Origin of Hangul

First page of the Hunminjeongeum Haerye, one of the works that officially introduces Hangul. Depicted is the introduction by Sejong the Great.

The native Korean alphabet, called Hangul (한글) in South Korea and Chosŏn'gŭl (조선글) in North Korea, is a writing system for the Korean language. It was mostly completed around late 1443 to early 1444 and officially published in 1446. It was invented to serve a number of purposes, especially to aid general literacy in Korea.

Before Hangul's invention, Korea had been using Hanja (Chinese characters) and variants of it to write Korean. However, the script was poorly suited for transcribing Korean, and its difficulty contributed to high illiteracy amongst commoners.

King Sejong the Great (r. 1418–1450) was responsible for Hangul's creation. Most scholars believe Sejong was significantly personally involved in creating the script and worked on the script alongside one or more others. A minority of scholars believe that he was the sole creator of it. The script was possibly largely designed in secret, possibly in anticipation of the backlash that the script eventually received, although this is debated.

According to the Hunminjeongeum Haerye, one of the two texts written to introduce Hangul, the shapes of Hangul letters (called jamo) are designed to reflect the shapes of speech organs and concepts in Chinese philosophy. Hangul also received inspiration from Chinese linguistic theory of the time, although these theories were innovated upon and adapted to suit Korean phonology. Some scholars believe that Hangul received minor inspiration from the Tibetan-Mongolian script ʼPhags-pa, although the hypothesis still argues that Hangul was largely original.

Historiography

Cover of the first volume of the Veritable Records of Sejong

There are extremely few known pieces of contemporary evidence on when and how Hangul was created. The main sources of information are the 1443 announcement of Hangul and the 1444 rebuke of Hangul, which are both part of the Veritable Records of Sejong, as well as the 1446 treatises used to promulgate Hangul: the Hunminjeongeum and the Hunminjeongeum Haerye.^[1] Scholars have also attempted to make inferences about Hangul's origins based on other events, works, and sociogeopolitical conditions of Sejong's reign.^[2] They have also relied on records of people who were temporally and interpersonally close to the invention of Hangul.^[3]

The Veritable Records of Sejong, part of the Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, were produced by government historians after the death of Sejong based on primary sources. They extensively cover nearly every day of Sejong's reign, although several modern historians have bemoaned perceived gaps in its coverage, even for seemingly major topics like the creation of Hangul.^[4] Historians had editorial jurisdiction, independent from the king, on what to include in the Records.^[5] Several historians have argued that the personal opinions of the historians have impacted the Records' coverage of Hangul.^[6]

The 1446 treatises were originally published as a single book, with the Haerye being a commentary book for the Hunminjeongeum. They are of separate authorship; the Hunminjeongeum was authored by Sejong himself, while the Haerye was written by a group of scholars led by Chŏng Inji.^[7] While the Hunminjeongeum remained in the historical record, the Haerye was eventually lost and forgotten, possibly by the early 16th century. In 1940, a copy of it was rediscovered, and in 1946 it was published in full for the public. In the following decades, other texts on Hangul were rediscovered. These discoveries dramatically altered scholarship on Hangul.^[8]

Gari Ledyard (1932–2021), a significant Western authority on the history of Hangul,^[9] was critical of early Western scholarship on Hangul and Korea in general. He argues that "few today would accept either their methodology or most of their conclusions"^[10] and that Western scholars often insufficiently accounted for Korean history and documentary evidence on the script's creation, and instead relied mostly on comparing the shapes and sounds of letters.^[11] According to Ledyard, Western scholarship on Hangul slowly evolved and improved over time. In 1832, German scholars Philipp Franz von Siebold and Julius Klaproth incorrectly wrote that Hangul had been invented in 374 by a king of the Koreanic state Silla. Over the following decades and even into the early 20th century, various Western scholars—some overconfidently, per Ledyard—made a wide variety of claims about Hangul and its origins.^[12] Ledyard claims that Canadian Koreanist James Scarth Gale was the first Western scholar to rigorously examine Hangul's origins, with a 1912 work.^[13] In 1966, Ledyard wrote his Ph.D. thesis on Hangul's origins. Linguist Young-Key Kim-Renaud claimed that work was the most comprehensive English-language work on that topic to date.^[14] In 2011, linguists Ki-Moon Lee and S. Robert Ramsey claimed Ledyard's thesis was then still the finest work on the topic in English. It was republished as a book in 1998.^[15] In his thesis, Ledyard hypothesizes that Hangul received some inspiration from another script called ʼPhags-pa. This hypothesis is still debated.^[16][17]

Background

The idu script, used to write Korean, appears on this 6th- or 7th-century stone tablet [ko]. Here, Chinese characters have their meaning preserved, but their order is changed to be more Koreanic.^[18]

