행정용어 사용에 대한 정책적 개입 현황과...

24
어문론총 제57호 한국문학언어학회 2012.12. 행정용어 사용에 대한 정책적 개입 현황과 과제 황 용 주* 1) 1. 머리말 2. 공공언어로서의 행정용어 사용에 대한 정책적 개입 방식 3. 행정용어 사용에 대한 정책적 개입 현황 4. 행정용어의 공공성 향상을 위한 제언 5. 맺음말 1. 머리말 공공언어에 대한 관심이 사회적 관심에서 학문적 영역까지 확대되고 있다. 공 공기관에서 사용하는 언어에 대한 문제점을 해결하기 위한 노력들이 필요한 시 기에 학문적으로 활발하게 논의가 있는 것은 언어 정책 기관에서 일하는 사람으 로서 생각하면 다행한 일이다. 1) * 국립국어원 학예연구사 / 전자우편: [email protected] 이 논문은 사회언어학회의 2011년 가을정기학술발표대회에서 발표한 논문을 수정 한 것으로 당시 토론에 참여해 주셨던 조태린 선생님을 비롯하여, 익명의 논문 심 사자에게 진심으로 감사드린다. 이 논문의 부족한 부분은 여전히 필자의 몫이다. 1) 공공언어란 단어의 출현에 대한 기원은 황용주(2011)을 참고할 수 있다. ‘공공언

Upload: vananh

Post on 14-Feb-2018

236 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 57 2012.12.

    *1)

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    1.

    .

    .1)

    * / : [email protected]

    2011

    ,

    . .

    1) (2011) .

  • .

    .2)

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    2.

    2.1.

    .

    .

    .

    ,

    .

    ,

    , .

    .3)

    .

    2) , , , , ,

    .

  • 2.2.

    4)

    .

    .

    . .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    2009 .

    (2009:85~86) .

    , ,

    , .

    (2010:392) (2009) , ,

    , ,

    .

    (2010:392~393)

    ,

    ,

    3)

    .

    4) (2010:119) ()

    .

  • . ,

    ( 2009:254),

    .

    .

    .

    , ,

    ,

    .

    (2010)

    .

    (2009) (2009)

    .

    , ,

    . (2010)

    .5)

    5) (2010)

    ,

    . .

    .

  • ,

    .

    (2010:399) .6)

    3.

    .

    .

    .

    3.1.

    3.1.1.

    1948

    6 .

    .

    6)

    .

    ,

    .

    .

    . ()

    . (2010:399)

  • . ,

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    , 1968 .7)

    .

    .

    .

    . 1991 12 11

    1992 .

    8) ,

    , .9)

    7) 5338 (70. 9. 18) 1991 12 31

    .

    8)

    .

    9) 2000 10 19 .

  • . ,

    .

    .

    .

    .

    3.1.2.

    . .10)

    4 ( )

    .

    10 ( )

    .

    14 ( )

    10)

    , 1 14 1

    . , , ,

    ,

    ,

    ,

    .(, 2010)

  • . ,

    .

    15 ( )

    .

    17 ( )

    .

    18 ( )

    29

    ,

    .

    14

    .

    . 2009

    8 . 2005

    . (2011:32~34)

    11)

    11) (2010)

    66.5% 1.85

    170 .

    114

    .

    ((mom)

    (entrepreneur) ) .

    4,500 6

  • .

    OSMU(One Source Multi Use) (Killer Contents)

    (Indi Musicion) (Sin Tax)

    (Micro Credit) (Micro Insurance)

    (Bad Bank) (Privite Free workout)

    (Fast Track) (Job Fair)

    (Senior ) (Food Bank)

    (Food Market) (Voucher)

    (U-Care) (Day-Care Center)

    ( Incubating) (New Start Project)

    (Job Sharing) WEE (WEE Project)

    ( Cashbag) (Licensing Fair)

    2009 8 ,

    ,

    .

    . 150

    .

    12)

    .

    2011 4 6 , ,

    , , , .

    4,500 1 2,303,

    2,046, 4,336 .(

    2011:32~33 )

    12) (2010) ,

    . , , ,

    .

  • : Happy , , (loan),

    , C/S , 3 ,

    , , ,

    , ,

    : Heli-EMS,

    : Walking School Bus(), , Safe

    ,

    : (MotherSafe) , , UHealth(),

    , (Dream Start), e, e,

    : nara,

    : , , u-Health, u-medical, ,

    , (Global Fashion Leading Brand,

    GFLB) , , , ,

    ICT , ICT (Outlook) , ,

    , (uni-material), , qwl, ,

    , , , SESE /

    : Me First , , , ,

    , PM(Project Manager), Eco-,

    Top , Eco-Innovation, ,

    /

    . Happy, C/S, Heli-EMS, Walking School

    Bus, Safe, UHealth, u-medical, qwl, SESE, Me First, PM, Eco, Top, Eco-Innovation .

