Language Use and Language Discourse in Pak Chiwŏn's Yŏrha ilgi
Pak Chiwŏn 的《餘霞日記》中的語言使用和語言話語

In the history of Korean intellectual appropriation of their national script, known for most of the Chosŏn dynasty as ŏnmun 浐文 but since the early twentieth century as han'gŭl, the later part of the eighteenth century was a pivotal stage. From Sin Kyŏngjun's 申景濬 (1712-1781) Hunmin chŏngŭm unhae 訓民正音韻解 (Explanation of Hunmin chŏngŭm Phonetics; 1750) onward, a series of studies on the Korean script appeared, climaxing in Yu Hŭi's 柳僖 (1773-1837) Ŏnmun chi 彥文志 (On the Vernacular Script; 1824, first version ca. 1800). Although their point of departure was the correct recording of the pronunciations of sinographs, these works not only expressed a heightened pride in the qualities of the Korean script, they also marked a growing distance from the earlier sinocentric view of the Korean language as a kind of corollary to Sinitic language and writing. Thus, in the early eighteenth century, Noron veteran Pak Ch'ihwa 朴致和 (1680-1767) had described the relation of the two languages in the terms of "text" and "commentary":
在韩国知识分子对他们国家文字的历史中，大部分朝鲜王朝时期被称为“浐文”的国家文字，但自二十世纪初被称为“韩文”，十八世纪后期是一个关键阶段。从申景濬（1712-1781）的《训民正音韵解》（1750）开始，一系列关于韩文的研究出现了，达到了柳僖（1773-1837）的《彦文志》（1824，首版约 1800）的高潮。尽管他们的出发点是正确记录汉字的发音，但这些作品不仅表达了对韩文质量的增强自豪感，还标志着与早期以汉语为中心的观点逐渐疏远，将韩语视为汉语和汉字的一种附属。因此，在十八世纪初，诺隆老兵朴致和（1680-1767）用“文本”和“评论”来描述两种语言之间的关系：

The ten thousand things all have their own sounds. Human beings cannot make them out; only the great sages and the divinely gifted were able to recognize them. When they looked at the things with their spiritually receptive mind, they were prompted to utter the sounds corresponding to the things, and thus the sounds and tones manifested themselves. Looking at the sky, we therefore say, ch'ön, looking at the earth, chi. The ancient sages did not create these words artificially but fixed them according to the sounds innate to things. When the sages first devised
万物皆有其声。人类无法辨别它们；只有伟大的圣人和天赋异禀者能够认识它们。当他们用灵性接受的心灵观察事物时，就会被促使发出与事物相对应的声音，于是声音和音调就显现出来了。因此，当我们看天空时，我们说“辰”，看大地时，我们说“地”。古代圣人并非人为创造这些词语，而是根据事物固有的声音来确定它们。当圣人们最初设计

1 The first draft of this chapter was written for the symposium "Cosmopolitan and Vernacular: The Politics of Language in the Diglossic Culture of Korea” held in Bellagio, Italy in 2004. The symposium was organized by the late JaHyun Kim Haboush whose inspiration and scholarly creativity have set an example for which I am forever grateful.
本章的初稿是为 2004 年在意大利贝拉焦举行的“世界性与方言性：韩国双重语言文化中的语言政治”研讨会撰写的。该研讨会由已故的金贞贤主持，她的启发和学术创造力为我树立了榜样，我将永远感激不尽。
the characters it was nothing more than seeing the sky and saying ch'on 天, seeing water and saying 水 and after having found the right sound, depicting it by help of the six strokes. [...] The characters thus devised consist of meaning, image, and sound. Take for example the graph 口, "mouth": the visible form of the graph is the image of the shape [of the mouth]; it is interpreted by the meaning of entering; its sound correlates to the tone . In the Central Plains the graphs are only a transformation of the sounds [of things], while in our country [the graphs] are glossed using our regional language (pangŏn 方言). Therefore, we pronounce the graph [mouth] as ip [mouth], because things all enter [Sino-Korean: ip 入] through the mouth.
它们不过是看到天空就说“天”，看到水就说“水”，然后找到正确的声音，通过六画来描绘它。[...] 这样设计的文字包含意义、形象和声音。以“口”为例：图形的可见形式是口的形状；它的意义是进入；它的声音对应着音调。在中原地区，文字只是声音的转换，而在我们国家，文字是用我们的方言来解释的。因此，我们发音为“입”（口），因为所有的东西都是通过口进入的。

While attempting, not without strain on the reader's credulity, to imbue the Korean language with a special dignity, this text still fully subscribes to the image of Sinitic as the "natural language," and of the sinographs as chinsŏ 眞書, or "veritable script." While Sinitic language and writing systems thus appear as the embodiment of truth, their Korean counterparts can only serve to explicate this truth.
尽管试图赋予韩语特殊的尊严，这段文字仍然完全认同汉字作为“自然语言”的形象，汉字作为“真书”的概念。因此，汉语言和文字系统被视为真理的体现，而韩语的对应物只能用来阐释这个真理。

By the time Yu Hŭi wrote his Ŏnmun chi, a very different view of the Korean writing system had begun to take root:
在俞喜写《论文志》时，对朝鲜文字系统的看法已经开始发生了很大变化：

The vernacular letters can form ten thousand two hundred and fifty "letters" [i.e., syllabograms] that are completely adequate to all the sounds a human mouth can utter. The ten thousand two hundred and fifty sounds a human mouth can utter correspond completely to the number of the myriad things between heaven and earth. [...] The vernacular writing (ŏnmun 謗文) is really one of the most admirable things in the world. In comparison to sinographs, it has two strong points. Sinographs consist of six different categories; their shapes are extremely variegated, and one cannot infer the manifold appearances from one example. In vernacular
白话字母可以组成一万二千五百个“字”[即音节符号]，完全足以表达人类口腔发出的所有声音。人类口腔发出的一万二千五百种声音与天地间万物的数量完全对应。[...] 白话文字（ŏnmun 謗文）实际上是世界上最令人钦佩的事物之一。与汉字相比，它有两个优点。汉字由六个不同类别组成；它们的形状极为多样，人们无法从一个例子推断出多种外观。在白话文字中，

Pak Ch'ihwa, "Chapchi," Sŏlgye surok 雪溪隨錄, kwŏn 24, 23a-b, 28a. 萬物各有其聲 人莫能辨 而惟聖神知之 見物氣機自鳴因其物 而其物之聲音出焉 如見天則曰쳔 見地則曰지 此非聖人創出 皆因其物之聲音而制焉...聖人始制文字只是見天則曰天 見水則曰水 自中聲而因以六書形成焉 (23a-b) 制字有意象音 如以口字言之 則其體象形也 其釋入意也 其音犲聲也 中原文字只用聲音 而我國解釋皆是方音也 如口字解以入者 言物皆入於口也 (28a). Since the text gives ch'őn and chi not in sinographs but in han'gŭl, there is no doubt that for Pak Ch'ihwa the Chinese words are the natural names of things. Pak Ch'ihwa's original name was Ch'iwŏn 致遠; library catalogs usually carry Sŏlgye surok 雪溪随錄 under this name. In order not to confuse the reader, here and in the list of references I stick to his later name.
白致和，《雪溪随录》，卷24，23a-b，28a。万物各有其声 人莫能辨 而惟圣神知之 见物气机自鸣因其物 而其物之声音出焉 如见天则曰쳔 见地则曰지 此非圣人创出 皆因其物之声音而制焉...圣人始制文字只是见天则曰天 见水则曰水 自中声而因以六书形成焉 制字有意象音 如以口字言之 则其体象形也 其释入意也 其音犲声也 中原文字只用声音 而我国解释皆是方音也 如口字解以入者 言物皆入于口也。由于文中使用了韩文而非汉字，因此毫无疑问，对于白致和来说，汉字是事物的自然名称。白致和的原名是致远；图书馆目录通常以此名列载《雪溪随录》。为了不让读者混淆，在这里和参考文献列表中我坚持使用他的后来名字。
writing, the middle sound follows the initial sound, and the final sound follows the middle sound in clear sequence, so systematically that womenfolk and children can all comprehend it. The alterations are like those of the Yijing trigrams, alternating in perfect order. This is the strong point in terms of original substance. In the case of sinographs, in addition to the phonetic make-up the ancients gave them, lots of radicals have been added over time; and in addition to the readings the ancients gave them, later literati have added altered readings in order to fit their rhyming needs. [...] But in the case of vernacular writing, one can only use different syllabograms; there is no way to change the shape or pronunciation of a letter. This is the strong point in terms of application.
写作中，中间音跟随初始音，最终音跟随中间音，按照清晰的顺序排列，以至于妇女和儿童都能理解。这些变化就像易经卦象一样，按照完美的顺序交替。这是原始实质的优势所在。至于汉字，除了古人赋予的音韵构造外，随着时间的推移，还添加了许多部首；除了古人赋予的读音外，后来的文人为了适应押韵的需要，还添加了改变的读音。但在白话文写作中，只能使用不同的音节符号；无法改变字母的形状或发音。这是应用方面的优势。

It is perplexing to the historian, however, that this burgeoning interest and pride in the Korean script was not accompanied by a corresponding upsurge in Korean-language writing, at least as far as the sphere of belles lettres is concerned. Both sijo and kasa, for example, were beyond their flower as literary genre by the eighteenth century. On the other hand, a marked downward diffusion of these vernacular genres in han'gŭl had set in, and the first anthologies of Korean language poetry were compiled. These observations preclude any teleological perspective on literary history as a perhaps unidirectional, albeit unsteady, march of progress towards acceptance and ever more widespread use of Korean language writing. Instead, they open up a number of questions
然而，对于历史学家来说，令人困惑的是，这种对韩文的兴趣和自豪感并没有伴随着韩文写作的相应增长，至少在文学领域来说是这样。例如，18世纪时期，四季诗和歌辞已经超越了它们作为文学体裁的巅峰。另一方面，韩文方言体裁的明显下降已经开始，并且第一批韩文诗歌选集已经编纂出版。这些观察结果排除了任何关于文学史的目的论观点，即文学史可能是朝着接受和更广泛使用韩文写作的进步方向发展的单向、尽管不稳定的前进。相反，它们引发了一系列问题。