Before the invention of Hangul, Korea had been using Hanja (Chinese characters) since antiquity. The difficulty of the script limited its use to mostly upper-class people; commoners were largely illiterate.^[19] The script is not well suited for representing the Korean language; the Chinese and Korean languages are not closely related and differ in significant ways. For example, Classical Chinese uses subject–verb–object word order while Middle Korean uses subject–object–verb word order.^[20] Korean pronunciation and ideas could only be indirectly represented.^[21] Some efforts were made to adapt the script to suit Korean, which resulted in the Idu script and its varieties, including Hyangch'al. Scholars have evaluated these scripts as complicated and difficult to decipher, and thus not useful for promoting widespread literacy.^[22]

Beginning of work on Hangul

It is not known when work began on developing Hangul, nor what the process looked like. Scholars have attempted to approximate when Hangul began to be developed by examining previous events in Sejong's reign. Ledyard argues that one possible motivator for Hangul's creation was the 1431 pharmacological survey of Korea. Numerous Korean plants only had Korean-language names for them and their names had to be recorded in the book; in the end their names were recorded in an approximate phonetic fashion. Ledyard argues that a 1433 survey of native Korean music likely faced similar issues, although the results of said survey are not known.^[23] Several historians have argued that, in 1434, Sejong indirectly vocalized interest in universal literacy when he expressed frustration that commoners would not be able to read the didactic book on Confucian morals Samganghaengsilto [ko].^[24] A decade later, after Hangul was announced, Sejong reiterated this frustration with regards to that text.^[25] Despite this, a Hangul version of that text would only be produced by the reign of King Seongjong (r. 1469–1495).^[26]

Sejong had long studied the Chinese script and language and their relationship with the Korean language. On several occasions he bemoaned the impacts that the lack of proficiency in Chinese and Chinese characters had on the administration of the state.^[27] Some scholars have thus argued that Sejong may have been instead or partially motivated to create Hangul as a tool for aiding Koreans with the Chinese language and script.^[28] Ledyard argues that Chinese phonological theory at the time was insufficient for grasping the historical linguistics of Chinese, and that Hangul may have been developed to help address this concern.^[29]

Potential secrecy in Hangul's development

Scholars have debated on if Hangul was possibly developed in secret, especially from Sejong's court. The paucity of records has, in part, motivated such hypotheses.^[30] To Ledyard's interpretation, Hangul's announcement apparently came as a surprise to the mainline Hall of Worthies.^[31] Historian Sixiang Wang argued that the script was likely kept a secret from Ming China, as Ming would have preferred that its tributary state, Joseon, use the Chinese script.^[32]

Linguist Ahn Pyong-hi argues against the secrecy hypothesis. He argues that the hypothesis relies on inferences and not direct evidence. To his view, Sejong did not need to fear opposition, as he was sufficiently capable of handling it. Ahn also argues that Hangul's lack of coverage in the Veritable Records could potentially be explained by the court historians determining that the records they included were sufficient for covering the topic. Ahn also interprets several sentences in the rebuke of Hangul and in other texts as suggesting that others could have been aware of Hangul before its 1443 announcement.^[33][34]

Early history of Hangul

Announcement and backlash

The page of the Veritable Records containing the earliest known attestation to Hangul (leftmost three lines)

A record dated to 30th day, 12th month of 1443 contains the earliest known attestation to Hangul:^[35]

This month, His Highness personally created the twenty-eight letters^[a] of the Vernacular Script. Its letters imitate the Old Seal (see § Seal script hypotheses), and are divided into initial, medial and terminal sounds. Once one combines them, they form a syllable. All [sounds] in both Chinese characters and in the rustic language of this country may be written. Although they are simple and fine, they shift and change [in function] without end. These are called the "Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People."^[38][39]

— Veritable Records of Sejong, 30th day, 12th month of 1443

The above record documents an informal internal announcement of Hangul, and not its official promulgation. While the design of the script was mostly complete by this announcement, the script would not be officially published until 1446, after documentation for it was completed.^[40] A demonstration of the script was held, wherein clerks were assembled to learn how the script worked.^[31]

A major faction in the Hall began moving to condemn the script. That faction, centered around one of the Hall's highest ranking members Ch'oe Malli, had been growing increasingly critical of Sejong.^[41] This was due to a number of reasons, with one major reason being Sejong's affinity for Buddhism, which was viewed with hostility by Confucianists of the time.^[42] Around two months after the announcement of Hangul, Ch'oe submitted a now famous rebuke of Hangul to Sejong, abridged below:

Ever since the time of our royal ancestors, our court has served the Great with utmost sincerity and abided respectfully by the Chinese institutions exclusively... [But now, Your Highness] has created the Vulgar Script, which we see and hear with astonishment... [C]ombining graphs using sounds is completely the opposite of the ancient [ways], and truly there is no basis for it... From antiquity in the Nine Regions, although local customs have differed, there has never been a case of creating a written language based on local speech. The categories of Mongolians, Tanguts, Jurchen, Japanese, and Tibetans all have their own graphs, but these are just matters of the barbarians and are not worth mentioning.^[43][44]

— Veritable Records of Sejong, 20th day, 2nd month of 1444

Sejong and the anti-Hangul faction then engaged in a fierce debate,^[45] with scribes apparently struggling to document the technical arguments made.^[46] The anti-Hangul faction expressed concern about a native Korean script being too far a departure from Chinese civilization, which they insisted Korea should be deferent to in a Confucian manner.^[47] Sejong rebutted that he felt the script was Confucian, as it was created out of a desire to benefit his subjects.^[48] Anti-Hangul sentiment was also partially motivated by elitism; literacy in Hanja was then seen as a status symbol, and promoting general literacy could be seen as harming the social positions of the elite.^[49] The script, which would lack an official name even into the 20th century, was commonly called ŏnmun (언문; 諺文; lit. vernacular script), which developed an elitist connotation of "vulgar writing".^[50] Ledyard argues that this name for the script was likely not used by Sejong, and that it was retroactively inserted into the Veritable Records of Sejong by anti-Hangul literati.^[5] Kim-Renaud argues that the name ŏnmun originally had a neutral connotation that shifted negative over time.^[51] The name continued to be popularly used even into the 20th century.^[52] It was also derisively called amgŭl (암글; lit. women's script).^[53]

Ch'oe and several of the scholars that rebuked Sejong were imprisoned for a single day.^[54] To Ledyard's knowledge, the rebuke and debate are the only surviving official records of complaints about Hangul from Sejong's time.^[46] According to historian Sixiang Wang, modern sentiment has lionized Sejong and villified Ch'oe in this debate.^[55]

Work on documentation and rhyme dictionaries

Due to the anti-Hangul faction's opposition, Sejong relied on younger men of the Hall of Worthies for help in applying and developing the official documentation for the script.^[56] By Ledyard's analysis, these men had an average age of around 28.^[57] Significant among them was Sin Sukchu, who was known to have a talent for languages.^[58] At some point, possibly soon after the announcement of the script, Sejong ordered the establishment of the office Ŏnmunch'ŏng [ko] (lit. 'Vernacular Script Commission').^[b][61] This office went on to complete a number of seminal Hangul texts.^[62]

The first major Hangul work by the Ŏnmunch'ŏng was the translation of a rhyme dictionary: Gujin yunhui juyao [zh; ko]. Sejong ordered its compilation days before Ch'oe's rebuke of Hangul.^[63][64] Ledyard argues that rhyme dictionaries such as these were likely influential on the development of Hangul and its documentation. Sejong and Sin Sukchu had been deeply interested in such dictionaries even before Hangul's announcement, and Hangul's design and documentation reflect sound classification principles of several rhyme dictionaries.^[65] The Gujin yunhui juyao translation effort possibly partially provoked Ch'oe's rebuke;^[63] Ledyard speculated one reason could have been the text's link to the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty that the Sinophile court looked down upon.^[66] It is not known what happened to the project, as there are no further official mentions of it; most scholars believe it was never completed.^[67] Several scholars have argued that the Ŏnmunch'ŏng likely switched to focusing on compiling another rhyme dictionary Tongguk chŏngun, which was published in 1447.^[68] Ahn Pyong-hi argues that the foundations for the Tongguk chŏngun were complete by the 1443 announcement of Hangul, because Hangul's design largely aligned with principles outlined in that text.^[69] The work served as a major standard for Sino-Korean pronunciation for the next several decades, although modern scholars have described it as overly prescriptive and artificial.^[70] Ledyard argues that Sejong himself viewed the work as a failure; when it was published, he ordered scholars to only reference but not strictly abide by it.^[71] Linguist Samuel E. Martin evaluated Sejong's intent behind that statement differently; he felt that Sejong just did not wish to force a standard.^[72] Work continued on rhyme dictionaries even after the Tongguk chŏngun; the Sasŏng t'onggo (사성통고; 四聲通攷) was published some time before 1455,^[73] and the Hongmu chŏngun yŏkhun [ko] was published in 1455.^[74]

