스포일러 경고 기능이 추가됐습니다.
(펼침 메뉴 > 설정에서 변경 가능)
전후 일본의 한자 폐지 움직임
https://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=japanese&no=477580
"아무튼 이러한 움직임 하에 일본의 읽고 쓰기 능력 조사가 1948~1949년 실시되어 1950년 보고서가 작성되었는데, 그 결과는 완전문맹 1.7%, 부분문맹까지 합쳐 2.1%로 아주 낮은 비율의 문맹률을 보임으로서 미국의 한자 전폐론은 실행되지 않고, 한자사용의 축소와 간소화로 움직임이 잡힘. 이때 미국은 로마자 사용론을 밀기 위해 보고서 데이터 개찬(조작)을 강요했으나, 통하지 않았다고 함"
일본의 문해율(literacy rate)이 실제로는 상당히 높은 수준이어서 급진적인 script reform이 필요하지 않았다는 것이 interwebz에서 국내외를 불문하고 통설인데, 이것이 과연 사실인지 알아보자
Literacy and Script Reform in Occupation Japan: Reading between the Lines
1996
In reality, what constituted literacy varied greatly, from a bare knowledge of the elements of the kana syllabaries to productive facility in several socially prestigious and functionally distinct styles of Japanese and Sino-Japanese writing.
...
For most, literacy meant a restricted set of skills that conferred only a portion of the liberating power we unthinkingly ascribe without qualification to education as a force for social change.
pg.25
We have already alluded to the difference between literacy as usually defined for census and other official purposes and literacy as a vehicle for full and free participation in society. Discriminating these two senses, important in the case of alphabetic scripts, is absolutely vital when dealing with kana and kanji. Kana alone suffice to transcribe any Japanese utterance: does this mean that a working knowledge of kana and passive recognition of some common kanji qualified most prewar Japanese as literate?
pg.26
<전후 일본 한자사>와 여러 학자들이 인용하는 낮은 문맹률 조사결과의 허점, 문해력에 대한 매우 관대한 기준
The problem with the standard view, to repeat, is one of perspective: there is no question that literacy in Edo period Japan was more widespread than in other nations at that time or that the introduction of public education reduced drastically the number of completely illiterate Japanese; nevertheless, there is no basis for assuming that the schools before or after the Meiji period imparted a uniform, high level of literacy to each and every one of their charges.
pg.27
공교육 보급이 문맹률을 얼마나 효과적으로 타파했는지에 대해서는 많은 의문이 있다
The test for writing at the elementary level was to write one's own name, address, and height. Between elementary school equivalence and the lowest category ("absolutely no ability to read, write, or do arithmetic") was a category called "a little learning."
According to Rubinger, the tests, "though limited to male twenty-year-olds, nevertheless show rather astonishing levels of total illiteracy continuing well into the twentieth century" (1992, 87). In 1899, about 25 percent of Japan's twenty-year-old males fell into the bottommost group. If one includes the "little learning" group, the percentage exceeds 50 percent.
pg.33
20대 남성 대상의 1899의 조사에서는 [아무것도 읽고 쓰지 못함] + [이름, 주소, 신장을 쓸 수 있음]의 비율이 50%를 초과했다.
Rubinger also draws attention to some little-known data Yamamoto does not mention. These are the results of an 1881 literacy test given to all 882 males in the small village of Tokiwa in Kita Azumi County in what is now Nagano Prefecture. Unlike the conscription tests, which only give a clear idea of the extent of illiteracy, the Tokiwa test provides an indication of educational accomplishment in positive terms; it ranked examinees by levels of skill in a six-step hierarchy, shown in table 1.
pg.33
table 1
pg.34
Tokiwa, 1881년, 882명의 남성을 대상으로한 문해력 테스트 결과:
1. 무능력 - 35.4%
2. 이름, 주소, 숫자 - 41.2%
3. 수입 지출 기록 - 15.3%
4. 장부 작성 - 4.4%
5. 상거래 업무 - 2.0%
6. 공문, 신문 사설 이해 - 1.7%
Perhaps the most important lesson to be drawn from the Tokiwa data, however, is the need to define in functional terms what we mean by literacy. As Rubinger observes, if one includes as "literate" all those with minimal skills, a claim of 65 percent male literacy in the 1850s and 76 percent literacy by the 1870s could be justified. If, on the other hand, literacy is defined as the ability to read at least ordinary materials and fill out simple forms, the male literacy percentages in this remote village dip down to 7 percent in the 1850s and 8 percent in the 1870s.
In sum, optimistic views of pre-Meiji Japanese literacy need to be scaled back considerably. If all the pertinent linguistic and social factors are taken into account and full use is made of all the available sources of data, the picture that emerges, while certainly not one of rampant illiteracy, is not nearly as uniform or positive as claimed by those who deny that some kind of script reform was necessary.
pg.35
이름, 주소, 숫자를 적는 최소한의 능력을 갖춘 것을 "literate"하다고 간주하면 76%까지 문해율이 올라가지만, 글을 읽고 간단한 서류를 작성하는 수준의 능력만을 "literate"하다고 치면 pre-메이지유신 문해율은 7~8%에 불과했다.