3 Yu Hŭi, “Chŏnja ye," Ŏnmun chi, 18f.: 浐文字總數一萬零二百五十. 以該盡人口所出聲. 人口所出聲一萬零二百五十. 以應盡天地萬物之數. 浐文...實世間至妙之物. 比之文字. 其精有二. 文字則制以六義. 爲形散亂. 不可以一例推萬狀. 浐文則以中係初. 以終係中. 各有條脈. 縱橫整齊. 婦女孩子. 咸能頓悟. 其變化殆如大易之爻. 錯綜往來. 無不各從其次序. 此體之精也. 文字則古人諧聲之外. 偏旁之加. 漸久漸多. 古人轉注之外. 後來詞客. 任意變讀. 以協其押韻...浐文則若移動全部則已. 欲誤一字之形. 得呼. 欲改一字之音. 得呼. 此用之精也.
3 余慧，“天字冊”，《言文集》，18 頁：浐文字總數一萬零二百五十。以該盡人口所出聲。人口所出聲一萬零二百五十。以應盡天地萬物之數。浐文...實世間至妙之物。比之文字。其精有二。文字則制以六義。爲形散亂。不可以一例推萬狀。浐文則以中係初。以終係中。各有條脈。縱橫整齊。婦女孩子。咸能頓悟。其變化殆如大易之爻。錯綜往來。無不各從其次序。此體之精也。文字則古人諧聲之外。偏旁之加。漸久漸多。古人轉注之外。後來詞客。任意變讀。以協其押韻...浐文則若移動全部則已。欲誤一字之形。得呼。欲改一字之音。得呼。此用之精也。

4 Sijo cycles, which are better suited for complex literary composition than single sijo, were produced no more; instead of carrying political and ethical messages, sijo served for light entertainment; and instead of exploring the possibilities of the Korean language, the (regular) sijo produced at banquets were often no more than re-assemblages of Sinitic poems in Korean grammar. The high tide of kasa as poetic art was in the sixteenth century; later, the form was used primarily for narrative and didactic purposes.
4 首新谣循环更适合复杂的文学创作，而不是单独的新谣；新谣不再传达政治和伦理信息，而是用于轻松娱乐；在探索韩语可能性方面，宴会上产生的（常规）新谣往往不过是汉语诗在韩语语法中的重新组合。卡萨作为诗歌艺术的鼎盛时期是在 16 世纪；后来，这种形式主要用于叙事和说教目的。

5 While such assumptions have long prevailed, scholars of Korean literature have recently laid solid foundations for a more differentiated view of the history of Korean "diglossia." See, for example, the special issue of Han'guk hanmunhak yŏn'gu dedicated to the relationship between hanmun and kungmun 國文 literature (volume 22, 1998). See also King (2015) for a critical discussion of the usefulness of the term "diglossia" in discussing premodern Korean literary culture.
尽管这种假设长期以来一直盛行，但韩国文学学者最近为更多元化地看待韩国“双重语言现象”的历史奠定了坚实基础。例如，参见《韩国汉文学研究》专题号，专门探讨汉文和国文文学之间的关系（1998 年第 22 卷）。另请参阅金（2015 年）对于“双重语言”这一术语在讨论韩国古代文学文化时的实用性的批判性讨论。
about possibly shifting social spaces of, and ascriptions of function and prestige to, hanmun 漢文 (Literary Sinitic) and ŏnmun genres, respectively.
关于可能转变的社会空间，以及对汉文和国文体裁的功能和声望的归属。

Foremost, they speak to the necessity of reconsidering the relationship between awareness of han'gül's properties and the actual use of writing systems, i.e., between language discourse and linguistic practice. What impact did the discovery of han'gül's usefulness and value by sirhak 6 ("empirical studies") scholars of the later eighteenth century have on text production in Korean, and why do we, in spite of their efforts, see so little vernacularization of Korean literary life before the Enlightenment (kaehwa) period beginning in the mid18gos? There are many angles from which to approach this question; certainly, social history is not the least important among them. This chapter treats it from the perspective of literary history by scrutinizing the language discourse and language practice of one literary master of the later eighteenth century, Yŏnam Pak Chiwŏn 燕巖 朴趾源 (1737-1805).
首先，他们谈到了重新考虑汉字属性意识与书写系统实际使用之间的关系，即语言话语与语言实践之间的关系的必要性。十八世纪后期的实证研究学者们发现韩文的实用性和价值对韩国文本生产产生了什么影响，以及为什么尽管他们的努力，我们在启蒙时期（18世纪中叶开始）之前很少看到韩国文学生活的本土化？有许多角度可以探讨这个问题；社会历史当然也是其中至关重要的一个。本章从文学史的角度审视了十八世纪后期一位文学大师燕巖朴趾源（1737-1805）的语言话语和语言实践。

"Sirhak" scholars were definitely among the driving forces in the interest in "things Korean" that pervaded the later eighteenth century, and especially the "Northern scholars" (pukhakp'a 北學派) variety played an important role in the process of redefining Chosŏn's relation with the outside world and giving new impulses to Korean identity discourses. Pak Chiwŏn as one of the representative pukhak scholars has been much credited for his efforts at decentering China while at the same time exhorting his fellow Koreans to keep abreast of the cultural and technical developments in the great neighboring country.
"思想家"学者绝对是 18 世纪后期盛行的"韩国事物"兴趣中的推动力量之一，尤其是"北学派"（pukhakp'a 北学派）的种类在重新定义朝鲜与外部世界的关系并为韩国身份话语注入新动力的过程中发挥了重要作用。作为代表性的北学派学者之一，朴趾源在试图使中国不再成为中心的努力方面受到了很高的评价，同时敦促他的韩国同胞跟上伟大邻国文化和技术发展的步伐。

Still, Pak Chiwŏn may appear an unlikely subject of research into diglot written culture of this period. He had little to say about writing in Korean script, nor did he practice it: among his transmitted works there is no text in Korean. In one letter contained in his collected works, he even claims to have "not known a single letter of Korean script (ŏnja 諺字) all my life," although this
然而，朴趾源可能看起来不太可能成为这一时期双语书面文化研究的主题。他对韩文写作几乎没有什么可说的，也没有实践过：在他传世的作品中，没有一篇是用韩文写的。在他的文集中的一封信中，他甚至声称自己"一生中从未认识过一种韩文字母（諺字）"，尽管这

6 Needless to say, my use of the "sirhak" epithet is not synonymous with the assumption of a "school" or coherent movement. Still, and in spite of the somewhat inflational use of the term that has become common, I find it useful for roughly designating a certain orientation of certain Chosŏn literati.
毫无疑问，我对“士学”这一称谓的使用并不等同于“学派”或连贯运动的假设。尽管这个术语的使用有些夸张，但我发现它在大致指代某些朝鲜文人的某种取向方面很有用。

7 The common assumption is that sirhak scholars strengthened a more "nationally conscious" use of writing systems; among others, the work on ŏnmun history of Yi Sanghyŏk is built upon it.
普遍的假设是，士学者加强了对写作系统更“具有民族意识”的使用；其中，李相赫的《言文史》的工作就是基于此。

8 Although a han'gŭl version of the Yŏrha ilgi exists, this is obviously a later translation of the original Sinitic text; it is also incomplete, covering only some parts of the diary and completely omitting the thematically ordered records. Only the second kwŏn of the translation has survived; this work also contains a partial translation of a 1790 travel record by another person. See Kim T’aejun (2001).
尽管《照河日记》存在韩文版，但这显然是原始汉文本的后来翻译；它也是不完整的，仅涵盖了日记的一些部分，并完全省略了按主题排序的记录。只有翻译的第二卷幸存下来；这部作品还包含另一人 1790 年旅行记录的部分翻译。请参阅金泰俊（2001 年）。
is not a very trustworthy statement. Rather, he is known as a force in renewing hanmun style, the Yorrha ilgi having been singled out as the main target of King Chŏngjo's 正祖 (1752-180o; r. 1776-180o) "literary rectification movement" (munch'e panjong 文體反正). Indeed, his mastery of a great variety of Chinese writing styles shows deep immersion not only in the classical tradition up to Song times, but in more recent writings as well; his indebtedness to late Ming and Qing masters has been convincingly shown by Yi Chongju (2001).10
这并不是一个非常可信的说法。相反，他以更新汉文风格而闻名，被认为是正祖（1752-1800;在位1776-1800）“文体反正”运动的主要目标，而《与罗一记》则被单独挑选出来。事实上，他对各种中国书写风格的精通显示出他不仅深深沉浸在宋代以前的古典传统中，还涉猎了更近期的著作；他对明清晚期大师的借鉴已被易崇柱（2001）有力地证明。

However, his thrust for enlivening hanmun writing did not stop at mastering new as well as old Sinitic styles. In addition, he advocated enriching hanmun self-assuredly with local expressions, a stance often referred to as "Chosŏn p'ung" 朝鮮風 (Chosŏn style, lit. "Chosŏn wind"), following his use of this expression in one important preface." But rather than directly tackling Yŏnam's discussions of literary aesthetics, which are mainly found in letters and forewords to his collected works, I will use his record of a journey to China, the Yŏrha ilgi (Jehol Diary; pref. 1783) as my primary source. For one thing, this bulky literary masterpiece can serve to demonstrate not only literary views but literary practice on a more sustained basis; and secondly, as a diary rich in observations of matters in all spheres of life, it carries the promise to inform on language practice on more levels than just that of high literary composition as is treated in the prefaces and letters. In line with this twofold motivation in studying this text, I will in the following sections first probe into the discourse on language/script use in the Yŏrha ilgi (hereafter, YI), and then attempt an interpretation of the narrative and linguistic techniques in YI in the light of the diglot problematic as viewed by Pak Chiwŏn.
然而，他对振兴汉文写作的追求并不仅限于掌握新旧汉字风格。此外，他主张自信地用当地表达丰富汉文，这种立场通常被称为“朝鲜风”，在一篇重要的序言中他首次使用了这个表达。但我不打算直接讨论杨南在文学美学方面的讨论，这些主要出现在他的书信和作品集的前言中，我将以他的中国之行记录《遼河日記》（1783年序言）作为我的主要来源。首先，这部庞大的文学巨著不仅可以展示文学观点，还可以更持久地展示文学实践；其次，作为一部充满对各个生活领域观察的日记，它承诺可以在更多层面上提供语言实践的信息，而不仅仅是高级文学作品中所涉及的那些前言和书信。 符合这一双重动机的研究这一文本，我将在接下来的部分首先探讨《猎户日记》中关于语言/文字使用的话语，然后尝试根据朴趾源的观点，解释《猎户日记》中的叙事和语言技巧。

