초록 close

‘石’과 ‘獨’ 그리고 ‘梁’과 ‘督’ 은 오래 전부터 사용되어 온 전통적인 借字로서, ‘石’과 ‘梁’은 ‘돌, 독’(<돓<*돍)을 표기하는 데 사용된 훈차자이고, ‘獨’과 ‘督’은 ‘독’을 표기하는 데 이용된 음차자이다. ‘獨’과 ‘梁’이 표기될 자리에 한자 ‘道’가 사용됨은 이들의 관계를 잘 보여주는 것이다. 따라서 ‘돌, 독’을 훈차자를 이용하여 표기하면 ‘石, 梁’이 되고 음차자를 이용하여 표기하면 ‘獨, 督’이 되는 것이다. ‘石島’가 표기된 勅令은 古文書의 敎書에 해당하는 문서인데, 교서는 한문으로 기록하는 것이 하나의 전통이었으므로 ‘돌섬, 독섬’을 표기하려면 이를 훈차한 ‘石島’를 이용하는 것이 관례였다. ‘獨島’가 기록된 報告書는 고문서의 牒呈에 해당하는 문서인데, 첩정은 吏讀로 기록하는 것이 하나의 전통이었으므로 ‘돌섬, 독섬’을 표기하려면 음차한 ‘獨島’로 기록하는 것이 자연스럽다. 따라서 ‘獨島’와 ‘石島’는 동일한 지물을 가리키는 異表記인 것이다.


The place name, ‘Dokdo'(獨島), appeared first in 1906 in the report from Sim, Heung-taek who was the county chief of Ulleung-gun in Korea. On the other hand, in the previous year(1905), the announce- ment from Shimane county(島根縣) in Japan announced that the island belonged to Japan. Based on this assertion that they announced dominium of the island first, the Japanese insisted that the island was theirs. Koreans, however, proclaimed that ‘Seokdo'(石島) fell under the jurisdiction of Ulleung-do according to the Royal Order 41 in 1900. For this reason, Koreans contended that they claimed the island earlier than Japan. In this respect, the question whether ‘Dokdo'(獨島) and ‘Seokdo'(石島) are referred to as the same island arises. Apart from a number of political and diplomatic issues regarding the island, this study tried to clarify the argument that ‘Dokdo'(獨島) and ‘Seokdo'(石島) referred to the same island, but they were spelled in a different way in terms of orthography of the borrowed sino-letters. In addition, this study attempted to show that the orthography varied depending on the form of documents. ‘Seok'(石) and ‘Dok'(獨) were traditionally the borrowed sino-letters which had long been used historically. ‘Seok'(石) was a meaning- borrowed sino-letters (i.e. its meaning was borrowed from the character) to indicate ‘Dol'(돌), ‘Dok'(독)(<돓<*돍). And ‘Dok'(獨) was a sound- borrowed sino-letters (i.e. its sound was borrowed from the character) to spell Korean ‘Dok'(독). In the same fashion, ‘梁' and ‘督' played the same role as ‘Seok'(石) and ‘Dok'(獨) respectively. That is to say, ‘梁', a meaning-borrowed sino-letters, was used to indicate Dol(돌), Dok(독)(<돓<*돍), and ‘督', a sound-borrowed sino-letters, was adopted to spell Korean 독(Dok). In addition, it could be confirmed that 道 could replace ‘獨' and ‘梁’ based on research materials. Therefore, ‘Dol'(돌) and ‘Dok'(독) were written as ‘石' or ‘梁' if we use the meaning-borrowed sino-letters and they also were written as ‘Dok'(獨), ‘Dok'(督) if we use the sound-borrowed sino-letters. The Royal Order where ‘Seokdo'(石島) was spelled is an ancient document with a king's message and the message was traditionally written in Chinese. It was a custom to use the meaning borrowed letters ‘Seokdo'(石島) in order to spell Dolsum(돌섬) or Doksum(독섬). The report from Sim, Heung-taek where ‘Dokdo'(獨島) was recorded was chupjeong(牒呈), a kind of an ancient document, which was customarily written in idu(吏讀). Thus, it was a natural custom to have Dolsum(돌섬), or Doksum(독섬) recorded as Dokdo(獨島) by using borrowed sino-letters. All in all, ‘Dokdo'(獨島) and ‘Seokdo'(石島) are different orthography while referring to the same object.