사전학적 관점에서 본 『物名攷』와 『才物譜』의 영향 관계

초록

It is necessary to keep in mind that Mulmyeonggo(物名攷) had a distinctive macro-structure in contrasts with any traditional vocabulries. The format of this book was comprised of four styles’ major classes; [+animal], [-animal] and [+active], [-active] chapters. The semantic scope of the major classes that Mulmyeonggo(物名攷) owned doesn’t agree with the semantic scope of Jaemulbo(才物譜). Accordingly, the result clearly shows that Jaemulbo(才物譜) did not influence Mulmyeonggo(物名攷) from the point of the format of major classes. On the orther hand, it is inevitable that the influencing relationship between Mulmyeonggo(物名攷) and Jaemulbo(才物譜) exists in comparison with the format of detail classes. The detail classes as the ‘birds’ class, ‘beasts’ class, ‘reptile’ class appear in the detail classes of Mulmyeonggo(物名攷). Their classes appear in Jaemulbo(才物譜) also. Of course, the origin of this influencing relationship was Bonchogangmok(本草綱目) that had been made in China. It follows from what has been said thus far that the tendency of their influencing relationship is pronounced in the micro-structure of the lexicography. The problem which we have to consider next is how the lemma and the annotation appear in the micro-structure of the lexicographical viewpoints. The Sino-Korean lemmas that massed between Mulmyeonggo(物名攷) and Jaemulbo(才物譜) at the same time, were quite a lot. The same thing may be said of the annotational processes. On the orther hand, under normal circumstances the annotational processes of Mulmyeonggo(物名攷) were more simpler than the annotational processes of Jaemulbo(才物譜). Rarely the annotational processes of Mulmyeonggo(物名攷) were more complexer than the annotational processes of Jaemulbo(才物譜). In the pretty rare cases, the annotational processes of Mulmyeonggo(物名攷) were self-deployment.

키워드