Remarks on language are probably a rather common feature of the rich embassy literature of Chosŏn times. Visiting China meant for many of the literati who took part in the missions, either as functionaries or as their personal companions, the first sustained contact with Chinese as a spoken language, and it is not beyond expectation that this experience should have found expression in their journey records. While any claim of an exceptional attention to linguistic matters in the YI would therefore be premature, the text does offer a rich variety of notes and discussions on language, script, and their relationship with education in the literary tradition.
关于语言的评论可能是朝鲜时代丰富的使节文学中一个相当普遍的特征。对于许多参加使团的文人来说，访问中国意味着第一次与汉语作为口语进行持续接触，预料他们的这种经历会在他们的旅行记录中找到表达。因此，对《猎户日记》对语言问题给予特别关注的任何主张都是过早的，但这一文本确实提供了丰富的注释和讨论，涉及语言、文字及其与文学传统中教育的关系。

Before delving into them, however, some remarks are in order about the textual character of the YI and the inevitable constraints on quoting from it that follow from the former. Much has been written on Pak Chiwŏn's narrative techniques. While these writings together represent a tremendous advance in our understanding of Pak Chiwŏn's literary mind, as far as the YI is concerned, they seem to share a certain limitation that arises from looking at the YI as a collection of individual texts. The fact that the YI does contain independent essays within its diary parts, besides openly fictional narratives that have long
然而，在深入讨论它们之前，有必要对《易》的文本特征以及由此产生的引用限制进行一些说明。关于朴趾源的叙事技巧已经有很多研究。尽管这些著作共同代表了我们对朴趾源文学思想的巨大进步，但就《易》而言，它们似乎存在一定的局限性，这种局限性源自将《易》视为一组独立文本。《易》确实包含了独立的散文，除了长期以来一直存在的虚构叙事。

Pak Chiwŏn undertook his 178 o journey to Peking and Jehol as military aide to his older cousin Pak Myŏngwŏn 朴明源 (1725-1790), who served as first emissary. Among the several hundred records of missions to China that have come down to us, quite a number have been written by the first or second emissaries themselves, but even more are the works of either the embassy secretaries (who counted as the third official emissary) or of such private companions, who of course had more leisure both for sightseeing and for keeping records of their impressions. See also Ledyard (1982: 64).
朴趾源作为他的堂兄朴明源（1725-1790）的军事助手，进行了他的178英里之旅前往北京和热河。我们手中留存的数百份关于对华使团的记录中，有相当一部分是由第一或第二使团成员亲自撰写的，但更多的是由使团秘书（算作第三官方使团成员）或私人同伴所写，后者当然更有闲暇观光和记录印象的时间。另见Ledyard（1982: 64）。

See Eggert (1997: 74). However, of the three embassy records inspected there, one is the Yŏrha ilgi itself, and the other two may be seen as closely related to it: Kim Ch'angŏp's 金昌業 (1658-1722) Yŏnhaeng ilgi 燕行日記 (1712) was definitely read by Pak Chiwŏn, and Sŏ Kyŏngsun's 徐慶淳 (1804-?) Monggyŏngdang ilsa 夢經堂日史 (1855/6) was influenced by the latter in turn. Sŏ Yumun's 徐有聞 (1762-1822) interest in language questions as testified to by Cho Kyuik (2002) was also evidently influenced by earlier records (a number of the passages quoted by Cho have immediate precedence in the Yŏnhaeng ilgi and Yŏrha ilgi). As previous literature on the yŏnhaengnok genre has, to my knowledge, not yet tackled the question comparatively, it remains to be investigated whether records of linguistic experience really belonged to the stock of the yŏnhaengnok genre, or rather originated together with the deepened interest in material (i.e., vernacular) culture as described by Kim Hyŏnmi (2002) for the earlier part of the eighteenth century. Among the more recent works on the subject, I have consulted especially the following: Yi Kangyŏp (2003), Kim Hyŏlcho (2002), Yi Chongju (2001), Ch’oe Ch’ŏnjip (1997), Ch’oe Inja (1996), and Yi Hyŏnsik (1995).
参见Eggert（1997: 74）。然而，在检查的三份使馆记录中，一份是《燕行日记》，另外两份可以视为与之密切相关：金昌业（1658-1722）的《燕行日记》（1712）肯定被朴趾源阅读过，而徐庆淳（1804-？）的《梦经堂日史》（1855/6）受到后者的影响。据Cho Kyuik（2002）证实，徐有闻（1762-1822）对语言问题的兴趣显然也受到早期记录的影响（Cho引用的许多段落在《燕行日记》和《燕行日记》中有直接先例）。就我所知，关于燕行小说流派的先前文献尚未对这个问题进行比较研究，因此有待进一步调查语言经验记录是否真正属于燕行小说流派的内容，还是与金贤美（2002）所描述的对物质（即方言）文化的深化兴趣一起起源于十八世纪早期。 在这个主题上的较新作品中，我特别参考了以下作品：易康烨（2003 年）、金炫祚（2002 年）、李钟柱（2001 年）、崔天集（1997 年）、崔仁子（1996 年）和李贤植（1995 年）。

A noteworthy exception is Yi Kangyŏp (2003), who uses the simile of an "omnibus" for Yŏrha ilgi's style of connecting scenes (271) and realizes the rounded character of certain of its chapters (272), arguing in favor of overcoming artificial generic borders between text passages (276). He seems rather unaware, however, of the literary traditions behind this narrative technique.
值得注意的例外是易康烨（2003 年），他用“公共汽车”的比喻来描述《悅荷日记》连接场景的风格（271 页），并认识到某些章节的圆润性格（272 页），主张克服文本段落之间人为的通用边界（276 页）。然而，他似乎对这种叙事技巧背后的文学传统并不了解。

These essays have been given an individual title by the author himself and are usually mentioned within the diary in the following manner: "There exists an additional 'Record on ..." (pyŏlyu ... ki 別有 ... 記).
这些文章由作者本人赋予了独特的标题，并通常在日记中以以下方式提及：“还有一个‘关于...的记录’”（别有...记）。
since been subsumed under the heading of hanmun sosŏl 漢文小說 ("fiction in Literary Sinitic") and accordingly been anthologized as independent stories, certainly helped to create a tradition of reading the YI as a collection of a wide variety of prose genres rather than as a continuous work. Although the revelation that even the story that was given a title by Pak Chiwŏn himself, Hojil 虎叱 ("Tiger's Reprimand"), needs to be read within the context of the diary entry in which it appears struck as early as the trend to single out certain scenes from the diary as individual essays and provide them with a title of their own persists to date. But while these selected scenes certainly are imbued with a special literary passion that warrants their treatment as "works" (chakp'um 作品), the generic make-up of the YI should not be confounded with a collection of essays. Rather, it must be understood in the tradition of the sup'il 隨筆 ("casual notes") genre, and, as I have argued elsewhere, at least the masterpieces among the sup'il tend to evince a structural make-up that does not allow one to read the author's mind from isolated entries. Rather, meaning is constituted in these texts through subtle interplay of sometimes complementary, sometimes contradictory narrations and statements. In what follows, I will therefore attempt to counterbalance the reductionist effect of the sampling of statements with at least partial accounts of argumentative procedures. The resulting complexities of argument faithfully mirror the intellectual subtlety of the text itself.
自被纳入汉文小说（hanmun sosŏl）的范畴，并相应地被编入独立的故事集，无疑有助于形成一种阅读《易传》的传统，将其视为各种散文体裁的集合，而非连续作品。尽管即便是由朴趾源亲自题名的故事《虎叱》（Hojil），也需要在其所在的日记条目背景下阅读，这一点早在 时期就引起了注意，将日记中的某些场景单独提取出来，视为独立的文章并赋予它们标题的趋势至今仍然存在。 然而，虽然这些精选场景确实充满了特殊的文学激情，值得被视为“作品”（chakp'um），但《易传》的文体构成不应与散文集混淆。相反，它必须被理解为随笔（sup'il）体裁的传统， 正如我在其他地方所主张的，至少在随笔中的杰作往往呈现出一种结构性构成，不允许读者从孤立的条目中读懂作者的心思。 相反，意义是通过这些文本中有时互补，有时矛盾的叙述和陈述之间微妙的相互作用构成的。在接下来的内容中，我将尝试通过至少部分论证程序的描述来抵消对陈述抽样的简化效果。论证的复杂性忠实地反映了文本本身的智慧细微之处。

17 Yi Chaesŏn brought forth this argument in his Han'guk tanp'yŏn sosŏl yŏn'gu (1975). See also, Pak Kisŏk (1986: 456).
17 1975 年，李在善在他的《韩国短篇小说研究》中提出了这个论点。另见，朴基锡（1986: 456）。

18 Typical examples are “Hogokchang ki/ron” 好哭場 記/論 (“Record of a Good Place for Crying"), Togangnok 渡江錄 (07.08) and “Ibyŏllon” 離別論 ("On Parting"), Makpuk haengjöngnok 漠北行程錄 (08.05). As this procedure is followed quite without exception, I refrain from providing citations.
18 典型的例子有“好哭场记/论”，“渡江录”和“离别论”，“漠北行程录”。由于这一程序毫无例外地被遵循，我不提供引用。

The YI as we have it is not a diary as jotted down during a journey but a crafted piece of literary art. For what we know about the writing process, see the first chapter of Kim Myŏngho (1990). The conscious choice of the diary genre for about the first half of the book must have been made with the specific potentials of this-like sup'il-seemingly spontaneous genre in mind.
我们现在所拥有的《易》并不是在旅途中随意记下的日记，而是一部精心打造的文学艺术作品。关于写作过程的了解，请参阅金明浩（1990）的第一章。在书的前半部分选择日记体裁，一定是考虑到了这种类似随笔的潜在特点。

20 See Eggert (1999: 71-73). Kim Manjung 金萬重 (1637-1692), whose sup'il-work Sŏp'o manp'il 西浦漫筆 was the object of this study, belonged to the same (Noron 老論) faction as Pak Chiwŏn; his views on Korea's diglot situation appear like a precursor to Pak Chiwŏn's. The two are also connected by their fascination with (Chinese) novels, which tend to employ a similar weaving technique. For Pak Chiwŏn's high interest in Ming-Qing fiction criticism (which put much stress on the writing techniques in question), see Kim Tongsŏk (2003: 241).
见 Eggert（1999：71-73）。金万重（1637-1692）的随笔作品《西浦漫笔》是本研究的对象，他与朴趾源属于同一（老论）派别；他对韩国的双语情况的看法似乎是朴趾源的先驱。两者还因对（中国）小说的迷恋而联系在一起，这些小说往往采用类似的编织技巧。关于朴趾源对明清小说批评的高度兴趣（这些批评非常强调所讨论的写作技巧），请参阅金东锡（2003：241）。

