KIM

vol. 1.

Hong Ki-mun. Litwuyenkwu [A study of Idu] . Kim Pyng-je. Cosen-e pangen-hak kay-yo [An outline of Korean dialectology], Sahoy-kwahak-wen, Cosen-ehak Yenkwu-so. Cosen-e munpep [A Korean grammar], vol. 1: phonology and morphology. ______. Cosen-e munpep, vol. 2: syntax. _. Cosen-mal sacen [A dictionary of the Korean language] . Wn ng-guk, Kim Paek-nyn, and Ha Ch'i-jin. Cosen-e yenkwu-eyse-uy myech-kaci muncey [Problems in Korean linguistics]. A collection of three theses: (1) on phonology by Won, (2) on aspects by Kim, and (3) on voice and tense by Hong Ki-mun. Cosen-e lyeksa-munpep [A historical grammar of Korean]. Lym Chong-nyul. Cosen-e munpep kwuco-sa [A history of grammatical structures of Korean] . Sahoy-kwahak-wen, Cosen-ehak Yenkwu-so. Hyentay cosen-mal sacen [A dictionary of Modern Korean]. Kim Il Sung. Hyekmyeng-kwa kensel-uy muki-losse-uy mincok-e-uy palcen-ey kwan-han sasang [Thoughts on the development of the national language as a weapon of revolution and reconstruction]. Sahoy-kwahak-wen, Cosen-ehak Yenkwu-so. Cosen-mal kyupem-cip haysel [Expositions of orthographic rules of Korean] .
vol. 2.

1965. 1966. 1966. 1968. 1970. 1971.

Kim Pyng-je. Cosen-e pangen-hak kay-yo [An outline of Korean dialectology],

Ha.

APPENDIX 3

Hyon-Pae.

Linguistic Terminology in North Korea Asterisk indicates words that are also used in South Korea, especially by the late Ch'oe
South Korean or traditionalNorth Korean

Phonology:

umcel -g-^'syllable'soli-mati lA dH akseynthu -M1.-'accent'soli-malu he] nV-f umwun -!--'phoneme'nath-soli >ie] etwu-um o| J^-g-'initial sound' ches-meli-soli H. 1H 3I ^3I emal-um o\ ig---'final sound'kkuthu-meli-soli ns.^\ \ izM Morphology: e-kuno]^'root'ppuli -^- e] e-kan a\ z}'stem'* mal-mom >-e-mi o-l d]'ending'kkoli 2Lb] e-weno^'etymology'*mal-mith u e-cwung a-) if-'medial'kawuntey 7}-&]
e-twu <?) -f-'word-initial' ches-meli ^o]s] e-malHii:'word-final'kkuthu-meli hsj\ e] cep-sa^4'affix'tes-puthi gj-f-o]

mourn i-g-'vowel'*hol-soli ^4i&] caum *}-'consonant'*tah-soli fis]

ceptwu-sa *j -f-4'prefix'aph-puthi IHr0I cepmi-sa * p] ?}'suffix'twi-puthi -ri-ir0] uyseng-e ] a a]Onomatopoeic soli-ponttum-mal i^l -SrC-Ii: uythay-e a) e)] o]'pictorialmoyang-ponttum-mal i0t-gri
words' words'

LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE POLICIES

175 mom-mal -g- u ssum-mal ^- kul-cwulki ^HA selo-mal A ^- a

Syntax:chey-en a] <& yong-en --d mun-mayk rnJ tayhwa ?] i]-

'context'

'subject' 'predicate' 'dialogue'

'modifier'

swusik-e sr-] A mun-tan -gr^ tochi is]

'paragraph' pikyo-kup 1 iih 'comparative' choysang-kup A ^i 'superlative' inyong-phyo J.--iL pyeng-lyel <f 1 cong-sok ^t^r
'inversion' mark'

'quotation
'coordinate,
'subordinate'

chilyey-mal A S] kul-taymok it<j\-^ *kyencwum-kup ^-f-Tj*uttum-kup Al-gcali-pakkwum ?? *}-& *ttaom-phyo A-%-JL pel-lim <g %i may-im ?| 0J

juxtaposition'