Promulgation

In the 9th month of 1446, Hunminjeongeum and its companion commentary text Hunminjeongeum Haerye were officially completed; together the texts officially introduced Hangul and illustrated its use. The Hunminjeongeum was penned by Sejong himself, while the Haerye was compiled by a group of scholars of the Ŏnmunch'ŏng led by Chŏng Inji.^[75] The latter includes a defense of the script using Confucian reasoning.^[31] The Hunminjeongeum begins with this now-famous preface:^[76]

The sounds of our country's language are different from those of the Middle Kingdom and are not confluent with the sounds of characters. Therefore, among the ignorant people, there have been many who, having something they want to put into words, have in the end been unable to express their feelings. I have been distressed because of this, and have newly designed twenty-eight letters, which I wish to have everyone practice at their ease and make convenient for their daily use.^[77]

— Sejong the Great, Hunminjeongeum, preface

Sejong attempted to integrate Hangul into government functions, to limited success.^[78] Various efforts to promote Hangul that he initiated fizzled out especially after his death.^[79] While the royal family and court women were significant early adopters of Hangul,^[80] the script would not begin to see wider adoption until the mid-16th century.^[80]

Date of creation

See also: Hangul Day

An exact creation day for Hangul is difficult to determine based on known evidence. The announcement of Hangul is documented in a 30th day, 12th month of 1443 entry in the Veritable Records. However, the entry says the announcement was made some time during that month; Ledyard argues that that Sejong likely introduced the script before, and not exactly on that date. In the Julian calendar, that month corresponds to between December 21, 1443 and January 19, 1444. In the Gregorian calendar, it corresponds to between December 30, 1443 and January 28, 1444.^[81]

The promulgation date for Hangul is also unclear. The Hunminjeongeum only specifies that that work was published in the 9th month.^[82] The postface to the Haerye is dated to the first ten days (it is unclear which day) of the 9th month of 1446. If the 10th day is assumed, that is October 9 in the Gregorian calendar. Hangul Day, which commemorates Hangul's invention, is celebrated on that day in South Korea.^[83][82] North Korea celebrates Hangul Day on January 15; it is unknown exactly why this date is used.^[84]

Authorship

It is not known how large of a role Sejong had in the development of Hangul. Evidence on the topic is extremely sparse; Lee argues that all modern hypotheses are consequently often based largely on speculation and inferences.^[85]

Three main categories of hypotheses have been raised. The first is the "cooperation hypothesis" (협찬설; 協贊說; hyŏpch'ansŏl),^[c] where Sejong actively worked on Hangul himself, alongside other scholars. The second is the "command hypothesis" (명제설; 命制說; myŏngjesŏl), where Sejong commanded his subjects to design Hangul and otherwise did not much participate.^[87] The third is the "His Majesty's invention hypothesis",^[d] where Sejong designed the script on his own (친제설; 親制說; ch'injesŏl).^[89]

Lee, in a 2009 paper, claims that a majority of scholars believe in the cooperation hypothesis, and that few advocate for the command hypothesis.^[90] Hyeon-hie Lee claims in a 2010 paper that most scholars believe the cooperation or His Majesty's invention hypotheses, with few supporting the command hypothesis.^[91] Linguist Ahn Pyong-hi claims in a 2004 paper, based on research from the 1980s, that the cooperation hypothesis is dominant in North Korea.^[92] Linguists Sungdai Cho and John Whitman claim in a 2019 book that most scholars do not believe the His Majesty's invention hypothesis.^[93]

Command hypothesis

Korean scholars have expressed support of the command hypotheses for centuries. Lee identified an early attestation to the command hypothesis in the writings of Sŏng Hyŏn [ko] (1439–1504). Lee argues Sŏng made several incorrect claims about the script that make his narrative of events unreliable.^[94] Yu Hŭi [ko] wrote in the 1824 text Ŏnmunji [ko] that "Our King Sejong the Great commanded his scholarly retainers to imitate the form of Mongolian writing and to make inquiries of Huang Zan, and thus created the Vernacular Script."^[95] Korean linguist Chu Sigyŏng wrote in 1906 that Sejong commanded others to develop Hangul.^[96]

A number of scholars have expressed support of the command hypothesis.^{[97][98][99][100][101]}

Cooperation hypothesis

A number of scholars have expressed support of the cooperation hypothesis.^{[102][103][104][105][106][107][16]} Ledyard described Sejong as "the chief expert and principal researcher" of the project.^[23]

Canadian Koreanist James Scarth Gale wrote in 1912 that Sejong, Chŏng Inji, Sŏng Sammun, Sin Sukchu, and Ch'oe Hang were primarily responsible for the alphabet.^[108]

Although Lee argues in favor of the His Majesty's invention hypothesis, he identifies an attestation to Crown Prince Yi Hyang having helped his father develope the script as plausible.^[88]