21 The YI consists of 26 parts with individual titles, of which the first seven, comprising almost half of the bulk of the work, are in the diary format (although interspersed with titled "records"). The present study is mainly based on the diary portions.
《易》由 26 个带有独立标题的部分组成，其中前七个几乎占据了作品的一半，采用了日记格式（尽管穿插着带有标题的“记录”）。本研究主要基于日记部分。

The Qing empire was a multinational unit, and especially the northeastern part traversed by Korean embassies was home to Chinese as well as Manchu, Mongols, and even Koreans. The journey therefore provided experience of a multilingual environment. The YI vividly reflects, and probably even exaggerates, this experience.
清帝国是一个多民族单位，特别是朝鲜使馆经过的东北部地区，居住着中国人、满族人、蒙古人，甚至朝鲜人。因此，这次旅程提供了多语言环境的体验。《易经》生动地反映了这种经历，可能甚至夸大了这种经历。

Exposure to a living foreign language entails, first of all, the experience of linguistic incompetence. Upon entry into the Qing empire at the so called "Palisade Gate," the travelers have to realize that even as far as their knowledge of spoken Chinese goes, it is inadequate for effective communication: the unit for ordering wine, liang ("ounce"), means not the price to be paid but the quantity of wine. Later in his travels, the narrator repeatedly encounters the situation of not being able to communicate due to his ignorance of the Manchu and Mongolian languages. Of course, communication with educated people of any ethnic background through Literary Sinitic was no problem (scarcity of paper and ink was no concern). But even in the context of "brush conversations" (K. p'iltam, C. bitan 筆談), not being able to speak the language could be experienced as deficiency, as the Chinese interlocutors would sometimes (obviously at critical junctures of the conversation) discuss among themselves for quite a while before taking up the brush again.
接触一门生活中的外语首先意味着语言无能的经历。进入所谓的“栅栏门”进入清朝帝国时，旅行者必须意识到，即使就他们对汉语口语的了解而言，也不足以进行有效的交流：点酒的单位“两”并不是指要支付的价格，而是指酒的数量。在旅行中，叙述者多次遇到由于不懂满语和蒙古语而无法交流的情况。当然，通过文言文与任何民族背景的受过教育的人交流并不成问题（纸张和墨水的稀缺并不是问题）。但即使在“笔谈”（K. p'iltam, C. bitan 筆談）的背景下，无法说出这种语言可能被视为不足，因为中国的对话者有时会（显然在对话的关键时刻）在再次拿起笔之前互相讨论一段时间。

But as the narrator is not a solitary traveler but part of a large group of compatriots, linguistic incompetence cannot remain a one-sided phenomenon. At one point, Chinese p'iltam friends try themselves at pronouncing a Korean word, kangch'ől 罡鐵, the name of a strange dragon which seems to have been brought into the narrative especially in order to produce the following scene:
但由于叙述者并非独自旅行者，而是一个庞大的同胞团体的一部分，语言能力不足不能仅仅是一种单方面的现象。在某个时刻，中国朋友们试图发音一个韩语单词，kangch'ől 罡鐵，这是一个奇怪的龙的名字，似乎是特意引入叙述中，以制造接下来的场景：

Scholar Pei said [obviously in writing]: "The dragon's name is antique and strange [i.e., has a mysterious quality]"; [...] so he recited with much emphasis: “kang—ch’ŏ 罡處." I called out: “Kangchoól!” Scholar Pei again uttered: “Kangch'ŏn 罡賤." I smiled and said: “No, it is not the sound ch'ön [or: the sound is not base], it is like the ch’ŏl in toch'ŏl 䬭䬸 [C. taotie, a monster which is part of ancient iconography]." Dongya laughed and cried loudly: “Kangch'onng 罡靑!” Everybody laughed. For when the Chinese pronounce words rhyming on , wŏl, and the like, they are not able to produce the rolling sound (chŏnsŏng 轉聲).
裴学士说[显然是在书写中]：“这条龙的名字古怪而神秘[即具有神秘的品质]”；[...] 于是他强调地朗读道：“kang—ch’ŏ 罡處。” 我喊道：“Kangchoól！” 裴学士又说：“Kangch'ŏn 罡賤。” 我微笑着说：“不，不是音节 ch'ön [或者说：这个音不是基础音节]，而是像䬭䬸中的 ch’ŏl 那样。” 东亚笑着大声喊道：“Kangch'onng 罡靑！” 大家都笑了。因为当中国人发音类似于 、wŏl 等的押韵词时，他们无法发出滚动音(chŏnsŏng 轉聲)。

In a context where the narrator depicts himself as functioning as a transmitter of culture, the tables are turned; not only do the Chinese find themselves trying hard, but still failing, to speak accurate Korean, the Chinese language itself appears as phonologically deficient.
在叙述者将自己描绘为文化传播者的背景下，情况发生了变化；不仅中国人发现自己努力地却仍然无法准确地说出韩语，而且中文本身在语音上显得不足。

The same phenomenon is demonstrated more often, and more definitely tied to spoken language, with Manchu speakers. The man provided by the Qing side as the main interpreter and guide, Shuanglin, a Manchu fluent in Chinese and well-versed in Korean, appears twice within the diary narrative. When the embassy just enters the Palisade Gate, he takes a man to task who broke the rule of etiquette by not dismounting from his horse; but while he shouts with great vigor, his Korean sounds as if uttered "with a heavy and obstructed tongue, like a babbling baby or a mad drunkard," obviously impairing his authority (Togangnok, I 523). During the second instance of his appearance, which is interestingly again tied to matters of etiquette-this time the main interpreter of the Korean side berates Shuanglin for not halting or dismounting when the Korean ambassadors cross his path-Shuanglin's linguistic ability is denigrated even more: "When people say he is good at speaking Korean, this is not really adequate. If he is in a hurry, he falls into Chinese" (Ilsin sup'il 馹汛隨筆, I 573f.). A kind of language proficiency contest which Shuanglin conducts with Pak Chiwŏn's servant Changbok results in the former's utter defeat:
同样的现象更频繁地展示出来，并且更明显地与满语使用者的口语有关。清朝方面提供的主要翻译和向导双林，一位精通汉语和韩语的满族人，在日记叙述中出现了两次。当使团刚进入栅栏门时，他责备了一个未下马违反礼仪规则的人；但当他大声喊叫时，他的韩语听起来像是“用沉重而受阻的舌头说话，像一个喋喋不休的婴儿或疯狂的醉汉”，显然损害了他的权威（《通安录》I 523）。在他第二次出现的情况下，有趣的是再次与礼仪问题有关-这次是韩国方面的主要翻译责备双林在韩国大使经过时没有停下或下马-双林的语言能力受到了更大的贬低：“人们说他擅长说韩语，这并不完全准确。如果他着急了，他就会说汉语”（《一心随笔》I 573f.）。双林与朴趾源的仆人昌福进行的一种语言能力比赛导致了前者的彻底失败：

Changbok had only picked up [his Chinese] on the road since we had entered the Palisade Gate, but spoke it so much better than Shuanglin [the Korean] he had studied all his life. Thus, I realized that Chinese is easier than the language of the east.
自从我们进入栅栏门以来，昌福只是在路上学会了[他的中文]，但说得比双林[这位终身学习的韩国人]还要好。因此，我意识到中文比东方语言更容易。

IBID.: 574 同上：574

The difficulty the Korean language posed to Manchu speakers had been proven earlier by an accompanying Manchu soldier on night watch duty, who explained his presence to the startled Koreans with the self-introduction: "to-i no-ŭm i-yo" (toenom io, "I'm a barbarian") (Togangnok, I 535). Both the hardly
韩国语对满语人说话者的困难早在一名随从的满族士兵在夜间值班时就已经得到证实，他向惊慌失措的韩国人解释他的存在，自我介绍说：“to-i no-ŭm i-yo”（toenom io，“我是野蛮人”）（Togangnok，I 535）。几乎

YI, Sŏnggyŏng chapchi 盛京雜識 (Miscellaneous Records of the Flourishing Capital), I 553 .
YI，成京杂识（繁荣之都的杂记），I 553。

26 See the sub-section, "Hanmun Culture and Vernacular Culture" below.
请参阅下面的“汉文化与白话文化”小节。
intelligible pronunciation and the use of a denigrating term for himself made the Manchu speaker of Korean appear rather ridiculous.
可理解的发音和对自己使用贬义词汉语的满语说话者显得相当荒谬。

However, the YI language narrative does not seem to aim at chauvinistic pride in the difficult and sophisticated Korean mother tongue. For lower-class Koreans are shown to make the very same mistake by picking up Chinese expressions they do not quite understand, unwittingly calling bad odors Gaoli-chou 高麗自 (“Korean stench") and using the expression "Eastern Barbarian” when things have been lost (Kuoe imun, II 620). And lastly, Korean appears as a foreign language to the narrator himself, who drowsily rides his horse one early morning after a night spent with Chinese acquaintances:
然而，《YI 语言叙事》似乎并不旨在对困难而复杂的韩语母语感到沙文主义自豪。因为底层韩国人也犯同样的错误，学着使用他们并不完全理解的汉语表达，无意中称臭味为 Gaoli-chou 高麗自（“韩国臭味”），在东西丢失时使用“东夷”这个表达（Kuoe imun, II 620）。最后，对叙述者自己来说，韩语看起来像一门外语，他在一个早晨骑马，昏昏欲睡地度过了一夜与中国熟人相处后：

The moon had just set, the stars in the sky winked at each other, village cocks took turns crowing. After a few , white mist filled the plain, which became a sea of watery silver. A pair of Ǔiju merchants passed by talking to each other, vague and indistinct as if reading a strange book in a dream.
月亮刚落下，天空中的星星彼此眨眼，村里的公鸡轮流啼叫。几个 后，白雾弥漫了平原，变成了一片水银般的海洋。一对Ǔiju 商人经过，彼此交谈，模糊不清，就像在梦中读一本陌生的书。

Sŏnggyŏng chapchi 盛京雜識, I 556
盛京杂识, I 556

Thus, to a certain degree, the experience of a multilingual environment as described in the YI results in a claim of equality of living languages, which are from this perspective distinguished not by levels of culture but by being more or less-but never totally-"home" to an individual speaker.
因此，在一定程度上，YI 中描述的多语言环境体验导致了对生活语言平等的主张，从这个角度来看，这些语言不是通过文化水平来区分，而是通过对一个个体说话者来说更多或更少，但从未完全是“家”的。

