Accepted Paper
Paper short abstract
This paper examines the Yuhap tradition in Japan and Chosŏn Korea, asking how "correct" kanji/hanja forms were selected in literacy primers outside China. Comparing comparable primers, it shows Japan and Korea developed unique character-form choices rather than replicating a single Chinese standard.
Paper long abstract
This paper studies the Yuhap textual tradition in Japan and Chosŏn Korea. It asks how "correct" kanji/hanja forms were selected and stabilized in literacy primers outside China. The core source is the Chosŏn-printed Sinjeung Yuhap (1574), an expanded Yuhap. For Japan, I use Ruigō-related witnesses for comparison, including Kaibara Ekiken's Senji Ruigō (1692).
I focus on editorial decisions: the character forms preferred in each witness. I select a controlled sample of characters that show clear graphic variation. I classify the differences into four types: component substitution, stroke modification, structural adjustment, and adoption of variant forms.
I then read these patterns together with "norm signals" on the page, such as prefaces and usage notes. I also compare the selected forms with reference traditions: Chinese character dictionaries, Japanese and Korean dictionaries, and calligraphic exemplars.
Because kanji/hanja originated in China, discussions of "standard characters" often presuppose that a China-based standard simply diffused outward. This paper takes a different approach. It traces how character forms were selected, fixed, or revised across editions of the Yuhap tradition in Japan and Chosŏn Korea. Even within a shared framework, form choices diverged in consistent ways. I relate these divergences to target learners, local criteria for "proper" forms, and editors' scholarly backgrounds.
By comparing these differences to the dictionaries and calligraphic exemplars, the paper shows that "standard" character-form judgments in Japan and Korea were not identical. These differences can be traced in specific primers and edition practices around the seventeenth century.
Language and Linguistics individual proposals panel
Session 10