According to Taira, "Quantitatively, the spread of literacy in Meiji Japan was credible enough. Qualitatively, however, the 'compulsory' education imposed on the unwilling populace without a full commitment of public resources ('compulsory' but not 'free') was painful as well as wasteful". The reason for this wastefulness is not hard to find. "Years of arduous study were required to master the literary forms and script of officialdom, and only the upper classes had the leisure to devote to it. The degree of literacy attained by the commoners was usually just sufficient for the small concerns of everyday life and the perusal of popular fiction" (Twine 1983,116).
pg.35
의무교육은 부실하고 비효율적이었다. 매우 기초적인 수준의 문해력을 보급하는 데 그쳤다.
Such minimal literacy was the lot of many rural and indigent Japanese until to the Pacific War. Todo Akiyasu, who went on to become the Japanese dean of Chinese linguistics, recalled his experience during the war:
I was drafted into the 36th Regiment of the Mie Prefectural Infantry; among the 150 men in my company, some from the Shima seacoast and the mountainous areas of Iga couldn't read a whole sentence. I was ordered to teach ten or so, who could not even write kana properly, every evening. The company commander made them learn the Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors [ Gunjin chokuyu by rote, and they would bark it out with their eyes fixed on the ceiling: "Military men should set their minds on nitrogen [chisso]" which should have been "frugality" [shisso]. Whenever I went back to the country for the weekend, old couples in the neighborhood would bring me letters from their sons and ask, "Please read this for us." (Todo 1982, 173-74, trans. JMU)
Illiteracy and the poor technical education of the average conscript figure in other wartime reports. In one case, a soldier sent to the rear to fetch a replacement part for a damaged artillery piece returned with a completely different part; he had forgotten the official Sino-Japanese name he had been told—to him, it was just a meaningless string of syllables (Hoshina 1949,209). Incidents like this often led to disaster (Hirai 1948, 330), and by 1940, the army had lim- ited the number otkanji for weapon parts to 1,235and was studying the possibility of cutting that number in half (Hoshina 1949, 210, 215; Seeley 1991,150). The anachronistic rules for kana spelling were also a major cause of concern within the army (Tani 1995, 145)- Ironically, the military continued to pepper its reports in civilian newspapers and magazines with obscure, hard-to-read kanji, presumably to cow the general public (Hirai 1948, 327-28).
pg.36
우스갯소리로 한자 때문에 패전했다고 할 수 있을 정도로 심각한 수준
Neustupny points out that a second, smaller survey conducted in 1955—56 by the Ministry of Education produced similar results.
The survey covered subjects aged 14 to 26 in two selected areas, Tokyo and Northern Japan. The percentage of total illiterates in the survey was less than
1% in each of the two areas. On the other hand, those who were considered to "possess no competence in the use of the written language" and were expected to experience serious problems, made up approximately 10% of the Tokyo sample and 15% of the North-East Japan sample. However, another 50% or 60%, respectively, were also judged to lack sufficient competence, and some of these subjects definitely could be classified as functional illiterates. (1984, 119)
The surveys of 1948 and 1955-56 set the standard in terms of which all other assessments of Japanese literacy up to that time must be measured. We might well end this chapter at this point, for the need for some sort of script reform has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
pg.37
1955~56에 이르러도 도쿄에서는 10%, 동북부에서는 15%가 실질적 문맹이었다.
The pragmatic argument that any nation that could hold out against the Allies for so long in World War II had to be well educated contains a grain of truth, but is too simplistic to be maintained in the face of the data.
The actual situation was more complex: Japanese society had a highly literate elite at one extreme, and an equally small uneducated stratum at the other; for the vast majority of the population that filled the bell-shaped curve between them, literacy was, to a lesser or greater extent, but never inconsequentially, restricted by the sheer difficulty of the writing system itself. How the script should be reformed was an open question, in theory if not in practice, but the need for some kind of reform was undeniable.
pg.37
높은 문해력을 가진 엘리트층, 정반대에는 비슷한 규모의 무식자층, 그리고 중간에는 한자로 인해 제한받는 대부분의 인구가 분포했다.
민주주의를 위한 문자개혁은 필수불가결했다.
그리고 책에서 chapter 3~5를 훑어보면 알 수 있는 건데, 한자 전면 폐지 & romaji 도입이 무산된 것은 미군정의 결정이었다.
"한자를 지키려는 내부세력(일본) vs 로마자를 강제하려는 외부세력(미군정)" 이런 구도는 전혀아니었고
일본 내부의 romaji 지지세력의 내분과 미군정(GHQ/SCAP) 스스로가 한자를 폐지하는 수준까지의 급진적인 개혁을 원치 않았기 때문이다.
United States Education Mission of 1946과 미군정 내부의 소수만이 한자폐지 & romaji 도입을 지지했고, romaji 지지세력의 데이터 조작 강요같은 건 전혀 없었다고 봐도 무방하다.
오히려 chapter 5에서 나오는 초등학교 romaji 실험의 결과는 긍정적이었지만, 묵살되었다는 것을 알 수 있다.
romaji 실험과 관련된 chapter 5에서 인상적인 부분:
A mother of one of the students in the Sakaide experimental class complained to me in November 1949 that her child's was the only class in which
romaji were being taught. Why, she asked, doesn't the Ministry of Education increase the number of classes to one or two hundred? I later learned that the first-grade class in this school, while not an experimental class, was scheduled to use romaji in 1950: this decision was clearly the result of the strong feelings of the parents and the support of the teacher.
pg.98
당시 실험에 참여했던 학생들의 학부모들이 romaji 교육의 효과를 보고 상당한 열의를 가졌다는 것을 보여주는 실례
댓글 0