Ahn believes that eight people of the Hall of Worthies that are mentioned in the preface of the Haerye also assisted Sejong in developing Hangul. These people are: Chŏng Inji, Ch'oe Hang, Pak P'aengnyŏn, Sin Sukchu, Sŏng Sammun, Kang Hŭian, Yi Kae, and Yi Hyŏllo [ko].^[109] While Ahn argues against Sejong being the sole creator, he believes that Sejong still had a sizable role in Hangul's creation and that the cooperation hypothesis does not diminish the impressiveness of Hangul's invention.^[110] Ahn also argues that one or more of Sejong's sons may have assisted him, including the crown prince, Grand Prince Suyang, and Grand Prince Anp'yŏng [ko]. Several records soon after Hangul's announcement mention that the princes were working on projects related to Hangul.^[111]

His Majesty's invention hypothesis

A number of scholars have attributed the development of the script mainly to Sejong.^{[112][113][88][114][115][116][117][118]}

Arguments in favor

Documentary evidence from around the introduction and promulgation of Hangul, including writings of the anti-Hangul faction, universally indicate that Sejong was the primary inventor of the script.^[119] Ki-Moon Lee argues that the Veritable Records also uniquely attributes the script to Sejong by describing it as "His Majesty's invention" (친제; 親制). Lee argues that, while it is tempting to believe that the Veritable Records would in general attempt to flatter Sejong by falsely attributing accomplishments to him, this is the only instance where the Veritable Records uses that wording with regard to accomplishments during Sejong's reign. Lee further argues that Hangul was likely intentionally developed in secrecy, and that involvement of other people would have hindered that.^[88] Lee also argues that Sejong had the appropriate intellectual background and subject matter expertise to develop the script, and that he showed a deep understanding of it himself. For example, Sejong apparently disagreed with linguists that worked on the Haerye and pushed to enforce his vision of Hangul orthography on literary projects that he is known to have been heavily involved with.^[120] Cho and Whitman evaluated Lee's argument about Sejong's deep understanding of the topic as strong.^[121] Joe Jungno Ree found some of Lee's arguments compelling but overall expressed skepticism of the hypothesis.^[122]

Linguist Jae Jung Song argued that "[t]here is now ample evidence that [Hangul] was [Sejong's] own invention, not the outcome of his collaboration with other scholars, although he must have consulted leading scholars".^[123]

Arguments against

Many scholars have assumed that Sejong would have been too busy with the affairs of state to invent Hangul.^[124] Lee provided a 1989 quote from Japanese linguist Kōno Rokurō [ja] as evidence of this:

The date and the creator of han'gŭl are known quite clearly. These letters were personally devised by Sejong... Nevertheless, although King Sejong, as the greatest monarch of the Yi dynasty, had many accomplishments and was a gifted man of ample education, it cannot be imagined that the king of a nation, busy with the affairs of state, could have, from conceptualization to concrete realization, produced these new letters completely by himself. At King Sejong's disposal was an institution called the [Hall of Worthies] [...], and so it is certain that there were those who helped the king...^[125]

Ahn summarized several arguments against the hypothesis as follows:

As can be seen in the phrase 'the king's reading in the late hours of the night' (乙夜之覽), the king's only spare time for research or the launching of new enterprises was late at night. It is difficult to believe that the invention of [Hangul] was achieved through fragmentary study in the hours of the night. The conclusion is that although Sejong was at the center of the invention process, he was aided by the [Hall of Worthies] scholars...^[126]

Lee, who supports the hypothesis, rebuts that such arguments are inferences and are not based on direct evidence.^[124]

Ahn argues against the hypothesis. He argues that because Hangul reflects principles in the rhyme dictionary Tongguk chŏngun, which is known to have taken multiple scholars years of effort to create (although its major principles were likely complete by 1443), it seems unlikely that Sejong would have been able to perform all that work on his own.^[127] He also argues that, while Sejong attributes the Hunminjeongeum to himself in that text's preface, on another occasion Sejong vocalized personal responsibility for work on the Tongguk chŏngun, despite it being known that Sejong worked alongside other scholars for that text.^[128]

Princess Chŏngŭi theory

According to Ahn, a 1994 paper by linguist Ri Ga-won [ko]^[129] argues that Sejong's second daughter Princess Chŏngŭi [ko] was the creator of Hangul. The claim caused a stir in the press. Ahn expresses skepticism of that claim and others made in Ri's paper. He argues that the theory is fringe, and that Ri uncritically bases her information on a claim made in a mid-19th document, entitled Mongyuyadam (몽유야담; 夢遊野談^[130]), that was far removed from the creation of Hangul.^[131][132]

Official narrative for letter design

The Hunminjeongeum Haerye gives a number of explanations for the design of Hangul letters, although Ledyard disputes their explanations.^[133]