However, the Babel image of spoken languages of equal importance and meaningfulness is crisscrossed by another, perhaps more prominent, image of Chinese as the language of culture and learning. If in the YI languages are basically seen as equal partners in a multilingual world, cultures are to some degree perceived as hierarchically ordered, and insofar as language is both an expression and carrier of culture, this hierarchy affects their relationship as well. Some of the instances quoted above could also be used to demonstrate the relatively low esteem in which the Manchu and Mongolian languages seem to be held by the narrator-or at least by the conventions from which the narrative departs: being asked whether he speaks Mongolian or Manchu, for example, the narrator "answered in jest: 'How would a yangban speak one of these languages?"' (Kuoe imun, II 626f.). But rather than by downgrading the "barbarian" languages, an unequal relationship is established by stressing the special character of Chinese.
然而，巴别塔形象中，口语语言的重要性和意义被另一个，也许更突出的形象所交叉，即中文作为文化和学习的语言。如果在YI语言中基本上被视为多语言世界中的平等伙伴，那么文化在某种程度上被认为是按等级排序的，而语言既是文化的表达和载体，这种等级关系也影响着它们之间的关系。上面引用的一些例子也可以用来展示叙述者或至少叙述离开的惯例似乎对满语和蒙古语持有的相对低评价：例如，当被问及他是否会说蒙古语或满语时，叙述者“开玩笑地回答说：‘一个阳伴会说这些语言吗？’”（Kuoe imun，II 626f.）。但与其贬低“蛮夷”语言，不如强调中文的特殊性来建立不平等关系。

While crossing a side-arm of the Yalu River, the narrator first experiences the spoken Chinese language as culturally charged. A boatman who has carried him onto the ferry jokes about his weight — and, according to one edition, implies a mild abuse - by alluding to a certain scene in the Chinese novel Shuihuzhuan 水滸傳 (Water Margin). The narrator wonders:
当穿过鸭绿江的一条支流时，叙述者首次感受到口语中蕴含的文化内涵。一个载他乘渡船的船夫开玩笑说他的体重 —— 并且，根据某个版本的说法，暗示了一种轻微的虐待 - 暗指中国小说《水浒传》中的某个场景。叙述者想知道：

"How can somebody like him create such deep literary meaning upon just opening his mouth?" Secretary Cho answered: "He belongs to the people of whom we say, 'they don't even know the character chŏng 丁.' But the novels and stories of marvel provide the phrases of common usage they have constantly on their lips. This is what is called Mandarin."
“像他这样的人怎么可能一开口就创造出如此深刻的文学意义？”曹秘书回答说：“他属于我们所说的‘他们甚至不认识丁字’的人。但是奇幻小说和故事提供了他们口中经常挂在嘴边的常用语。这就是所谓的官话。”

Togangnok, I 518 Togangnok，I 518

Even before having completely crossed over into Qing territory, the traveler encounters a spoken language that appears as a direct continuation of the written literary tradition (mun 文) that his own language can only refer to as the contents of learning. Comments on this phenomenon reappear quite frequently throughout the YI. More often than not, they are connected with discussions of the different ways of learning, especially of studying the classics:
即使在完全跨越进入清朝领土之前，旅行者就会遇到一种口语，看起来直接延续了他自己语言只能称之为学习内容的书面文学传统（mun 文）。对这种现象的评论在《易经》中经常出现。往往与不同学习方式的讨论有关，特别是研究经典的方式：

Here they have the two ways of declamation (songsŏ 誦書), and explication (kangŭi 講義) of the books. This is different from our East, where beginners are introduced to sound and meaning together. The Chinese begin by learning to recite loudly the sentences of the Four Books. Once they have learned them by heart, they search out a teacher who can instruct them about their meaning. This is called "explication." Even if somebody receives no explication all his life, the sentences he has learned by heart [still] make up the Mandarin he speaks in everyday life. Chinese is therefore the easiest and the most sensible language among the local idioms of the myriad countries (man'guk pangŏn yu hanŏ ch'oe yŏk ch'a ch'oe yuri).
这里有朗诵（songsŏ 誦書）和讲解（kangŭi 講義）两种方式。这与我们东方不同，那里初学者同时学习发音和含义。中国人开始学习大声背诵《四书》的句子。一旦他们背诵熟记，他们就会寻找一位能教导他们意义的老师。这被称为“讲解”。即使有人一生都没有接受过讲解，他所背诵的句子仍构成他日常生活中说的官话。因此，汉语是众多国家的当地语言中最简单、最明智的语言。

Togangnok, I  Togangnok，我

A long paragraph in a later chapter of the YI that takes the form of sihwa 詩話 or "anecdotes on poetry" discusses this strength of the Chinese language at length. As the context demands, the focus this time is on the natural acquisition of poetic expression that growing up with Chinese as mother tongue presumably allows:
《易经》后面章节中的一段长段落采用了“诗话”或“诗词趣谈”的形式，详细讨论了汉语的这种优势。随着语境的要求，这次的重点是随着汉语作为母语成长所带来的自然获得诗意表达的能力：

In China, one proceeds from written characters towards spoken language, whereas we in our Eastern country proceed from speaking to writing. This makes the difference between Chinese/civilizational flower and outsiders. By "proceeding from speaking to writing" I mean that language and writing are separated. When, for example, we read the character tian/ch'ŏn 天 ("heaven, sky") as "hanǔl ch'ŏn," this implies that besides the character, there exists a layer of spoken language which is hard to understand. How can a small child which still does not know what [Korean] hanŭl means understand [Chinese] ch'ŏn? It has been transmitted for a long time as a tale of refinement that Zheng Xuan's female servants were able to communicate with lines from the Shijing 詩經 (Book of Odes). But in fact, Chinese women and children all use literary language (kae munja wi o 皆以文字爲語); even those who cannot discern the [extremely simple] character chŏng are able to sing of the phoenix with their spoken words, and the classics, histories, masters and collected writings are their everyday language material. One of our countrymen was most astonished when he first witnessed a Chinese child on the banks of a brook calling out to his mother: “Shui shen du bu de" 水深渡不得 ("the water is too deep for crossing"). He thought, in China, five-yearolds compose poetry as soon as they open their mouths. This is not at all the case; it was spoken language, not willful composition. When Kim Ch'angŏp traveled in Qianshan, he met upon a country woman who sold wine. When he asked what customers she might find in this solitary place, she answered: “Hua xiang die zi lai” 花香蝶自來 (“when the flowers are fragrant, butterflies will naturally come"). Without much ado, with simple words and clear message, she formed a poetic line. This is nothing else but miraculous proof of proceeding from written characters to spoken language. Our young maidservant used to be quite muddleheaded. Sent to buy rice-cakes, she returned with caramel. Undisturbed, she excused herself: "Ba and Shu are both within the pass" (p'a ch'ok yők kwan chung 巴蜀亦關中). This sentence is known through playing cards.
在中国，人们从文字向口语发展，而我们在东方国家则是从口语到文字。这造成了中国文明与外来者之间的差异。所谓“从口语到文字”，指的是语言和文字是分开的。例如，当我们读到“天”这个字时，会发音为“hanǔl ch'ŏn”，这意味着除了文字外，还存在着一层难以理解的口语。一个还不知道“hanŭl”是什么意思的小孩怎么能理解“ch'ŏn”呢？传说郑玄的女仆们能够用《诗经》的句子交流，被传颂为一则文雅的故事。但事实上，中国的妇女和儿童都使用文言文；即使是那些无法辨认极为简单的字“炅”的人，也能用口语歌颂凤凰，经史子集成为她们日常语言的素材。 我们的同胞中有一个人，当他第一次看到一个中国孩子在小溪边呼喊他的母亲时，感到非常惊讶：“水深渡不得”。他认为，在中国，五岁的孩子一张口就能作诗。事实并非如此；这只是口语，而非刻意创作。金昌楷在千山旅行时，遇到一个卖酒的乡村妇女。当他问这个偏僻地方会有什么顾客时，她回答说：“花香蝶自来”。她用简单的话语和明确的信息，毫不费力地构成了一句诗句。这无非是从文字到口语的奇迹证明。我们的年轻女仆过去常常糊涂。派她去买米饼，她却拿回了焦糖。她毫不在意地为自己辩解：“巴蜀亦关中”。这句话是通过打牌而广为人知的。

31 See Shijing, "Shishuo xinyu" 世說新語 4, wenxue 文學, 3.
31 参见《诗经》《世说新语》4，文学 3。

32 Even with regard to tonal sequence, this might be the first line of a five-syllable-verse.
即使在音调顺序方面，这可能是一个五字句的第一句。

She has no idea what Ba and Shu are, but she got it right that the saying means "no difference between this and that." This taught me that Chinese is not difficult, and that Zheng Xuan's maidservants cannot monopolize elegance for all ages.
她不知道什么是巴和蜀，但她正确地理解了这句话的意思是“这个和那个没有区别”。这让我明白中文并不难，郑玄的侍女们也不能垄断所有时代的优雅。

Speakers of Chinese thus appear enormously privileged by their mother tongue. Three great literary idioms - fiction, classical learning, and poetry-are shown by the three passages adduced above to be at their disposal without the efforts of learning, imbuing them with natural refinement and elegance.
中国人因为母语而显得极其有优势。三大文学语汇——小说、古典学习和诗歌——正如上面引用的三段所示，无需学习的努力，便能掌握，赋予他们天然的精致和优雅。

The last sentences of the above quote, however, give a certain twist to this view of a special position for the Chinese language; for the Korean maidservant is able to fulfill a feat similar to that of the famed maids of antiquity, and to rob them of their uniqueness, by virtue not of the spoken but of the written word. And not only do Koreans share the Chinese ( 華) elegance in their written culture; the certain degree of effort they have to put into acquiring it also entails an advantage. A "brush conversation" that Pak Chiwŏn supposedly leads with a couple of literate shop vendors in Shenyang contains the following passage:
然而，上述引文的最后一句话对于汉语占据特殊地位的观点提出了一定的转折；因为韩国女仆能够完成类似于古代著名女仆的壮举，并通过书面文字而非口头言辞剥夺它们的独特性。而且韩国人不仅在书面文化中分享了中国的优雅；他们必须付出一定程度的努力来获得这种优势。据说朴趾源在沈阳与几位有文化的店主进行的“笔谈”包含以下内容：