    ( )

    .

    .

    , ,

    .

  • -nara .

    . .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    : (golden seed)13), FFK, 2011 ,

    Rural-20 , , Green & Life Technology

    : (Job world)

    : STOP! , gogo , RESCUE

    . (Job world)

    .

    .14)

    .

    ,

    .15)

    13) (Golden seed)'

    2020 2

    .

    14) 70%

    . .

    15)

  • 3.2.

    3.2.1.

    ,

    . 1970

    .

    1976 8208

    , , 11 9 . 1115

    8279

    . 1977 1980 . 5 1982 .

    1981 , 1,035

    . 1982 1,238 . 1984 4,909 .

    1992 1981 1991 92 .

    ,

    . 9,219,

    ( ) 8,673

    1993 .

    .16) .

    . 2011

    /

    62.1%, 32.9%.

    71.5%, 23.3%.

    16) 1993 2 23.

    .

  • ()

    ()

    ()

    ()

    () ()

    () ()

    () ()

    ()

    ()

    ,

    ,

    ,

    .

  • ,

    1995 3 635

    . .

    -> ->

    ->

    -> ->

    -> ->

    ->,

    1995 10 710 .

    .

  • ()

    ()

    () ()

    () ()

    () ()

    () ()

    () ()

    (LPG)

    .

    ,

    .17)

    .

    .

    17)

    (2003) .

    .

  • 3.2.2.

    , , .

    .

    (2009)

    .

    .(2011:36)

    ,

    .

    .

    2009

    2010~2012 .

    , .

    ,

    .

    .18)

    , 2010se

    .

    , 320

    .

    . ,

    , 680 .

    18) 1996 .

  • ,

    ,

    ,

    , ,

    , , ,

    4.

    .

    .

    .

    .

    19) .

    19)

    .

    ,

    .

  • 4.1.

    . (2010)

    .

    1.

    1.1

    1.1.1 ?

    1.1.2 ?

    1.1.3 ?

    1.2

    1.2.1 ?

    1.2.2 ?

    1.2.3 ?

    2.

    2.1

    2.1.1 ?

    2.1.2 ?2.1.3 ?

    2.2

    2.2.1 ?

    2.2.2 ?

    2.2.3 ?

    2.3

    2.3.1 ?

    2.3.2 ?

    2.3.3 ?

    .

    .

  • .

    .

    2009

    .

    .

    4.2.

    .

    .

    .

    .20) .

    . (2011)

    20) .

    , ,

    .

  • ()

    , , , ,

    .21)

    100 20 4 100*4 400

    1101900 10

    105 110*5 550

    250 1000 1

    25,000 250 1 250 250

    100 (5/100) 5 100*5 500

    100 20

    80 3 300 300

    660 2,000

    4.3.

    .

    .

    .

    .

    2011

    21) () .

    .

    .

    (2011) .

  • .

    .

    .

    .

    5.

    ,

    .

    .

    () .

    .

    ,

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    , , , ,

  • (2011). . : . (2010). . : . (1989). , .

    . : (2009). , 24, 241-265.

    : .

    (2010). , 20 2, 117-131. : .

    (2010). , 27, 379-405. : .

    (2003). , :(2009), , ,

    , 85-93. : . (2011). , 50, 342-374.

    : .

    (2011). , 50 ().

    Spolsky, B.(2009). Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Spolsky, B.(2010). , 20 , 20~51. : .

  • : 2012 11 10

    : 2012 11 24 ~ 12 7

    : 2012 12 12 ()

    Policy intervention status and challenges for

    administrative terms

    Hwang, Yong-Ju

    In this paper were classified as direct intervention and indirect

    intervention on the administrative terminology use. And in this paper

    discussed the enactment of pre-and post-intervention status that

    Framework Act on the Korean language established a new turning point

    in the Korean policy. Also a way to reduce the current administrative

    term used for the problem was presented.

    Not directly intervene in the administrative term used for primarily take

    issue foreign language is the use of foreign characters (Roman) and difficult

    to use. Policy makers, however, be taken seriously on this issue is.

    Part of the Nation to intervene in the use of language is in the public

    sphere. Administrative term public domain because it will be less side

    effects, according to the Nation's use of language intervention. Rather a

    term for an administrative policy interventions can help people's

    understanding. Public language that can be easily and accurately

    understand the rights of the citizens.

    Key word:

    Administrative terms, Korean language policy, Framework Act on the

    Korean Language, Intervention, Public language