Consonants

Hangul's consonants were partially influenced by centuries of Chinese linguistic theory, although Hangul modified and innovated upon that theory to suit Korean phonology.^[134] The Chinese fanqie linguistic system splits Chinese syllables into two parts: the initial (initial consonant) and the final (also called "rhyme"; everything after the initial).^[135] The system also classifies consonants; Sejong and his court were likely most familiar with a version of the system that prescribes 36 classes.^[e] Correspondingly, the Haerye describes Hangul consonants using these classifications, although not all classifications receive a Hangul letter and a number of these letters were mostly used for the transcription of Chinese.^[137]

The 36 Chinese initials and their Korean transcriptions^[138]

Artic. Class		Wholly clear 全清	Partly clear 次清	Wholly muddy 全濁	Neither clear nor muddy 不清不濁	Wholly clear 全清	Wholly muddy 全濁
Molar 牙音		見 ㄱ	谿 ㅋ	羣 ㄲ	疑 ㆁ
Linguals 舌音	Apical 舌頭音	端 ㄷ	透 ㅌ	定 ㄸ	泥 ㄴ
	Raised 舌上音	知	徹	澄	娘
Labials 脣音	Heavy 唇音輕	幫 ㅂ	滂 ㅍ	並 ㅃ	明 ㅁ
	Light 唇輕音	非 ㅸ	敷 ㆄ	奉 ㅹ	微 ㅱ
Incisors 齒音	Apical 齒頭音	精 ㅈ (ᅎ[A])	清 ㅊ (ᅔ[A])	從 ㅉ (ᅏ[A])		心 ㅅ (ᄼ[A])	邪 ㅆ (ᄽ[A])
	Upright 正齒音	照 (ᅐ[A])	穿 (ᅕ[A])	牀 (ᅑ[A])		審 (ᄾ[A])	禪 (ᄿ[A])
Laryngeals 喉音		影 ㆆ	曉 ㅎ	匣 ㆅ	喩 ㅇ
Semilinguals 半舌音					來 ㄹ
Semiincisors 半齒音					日 ㅿ
Notes: These letters [ko], while not introduced in the Hunminjeongeum or Haerye, were developed shortly afterwards and exclusively used to transcribe Chinese.[139]

The Haerye claims that the consonants of Hangul are mostly related to each other by a principle of adding strokes to basic shapes (called gahoek; kahoek; 가획; 加劃^[140]). The basic shapes are claimed to depict the outline of speech organs during the pronounciation of the letter's sound:^[141]

• ㄱ ([k]) depicts the root of the tongue blocking the upper palate
• ㄴ ([n]) depicts the tongue touching the upper palate
• ㅁ ([m]) depicts the mouth
• ㅅ ([s]) depicts the incisor
• ㅇ ([∅]^[142]) depicts the throat

Strokes are added to the above letters to represent related sounds that are more "severe" (려; 厲):^[143]

• ㄱ → ㅋ ([kʰ])
• ㄴ → ㄷ ([t]) → ㅌ ([tʰ])
• ㅁ → ㅂ^[f] ([p]) → ㅍ ([pʰ])
• ㅅ → ㅈ ([c]) → ㅊ ([cʰ])
• ㅇ → ㆆ ([ʔ]^[145]) → ㅎ ([h])

For most characters, strokes relate characters across the same sound class. However, the Haerye acknowledges an exception: ㆁ. ㆁ represents a ng sound and belongs to the molar class, yet has a stroke added from ㅇ of the laryngeal class. ㅇ is a null or zero initial. An initial ng sound was a then-disappearing feature of the Chinese language. Thus, there was perceived to be a relationship between the disappearing initial ng sound ㆁ and the null initial ㅇ.^[g][147]

There are two other consonants that do not have strokes added to them:^[148]

• ㄹ ([l]) depicts the tongue
• ㅿ ([z]) depicts the incisor

Other consonants are derived by duplicating or combining the above consonants.^[149]

Vowels

Fanqie does not describe vowels, and thus Hangul departed from and innovated upon fanqie by introducing them. Hangul divides each syllable into an initial (초성; 初聲), medial (중성; 中聲), and terminal (종성; 終聲). The medial is functionally a vowel sound. The inclusion of vowel letters makes Hangul a true alphabet.^[150]

The Haerye also argues that three fundamental vowels of Hangul correspond to concepts from the text I Ching, particularly yin and yang. It argues that ㅡ corresponds to yin (symbolizing earth), ㆍ to yang (symbolizing the sun), and ㅣ to man (neutral). The remaining vowels are derived from these. It also argues that the derived vowels can be classified as yin and yang, with ㅗ, ㅏ, ㅛ, and ㅑ being yin and ㅜ, ㅓ, ㅠ, and ㅕ being yang. The rationale given for this is that yin characters have dots "emerging from heaven", as they are above and on the outside, while yang characters are the opposite and "emerge from earth".^[151]