Pei Guan wrote: "It is said that there are no gods and immortals in heaven who cannot read, but on earth there exist parrots that can talk. [...] This is called 'learning which enters through the ear and exits through the mouth.' At present, schools and academies train only reading the texts aloud, without providing explication. Students therefore carry the texts in their ears, but to their eyes they appear hazy and vague; their mouths spill over with the Hundred Writings, but when they have to put something down in writing, they hesitate at each character." Li asked me: "How about your country?" I answered: "We teach reading texts by providing both pronunciation and meaning." Mr. Pei underlined these characters and wrote: "This method is most adequate."
裴观写道：“据说天上没有不识字的神仙，但地上却有会说话的鹦鹉。[...] 这就是所谓的‘耳听为虚，口说为实’。目前，学校和书院只训练朗读文本，而不提供解释。学生们因此将文本留在耳中，但在他们眼中却显得模糊不清；他们口中溢满了百家言，但当他们要写下什么时，每个字都犹豫不决。”李问我：“你们国家怎么样？”我回答说：“我们教导阅读文本时既提供发音又提供含义。”裴先生划了下这些字并写道：“这种方法最为恰当。”

Sŏnggyŏng chapchi, I 547
《成敬杂志》，I 547

The Korean level of refinement through hanmun culture, this passage obviously argues, can be regarded as even higher than that of the Chinese, as the
通过汉文化的韩文水平，这段文字明显地表明，韩国的文化水平甚至可以被视为高于中国的。

34 The story in Shishuo xinyu 世說新語 also entails a mistake made by one of the literate maidservants.
34 《世说新语》中的故事也涉及一个有文化的女仆犯的错误。

35 It is, of course, an intriguing question whether the playing cards carried the saying in sinographs or in han'gŭl; regrettably, Pak Chiwŏn gives no hint in either direction.
35 当然，一个有趣的问题是，扑克牌上的谚语是用汉字还是用韩文书写的；遗憾的是，朴趾源在这两个方面都没有给出任何提示。
difference of languages allows no parroting without comprehension. Only the language that is (consciously) learned can be a true language of learning. But though such a line of argumentation is provided here, it should not simply be regarded as a direct expression of "the" view of Pak Chiwŏn. His ideas on the matter appear rather more complex when the context of this quote is taken into account.
语言的差异不允许没有理解就死记硬背。只有被（有意识地）学习过的语言才能成为真正的学习语言。但尽管这里提供了这样一种论证，它不应该简单地被视为朴趾源观点的直接表达。当考虑到这段引文的背景时，他对这个问题的看法似乎更加复杂。

It has long been noted by readers of the YI that even within the diary portion, each chapter appears to focus on certain topics. However, rather than exchanging one topic for another, chapters present different aspects of the issues most at the heart of the Matters of language, writing, and learning are thematically introduced in the first chapter, Togangnok, but are treated more comprehensively in the following three chapters: Sŏnggyŏng chapchi, Ilsin sup'il, and Kwannae chŏngsa 官內程史.
读者们长期以来一直注意到《易传》中即使在日记部分中，每一章似乎都集中讨论某些主题。然而，章节并非将一个主题换成另一个主题，而是呈现出这些问题核心的不同方面。语言、写作和学习问题在第一章《图纲录》中被主题化介绍，但在接下来的三章中得到更全面的处理：《圣教杂记》、《一心素日》和《官内程史》。

These four chapters cover the route from Ǔiju (at the Korean-Chinese border) to Peking. They are roughly, but not consistently, divided along geographical lines. While Togangnok (covering the journey from Ǔiju to Liaodong) relates the traversal of the borderlands leading up to the truly Chinese Liaodong plain, Sŏnggyŏng chapchi (from Shilihe to Xiaoheshan), from which the above quote was taken, ends at some undistinguished place along the route. Ilsin sup'il (from Xiaoheshan to Shanhaiguan) and Kwannae chŏngsa (Chronicle of the Journey inside the Pass, from Shanhaiguan to Peking) again have a clear geographical dividing point at the entry into China proper. While Sŏnggyŏng chapchi centers on sights and events in Shenyang, the motivation for letting this diary end at Xiaoheshan seems to lie exactly in the realm of matters of language and writing, as I will show presently.
这四章涵盖了从朝鲜与中国边境的乌山到北京的路线。它们大致上，但并不一致地沿着地理线划分。虽然《通关录》（讲述了从乌山到辽东的旅程）描述了通往真正的中国辽东平原的边境地区的穿越， 《星影杂记》（从十里河到小河山）中引用的内容结束于路线上某个不起眼的地方。《一心素逸》（从小河山到山海关）和《宽阿征史》（穿越关隘的旅程编年史，从山海关到北京）再次在进入中国本土时有明确的地理分界点。虽然《星影杂记》聚焦于沈阳的景观和事件，但让这篇日记在小河山结束的动机似乎正好在语言和写作事项的领域，我将立即展示。

As far as these matters are concerned, the focus of Sŏnggyŏng chapchi seems to lie on an evaluation, and at times even celebration, of the narrator's cultural achievements, which are firmly tied to hanmun literacy. Upon entering Shenyang, the narrator encounters a couple of sophisticated-looking men, who, however, turn out to be illiterate (Sŏnggyŏng chapchi, I 546). He soon makes out, and purportedly meets for two consecutive nights, whatever intelligentsia live in town (consisting of the vendors of two antique shops, who tell him that neither in Shenyang nor on the way to Shanhaiguan is there anybody else worth talking to). Even so, they are introduced as rather limited in education and ability: one is knowledgeable in antiquities, one is good at reading aloud, one is handsome but illiterate, one is clumsy at writing but has an amicable character, one is good at painting and at explaining the classics, one is a hearty drinker and good at calligraphy. During their two meetings, the narrator himself excels in almost all of the cultural techniques that are so unevenly mastered by his acquaintances: he carries away his audience in turn by his reading aloud of Chinese texts ("without ŏnt'o 浐吐," i.e., Korean grammatical endings), his philological explanations on obscure passages in the canonical writings, his calligraphy and painting. Besides, he proves to be more knowledgeable about metropolitan literati than his Shenyang friends (Ibid.: 546-552).
就这些事情而言，宋经杂志似乎侧重于对叙述者的文化成就进行评估，有时甚至是庆祝，这些成就与韩文读写能力紧密相关。叙述者进入沈阳时，遇到了几个看起来很有品位的男人，然而，他们最终被证明是文盲。他很快就发现，并据称连续两个晚上见了城里的知识分子（包括两家古董店的老板，他们告诉他，在沈阳和去山海关的路上都没有其他值得交谈的人）。即便如此，他们被介绍为在教育和能力上相当有限：一个精通古董，一个擅长朗读，一个英俊但文盲，一个写作笨拙但性格和善，一个擅长绘画和解释经典，一个酒量大且擅长书法。 在两次会面期间，叙述者本人在几乎所有文化技巧上都表现出色，而这些技巧在他的熟人中表现得如此参差不齐：他通过朗读中文文本（“without ŏnt'o 浐吐”，即韩国语法结尾）将听众带入情境，通过对经典著作中晦涩段落的语言学解释、他的书法和绘画。此外，他证明自己对都城文人的了解比沈阳的朋友更多（Ibid.：546-552）。

During his sojourn at Shenyang, the Korean traveler thus appears as a cultural hero rather than as cultural adept; the passage about the superiority of Korean learning styles belongs in, and is reinforced by, this context. However, things take an ironic turn after the traveler has left the "flourishing [Manchu] capital." In one of the villages he passes the next day, he is asked, after having provided examples of his writing skills, to write a piece of calligraphy for the front board of a pawn shop. He tosses down a set of characters he has seen repeatedly on shopfronts along the way and which he believes to conjure up the trustworthiness of the shop owner, only to find that the shop owner and his companions are somewhat taken aback. He puts this down to their inability to value his superior calligraphic style (Ibid.: 557), but has to realize during a similar situation the next day that the characters he chose are used by rice vendors to advertise the whiteness of their product; he had utterly misunderstood their implications (Ibid.: 561 ). With pride thus turning to (albeit mild) humiliation, Sŏnggyŏng chapchi comes to a close.
在沈阳逗留期间，这位韩国旅行者似乎更像是一个文化英雄，而不是文化专家；关于韩国学习风格优越性的段落属于这种背景，并得到了加强。然而，在旅行者离开“繁荣的[满洲]首都”后，事情却出现了讽刺转折。第二天经过的一个村庄里，他在展示了自己的书法技能后，被要求为当铺的招牌写一幅字。他随意写下了一组他在路上商店门面上反复看到的字，认为这些字能够体现出店主的可信赖性，结果发现店主和他的同伴们有些吃惊。他认为这是因为他们无法欣赏他卓越的书法风格（引用文献：557），但第二天在类似的情况下，他意识到他选择的字是米商用来宣传产品的洁白度；他完全误解了它们的含义（引用文献：561）。因此，骄傲转变为（尽管轻微的）羞辱，《星影杂志》到此结束。

According to the YI, just as the spoken Chinese language has two faces-being both one among equals, and the queen of languages-so does Chinese as a written medium: Hanmun is, on the one hand, a cosmopolitan realm of high culture to which the Korean traveler can belong and contribute; on the other hand, it is also the written expression of a peculiarly Chinese vernacular culture, exclusion from which may turn him into a near-barbarian.
根据《易经》的说法，正如口语汉语有两面一样，既是众多语言中的一员，又是语言之王，汉文作为书面媒介也是如此：汉文一方面是高文化的世界，韩国旅行者可以加入并做出贡献；另一方面，它也是中国特有的口头文化的书面表达，被排除在外可能会使他变成近乎野蛮人。

The narrative takes a number of (not always completely convincing) turns in order to convince readers that Pak Chiwŏn socialized with these people all on his own, thus giving rise to doubts about the factual veracity of the depicted events.
故事情节经过了一系列（并非总是完全令人信服的）转折，以说服读者朴趾源是自己与这些人交往，从而对描绘的事件的事实真实性产生怀疑。

The next diary chapter, Ilsin sup'il, investigates the relationship between high/cosmopolitan and low/vernacular Han (Chinese) culture from the angle of Manchu participation. The first entry is dominated by Pak's now famous discussion of cultural highlights witnessed during his journey. The naïve perspective of the politically uninitiated, who on being asked about the "foremost sights" would just list touristic sites, is contrasted first with several versions of old-fashioned chunghwaron 中華論, the view that no culture to speak of has been left to China since the Manchu takeover, and finally with his own choice, the "broken tiles and dung heaps" which stand in for technical ingenuity and economical thinking. Included in this passage, which serves as standard example of Pak Chiwŏn's ideas on furthering livelihood, is a consideration of language matters: the Korean noblemen's complaints that "the language [of China] has become the vulgar speech of Eastern Dwarfs" (Ilsin sup'il, I 564) are countered by his own "base" (yŏ hasa ya 余下土也) view that "where broken tiles are not thrown away, the refined writings of the Realm are extant" (ch'önha chi munjang sa chae 天下之文章斯在矣). Vulgar Manchu speech cannot obliterate the achievements of refined Chinese culture, especially when the latter is looked at from its vernacular, quotidian side. Pak Chiwŏn certainly did not himself believe in the debasement of "high" Chinese culture that he lets his hypothetical countrymen put forward as argument; his list of great Qing intellectuals who "all became barbarians and robbers since they cut their hair" is of course ironic. However, at this point he does not tackle this argument directly but instead shifts attention from written to lived culture.
下一篇日记章节，《一心素璧》，从满族参与的角度探讨了高级/国际化和低级/白话汉（中国）文化之间的关系。第一篇记录主要讨论了朴氏在旅途中目睹的文化亮点。对于政治上未受启蒙的天真视角，当被问及“最重要的景点”时，只会列举旅游景点，首先与几种老式的中华论观点形成对比，即自满族接管以来中国已经没有什么文化可言，最后与他自己的选择相对比，即代表技术创新和经济思维的“破瓦残砾”。 这段文字包含了朴趾源关于促进生计的思想的标准例子，其中考虑了语言问题：朝鲜贵族抱怨“中国之言，已成东夷之俗”（《一心集异》I 564）的说法，被他自己认为“底下土也”观点所反驳，即“瓦不去，天下之文章斯在矣”。粗俗的满语言不能抹杀精致的中国文化的成就，尤其是当从其白话、日常的一面来看待时。朴趾源当然不相信他让他的假想同胞提出的“高”中国文化的贬低；他列举了一些伟大的清代知识分子，“自剪发以来，皆成夷盗”，这显然是讽刺的。然而，在这一点上，他没有直接回应这个论点，而是将注意力从书面文化转移到生活文化。

In a similar vein, the common Korean prejudice against the ethnic Manchu as unsophisticated country bumpkins is not countered but, at first sight, reinforced in Ilsin sup'll, which carries the main narrative about the linguistically unrefined Manchu interpreter Shuanglin. This view is further bolstered by two scenes in the first and last third of this diary, which appear to be symmetrically arranged: both scenes concern a fortuitous encounter with two men, in both instances an adult and a youngster, and both make use of the Lunyu 論語 (Analects). In the earlier scene, the narrator beholds a Chinese boy on the street and, attracted by his polite demeanor, converses with him and the accompanying grandfather about the child's education; he learns that the boy studies the Lunyu at present (Ilsin sup'il, I 572). In the second instance, he tries
在同一条路线上，普遍的韩国对满族人的偏见，认为他们是没有教养的乡下人，在《一心日记》中并没有得到反驳，反而乍一看似乎被加强了，因为主要叙述了语言不精炼的满族口译员双林。这种观点在日记的前后三分之一中进一步得到支持，这两个场景似乎是对称排列的：两个场景都涉及与两个男人的偶遇，在两种情况下都有一个成年人和一个年轻人，并且都使用了《论语》。在早期的场景中，叙述者在街上看到一个中国男孩，被他的礼貌举止所吸引，与他和随行的祖父谈论孩子的教育；他得知男孩目前正在学习《论语》（《一心日记》，I 572）。在第二个例子中，他试图

The Manchu were equated with ancient references to a "dwarf" (K. chuyu 侏儒) country to the east of China. Chuyu also means "lacking knowledge and education."
满族被等同于古代关于东方“侏儒”（韩文：chuyu 侏儒）国家的描述。侏儒也意味着“缺乏知识和教育”。

41 One might object that munjang here may simply mean "cultural refinement." However, the next sentence parallels munjang with hwado 畫圖 (“pictures"), thus specifying the meaning of "texts" for the former.
有人可能会认为 munjang 在这里可能只是指“文化修养”。然而，下一句将 munjang 与 hwado 畫圖（“图片”）相提并论，从而明确了前者“文本”的含义。
to enter into a brush conversation with a shopkeeper along the roadside. But although "brush and ink-stone were most elegant," the shopkeeper is obviously illiterate and turns for help to a youth from the shop next door who "busily filled a page with Manchu characters" - unintelligible, of course, to the narrator. Attempts at conversing in spoken Chinese are thwarted by their pronunciation being mutually unintelligible, except for the following exchange:
与路边的店主进行毛笔对话。但是尽管“毛笔和砚台最优雅”，店主显然是文盲，并向隔壁店的年轻人寻求帮助，“忙着用满文填满一页”——当然，对叙述者来说是无法理解的。试图用口头中文交流受到发音互相不可理解的阻碍，除了以下对话：

When the youth wrote in Manchu script, the shopkeeper said: "Is it not delightful to have friends coming from distant quarters?" [Luny i I, 2]. I said: "I cannot read Manchu." The youth said: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" [Luny ]. I said, "If you two are able to recite the Lunyu, how come you do not know [Chinese] characters?" The shopkeeper answered: "Is he not also a man of complete virtue who is not angered by not knowing?" [Lunyu I, 3].42 I wrote down and showed them the three sentences they had uttered, but they just stared at the writing and could not at all discern what words these were. Ilsin sup'il,
当年轻人用满文写字时，店主说：“有朋自远方来，不亦乐乎？”[论语 I, 2]。我说：“我不识满文。”年轻人说：“学而时习之，不亦说乎？”[论语 ]。我说：“你们两位能背诵论语，怎么不识字？”店主回答：“不知而不愠，是不是也算是圣人？”[论语 I, 3]。我把他们说的三句话写下来给他们看，但他们只是盯着字看，完全看不懂这些字是什么意思。一心苏必，

In contradistinction to the elegance with which the educated boy had answered the narrator's question a couple of days earlier by writing with a stick in the dust, the crude, literal use of Lumyu quotes by these vendors of obviously Manchu origin appears all the more ridiculous. Access to the subtleties of hanmun culture is not easily obtained by Manchu barbarians, it seems.
与受过教育的男孩用棍子在尘土中回答叙述者的问题时的优雅相反，这些明显是满族出身的小贩们对《论语》的字面引用显得更加荒谬。显然，满族野蛮人很难理解汉文化的微妙之处。

However, Pak Chiwŏn, although he may well have shared the anti-Manchu prejudice of his contemporaries to some degree, opens his text for evidence to the opposite effect. For one thing, even in the scene just quoted, hanmunderived cultural hierarchy is visibly at odds with the equal footing of vernacular languages. If the narrator draws a certain superiority from his cognizance of hanmun, he is, on the other hand, handicapped by his illiteracy in Manchu: when the three interlocutors are unable to communicate satisfactorily either by writing or speaking, "this was really what is called 'not deaf but unable to hear, not blind but unable to see, not dumb but unable to speak'; the three of us, sitting together like the feet of a tripod, assembled the disabilities of the world" (Ibid.).
但是，朴趾源虽然在某种程度上可能与他的同时代人分享了反满族的偏见，但他在文本中为证明相反效果而开放。首先，即使在刚才引用的场景中，汉文衍生的文化等级制度明显与白话语言的平等地位相矛盾。如果叙述者从对汉文的认识中获得某种优越感，那么另一方面，他在满文方面的文盲却成为了他的障碍：当三位对话者无法通过书写或口头交流令人满意时，“这实际上就是所谓的‘不聋但听不见，不瞎但看不见，不哑但说不出话’；我们三人像三条腿的凳子一样坐在一起，集合了世界上的残疾”（引自文献）。

Secondly, in the next diary chapter, cosmopolitan hanmun may open to the traveler a small circle of like-minded persons on the road (Kwannae chŏngsa,
其次，在下一个日记章节中，世界性的汉文可能会为旅行者在路上打开一个小圈子，与志同道合的人交往（Kwannae chŏngsa）。

I have given here the Legge rendering for the first two quotes but provided my own, more literal translation, for the last. For the last quote, Legge gives: "who feels no discomposure though men may take no note of him" (Legge 1983: 123).
我在这里给出了第一和第二个引文的雷治渲染，但对于最后一个引文，我提供了自己更直译的翻译。对于最后一个引文，雷治给出了：“即使人们不注意他，他也不感到不安”（雷治 1983: 123）。

I 594), but in Peking, where cosmopolitan turns into metropolitan, exclusion of the Korean foreigner on account of his strangeness becomes palpable (Kwannae chŏngsa, I 607). At this point, amidst the narrator's now-famous musings about the fallacy of (ethnic) delimitation and separation ("when looked at from the standpoint of the 'not-I', then there is no difference between the 'I' and the myriad things"; K. i pia kwan a a su yŏ manmul mu 以非我觀我。而我遂與萬物無異), the Lunyu quote misused to such comic effect by the Manchu is introduced again, this time in the sense of its standard interpretation: "Is not he a man of complete virtue who feels no discomposure though men may take no note of him?" Inclusion into or exclusion from the guarded realm of wen 文 (high culture/hanmun) cannot in itself serve as criterion for the evaluation of men (Ibid.).
在北京，随着国际化向都市化转变，因为他的陌生感而排斥韩国外国人变得明显（Kwannae chŏngsa，I 607）。在这一点上，叙述者关于（种族）界限和分离谬论的著名思考中（“当从‘非我’的角度看待时，‘我’与万物之间没有区别’；K. i pia kwan a a su yŏ manmul mu 以非我观我。而我遂与万物无异），再次引入了被满洲人滑稽地误用的论语引用，这次是在其标准解释的意义上：“一个完全德行的人，即使人们不注意他，也不会感到不安？”进入或排除文文（高文化/汉文）的守护领域本身不能作为评价人的标准（Ibid.）。

From this point of view, vernacular culture of any origin must logically experience an enhancement of status. Korean vernacular culture/language naturally profits as well, as seen for example in a remark on popular stage art:
从这个角度来看，任何来源的白话文化逻辑上必须经历地位的提升。韩国白话文化/语言自然也会受益，例如在对流行舞台艺术的评论中可以看到：

what they sang was [the Yuan drama] Xixiangji 西廂記 [The Western Chamber]. They are completely illiterate, but most eloquent and witty with their tongues, just like those in our eastern country who recite the “Story of General Im" (Im changgun chŏn 林將軍傳) on the streets and in marketplaces. 45
他们唱的是《西厢记》。他们完全不识字，但口才非常好，机智灵活，就像我们东方国家街头和市场上吟诵《林将军传》的人一样。