Other philosophical concepts

According to the Haerye, Hangul's design incorporates other elements of Chinese philosophy. For example, the text references Zhu Xi's concept of li a number of times. Li is a belief in underlying patterns and order in the natural world. The Haerye argues that Hangul was not invented but discovered from these underlying patterns.^[152] It also evokes the wuxing (Five Elements), seasons, directions, and the traditional pentatonic scale, associating them with places of articulation: the throat corresponds to water, the tongue to fire, the teeth to metal, the mouth to earth and the root of the tongue to wood.^[153]

Hypotheses around letter development

Linguist Sang-Oak Lee argues that the letters were possibly initially developed in a "trial and error" method, without a clear narrative (such as the stroke addition rule) that unified them together. He argued that, because Hangul changed several times in its early history, it seemed less like Hangul was developed from the top-down based on such rules and more like the rules were developed to justify the letters, although the rules possibly had some influence on the shapes as well.^[154]

Lee analyzes why various alternate letter shapes were not used. For example, the mirror images (along vertical axis) of ㄱ, ㅋ, and ㄴ. Lee argues that these were not used because Hangul letters tend to try and minimize the number of brush strokes needed. Lee also analyzes why the character derived from ㅂ was ㅍ and not a character resembling 日. He argues this was likely decided against because it is easy to visually confuse with ㅌ, the mirror image of ㅌ, and ㄹ.^[155]

While ㅿ is a voiced variant of ㅅ, other consonants like ㄱ, ㄷ, and ㅂ do not have voiced variants. Ledyard argues this is because such variants would not fit into the sound classes prescribed in the contemporary version of fanqie.^[156]

Hypothesized inspirations for Hangul

It is debated if Hangul was a mostly original invention or if it was based on or inspired by one or more other writing systems of the time. Most other major writing systems of the world descend or were derived from others, but it is debated if such is the case for Hangul.^[157] Linguist Chin-Woo Kim argues that is "highly unlikely that any one [hypothesis on influences on Hangul] is exclusively right", as Sejong and his court were well-studied in the languages and scripts of Korea's neighbors.^[17]

Original invention

Chin-Woo Kim evaluates the original invention hypotheses as being the most popular theory amongst academics, although he supports the ʼPhags-pa hypothesis.^[17]

Ledyard doubts the original invention hypotheses. He argues that the traditional Chinese philosophical principles that the script claims to be inspired from seem like post hoc justifications.^[158] Ledyard hypothesized that these justifications may have been intended to defend Hangul by making criticisms of Hangul seem like criticisms of Chinese philosophy.^[159] Taylor and Taylor argue that, while it is possible that Hangul received some influence from Chinese characters or ʼPhags-pa, the influence is minor enough that Hangul "should be described as a unique creation".^[160]

Indo-Tibetan hypotheses

Since Hangul's invention, Korean scholars have hypothesized that Hangul is based on some Indo-Tibetan script.^[161] Pre-modern Koreans referred to multiple Indo-Tibetan scripts using a single term: pŏm (범; 梵). This can make it difficult to understand which script is being discussed in such sources.^[162] One of the earliest attestations to a Indo-Tibetan hypothesis is by Sŏng Hyŏn [ko] (1439–1504), who claimed Hangul was based on a pŏm script. Ledyard argues it was possible that he and others that described Hangul as such may have been attempting to smear the script by associating it with the Indic religion Buddhism, which was disliked by Confucianists of the time.^[163] Other attestations include Yi Sugwang in the 17th century, Hwang Yunsŏk [ko] in the 18th, and Yi Nŭnghwa in the 20th.^[164]

Western scholars have argued Indo-Tibetan hypotheses since the 19th century.^[165] In 1892, Albert Terrien de Lacouperie and Georg von der Gabelentz both made such arguments.^[166]

ʼPhags-pa hypotheses

A ʼPhags-pa inscription (late 13th century)

ʼPhags-pa is a script designed in 1269 by a Tibetan Buddhist monk for use in the administration of the Mongol Empire.^[167] It was based mainly on the Tibetan script, with minor influence from the Umê script (also called "Tibetan headless"),^[168] and used to encode languages across that empire. It saw use until the end of the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368), whereupon its use sharply declined. It was known to Korea; it was invented around the time that the Korean state Goryeo was under Mongol rule (1270–1356).^[169] Goryeo received its first ʼPhags-pa communication in 1273 and quickly learned it from then.^[10] Goryeo received and accumulated edicts, seals, and documents in the script, which were likely transferred over to Joseon. Joseon still taught the script, although by 1423 its instruction was in decline. In 1469, a ʼPhags-pa textbook was listed as part of a government Mongolian curriculum.^[170]