However, for eighteenth-century literatus Pak Chiwŏn, the realization that vernacular idioms could be objects of cultivation and sophistication in their own right could not and did not mean that they were in any way suited to replace
然而，对于十八世纪文人朴趾源来说，意识到白话成语可以成为独立的培养和精致化对象，并不意味着它们以任何方式适合取代

This passage concludes, and probably sums up, the Kwannae chŏngsa chapter, which devotes much space to demonstrating deficiencies in cultural refinement in Koreans and Chinese alike: the Korean travelers are avoided and shut out in both a Chinese and a “Korean village" (K. Koryŏbo, C. Gaolipu 高麗堡), a settlement of people with Korean ancestry, for their repeated misbehavior and disregard of etiquette (I 586 , I 594 f.), and Chinese moral degradation is seen in the existence of shrines to Tang rebel An Lushan and imperial concubine Yang Guifei, as well as of male prostitutes (YI 60o).
这一段落总结了《观内正史》一章，该章大部分内容展示了韩国人和中国人在文化修养方面的不足：韩国旅行者在中国和“韩国村”（高丽堡）中都受到避讳和排斥，这是一个有韩国血统的人居住的地方，因为他们反复的不端行为和无礼行为（I 586，I 594 f.），而中国的道德堕落体现在对唐朝叛军安禄山和皇帝杨贵妃的神庙以及男妓的存在（YI 60o）。

Such high esteem of quotidian techniques as witnessed in the statement on "broken tiles and dung heaps" quoted above (which is, of course, the mainstay for the YI's fame as a "sirhak" work) thus appears as grounded not primarily in economic and welfare concerns but as an outflow of this readjustment of the cultural value system. Befittingly, it is explicitly awarded to Manchu achievements in a context that has little to do with livelihood and much to do with the vernacular expression of high culture when stone steles erected for Manchu officials at Fenghuang are applauded, in spite of the inferior style and calligraphy of the engraved texts, for the dignified austerity of their execution (Togangnok, I 524f.).
正如上面引用的关于“破瓦和粪堆”的日常技术受到如此高度重视（这当然是《诗学》作为“士学”作品的支柱，因此似乎主要不是基于经济和福利考虑，而是文化价值体系的调整的结果。恰如其分地，它明确地授予满洲成就，在一个与生计无关但与高文化的白话表达有很大关系的背景下，凤凰为满洲官员竖立的石碑受到赞扬，尽管刻文的风格和书法较差，但因其庄严朴素的执行而受到赞誉（《图刚录》I 524f.）。

“Kwanjemyo ki”關帝廟記, Togangnok, I 540.
“关帝庙记”，《图刚录》I 540。
hanmun. The tension that can be sensed throughout the Yi between veneration for the richness, grandeur, and cosmopolitan flair of the hanmun tradition and the desire to be a valiant part of it, and appreciation of the local peculiarities and cultural idiosyncrasies that are not easily contained by the former, is most conspicuously expressed in two nearly consecutive passages in the last of the diary chapters, Hwan yŏn tojungnok 還燕道中錄 (Records of the Return Journey to Beijing). The first concerns “Camel Bridge" (Nakt'agyo 酪駝橋) in the Koryŏ capital of Kaesŏng, which received its name from a herd of camels that had been left there to starve as a sign of repudiation of their "barbarian" donors, the Khitan:
汉文。在《易经》中可以感受到的紧张氛围，表现为对汉文传统的丰富、宏伟和国际风采的尊崇，以及成为其中的勇敢一部分的愿望，以及对当地特色和文化特异性的欣赏，这些特异性不容易被前者所包容，在日记章节的最后两个几乎连续的段落中最为显著地表现出来，即《还燕道中录》。第一个涉及高丽京城开城的“骆驼桥”（酪骆桥），这个桥得名于一群骆驼，它们被留在那里饿死，作为对他们“蛮夷”捐赠者的拒绝的标志：

At the side of the bridge a stone stele says "Nakt'agyo." The citizens, however, do not say "Nakt'agyo" but "Yaktaedari"; in the local language, "yaktae" means "camel," "tari" means "bridge." This is further transformed into "Yadari." When I first came to the Middle Capital and asked for the location of Camel Bridge, they could not tell me. To such an extreme is the local language void of meaning ( 義).
在桥的一侧，一块石碑上写着“酪骆桥”。然而，市民们并不说“酪骆桥”，而是说“牙台大里”；在当地语言中，“牙台”意为“骆驼”，“大里”意为“桥”。这进一步演变为“牙大里”。当我第一次来到中都并询问骆驼桥的位置时，他们无法告诉我。如此极端的地方语言缺乏意义。

The vernacular is "void of meaning," or of moral sense ( , because it does not take part in historical memory-which is, in this instance, palpably preserved by the hanmun inscription on the stone stele. But in the entry for the very next day, upon crossing a river full of different kinds of boats, the vernacular is put in its own right:
白话是“没有意义”或道德感（ ，因为它不参与历史记忆-在这种情况下，由石碑上的汉文铭文明显地保存。但在接下来的一天，穿过满是不同种类船只的河流时，白话被正当地使用：

Sinographs are often made to resemble outer appearance, like when the [graph/radical] boat (zhou 舟) is supplemented as dao 舠, die 艓, 舴, hang 航, meng 艋, ting 艇, jian 艦, or meng 艨; in all these cases the names are conferred according to form. In our country, small boats are called kŏru, ferry boats naru, large ships manjangi, grain transporters songp'ungbae, ocean-going ships tangdori, boats that go against the current murubae; in the Kwansŏ region, they call the boats masangi. Although all these are different in outlay, there is only one sinograph to cover them, sŏn 船 ("ship”). Even if one borrowed the graphs dao, die, ze, meng, and so on, the name and object would not fit.
汉字经常被制作成外观相似，比如[字/部首] 舟被补充为 dao 舠, die 艓, 舴, hang 航, meng 艋, ting 艇, jian 艦, 或 meng 艨; 在所有这些情况下，名称都是根据形式赋予的。在我们国家，小船被称为 kŏru, 渡船被称为 naru, 大船被称为 manjangi, 运粮船被称为 songp'ungbae, 远洋船被称为 tangdori, 逆流船被称为 murubae; 在关西地区，他们称船为 masangi。尽管它们在外观上有所不同，但只有一个汉字可以涵盖它们，即船 船 ("ship”). 即使借用了 dao, die, ze, meng 等字，名称和物体也不匹配。

The ideology which supported hanmun use-the idea that hanmun is a more direct revelation of truth than any vernacular can possibly be, most succinctly
支持汉文使用的意识形态-汉文是比任何白话更直接揭示真相的想法，最简洁地

46 Hwan yŏn tojungnok, I 641.
46 现代汉语词典，第 641 页。

47 Ibid.: 642 . 47 同上：642 页。
expressed by the appellation of "true writing" (chinsŏ 眞書) for the Chinese script-is both backed up and refuted in these two passages, depending on which kind of truth is concerned. The veracity of quotidian life finds adequate expression only in vernacular language, but sticking to this idiom would mean the loss of more fundamental truths. It is this tension that backgrounds Pak Chiwŏn's own linguistic choices in the YI.
通过“真书”这一称谓来表达的“真实写作”（chinsŏ 眞書）对于汉字的支持和反驳在这两段中都有体现，取决于涉及哪种真相。日常生活的真实性只能在白话中得到充分表达，但坚持使用这种语言会意味着失去更基本的真相。正是这种紧张关系背景化了朴趾源在《易》中的语言选择。

The peculiarity of Pak Chiwŏn's writing, and foremost among these, the YI, which has been called (rather fondly) Yŏnam ch'e ("Pak Chiwŏn style") by King Chŏngjo himself, has long been recognized to consist mainly of the free admixture of styles: in contradistinction to the prevailing high esteem of pure "ancient style" (komun 古文), Pak Chiwŏn ad libitum used literary techniques and linguistic expressions typical for parallel prose, feuilletonistic prose . sop'um, C. xiaopin 小品 and fiction. From the latter derives one of the most noted stylistic aspects of the YI: the use made of literary vernacular Chinese (baihua 白話, though this is a twentieth-century term) mainly for recording dialogues conducted in Chinese (while direct speech that according to the situation would have been uttered in Korean is rendered in Literary Chinese). Thus, throughout the diary parts the YI is, in fact, a diglot work with situational code-switching between literary and vernacular Chinese.

However, diversity of linguistic codes does not stop at enlivening direct speech by recourse to the Chinese spoken language. The Korean language figures as well in certain ways. Kang Tongyŏp has listed the following four procedures by which tribute is paid to the author's mother tongue:
然而，语言代码的多样性并不仅限于通过使用汉语活跃直接言语。韩语在某些方面也起着作用。康东烨列举了以下四种向作者母语致敬的方式：

48 I borrow this characterization of sop'um (xiaopin) from Andrea Riemenschnitter (1998).
我从安德烈亚·里门斯尼特（1998）那里借用了对小品（xiaopin）的这一描述。

49 See, e.g., Kang Tongyŏp (1988: ), and Ko Misuk (2003: 127), who sums up recent scholarship for a more general readership.
49 例如，康东烨（1988： ）和高美淑（2003：127）总结了最近的学术成果，以便更广泛的读者群阅读。

50 Pak Chiwŏn seems to have picked up a little bit of spoken Chinese on the road. His ability to write baihua, however, derives from his acquaintance with baihua novels.
50 朴趾源似乎在路上学会了一点口语中文。然而，他写白话的能力源自他对白话小说的了解。

bu shi ding 目不識丁 ("not recognize the sinograph ding/chŏng") is a common Chinese saying, not a translation of the Korean proverb nat nok'o kiyŏk cha morŭnda ("not recognize the [Korean] character kiyŏk ( ) in the sickle"); perhaps the latter is a creative translation of the former. This misunderstanding is repeated in Hwang P'aegang (2000:
不识丁是一个常见的中国谚语，而不是韩国谚语“不认识镰刀中的[韩国]字母 kiyŏk（ ）”的翻译；也许后者是前者的创造性翻译。这种误解在黄培刚（2000：）中被重复。