Since the invention of Hangul, Joseon scholars had long hypothesized a link between Hangul and ʼPhags-pa. One early hypothesis that Ledyard could identify was one by Yi Ik (1681–1763), although Yi did not provide much evidence for this conjecture and seemed to confuse ʼPhags-pa with Mongolian script.^[h] Over the following centuries, more Korean scholars made similar conjectures, although Ledyard evaluated almost all their arguments as similarly weak and surface-level. Ledyard evaluated one exception favorably: in 1918, historian Yi Nŭnghwa [ko] argued Sin Sukchu could speak Mongolian and that the phonetics of Hangul seemed to be derived from a Sino-Mongol rhyme dictionary.^[164] Ledyard argues that Westerners did not explore the link until the mid-20th century because ʼPhags-pa had not been well known to the West until then.^[172]

In a 1957 paper, Canadian linguist E. R. Hope, following a suggestion from linguist Keith Whinnom, analyzes the hypothesized Hangul and ʼPhags-pa link. Hope primarily compares the morphology and phonology of letters between the scripts.^[173] According to Ledyard, Hope was the first to establish hypothesized graphic correspondence between the graphs of Hangul and ʼPhags-pa and the first to develop a serious competitor to the seal script hypotheses.^[174] In the paper, Hope limits his analysis to only the fundamental Hangul consonant jamo.^[175] Ledyard argues Hope likely knew that the other consonants are extensions of the fundamental ones, for example ㅋ being an extension of ㄱ.^[176] Hope also brings in two other scripts to extend his analysis: standard Tibetan and Tibetan headless. The latter script is a heavily altered variant that was used in northern China. Hope argues headless was a plausible connection, as both it and standard Tibetan were sources for the creation of ʼPhags-pa.^[168]

In Ledyard's 1966 Ph.D. thesis (revised in 1998) and in a 1997 paper, he expands upon Hope's analysis.^[i] Ledyard writes in his thesis that his main argument is that Hangul is a combination of original work and multiple sources of inspiration, including Chinese phonological theory, the outlines of speech organs, and ʼPhags-pa. He insists that his hypothesis should not be interpreted as implying that Hangul was merely a derivative work of ʼPhags-pa alone.^[178]

Nothing would disturb me more, after this study is published, than to discover in a work on the history of writing a statement like the following: "According to recent investigations, the Korean alphabet was derived from the Mongol's ʼPhags-pa script."^[179]

— Gari Ledyard

Linguist Chong Che-mun, in a 2015 survey of research on ʼPhags-pa and its relation to Hangul, affirmed a claim that virtually no academics have argued that Hangul is significantly derivative of ʼPhags-pa.^[180]

While Hope had attempted to derive ten jamo from ʼPhags-pa, Ledyard derives fewer (ㄱㄷㄹㅅㅂ and possibly ㅈ^[j]). He argues that there is no need to rely on further derivations because they seem tenuous^[k] and also one only needs to derive a single fundamental jamo in each sound class. From there, one adds or removes lines to derive the other consonants.^[185] Additionally, when matching ʼPhags-pa to jamo, he argues that both should come from the same sound classes (and ideally, subclasses as well).^[186]

Ledyard's derivations of fundamental Hangul jamo from ʼPhags-pa^[A]

Consonant class[B]	ʼPhags-pa[C]	ʼPhags-pa rom.[D]	Hangul	Hangul rom.[E]	ʼPhags-pa → Hangul derivation
Molar	ꡂ	g	ㄱ	k	Remove the lower box.[193]
Apical linguals	ꡊ	d	ㄷ	t	Straighten lines.[F][194]
Semilinguals	ꡙ	l	ㄹ	l	Either trim vertical lines to the side or rotate clockwise and simplify.[195]
Labials heavy	ꡎ	b	ㅂ	p	Rotate clockwise then simplify.[194]
Apical incisors	ꡛ[G]	x	ㅈ	c	Remove lines.[197]
Apical incisors	ꡛ[G]	x	ㅅ	s	Remove lines.[197]
Notes: This table is largely based on Table 3 of Ledyard's 1997 paper.[i] It also incorporates elements of Tables 1 and 2, and content from the body of the article.[187] Consonant classes and initial consonants come from the Chinese rhyme dictionary Qieyun zhizhang tu (切韻指掌圖[188]), attributed to Sima Guang (1019–1086), which was the basis of Chinese phonological by Sejong's reign and likely informed the design of Hangul.[189] Classifications for these are derived from the Sino-Mongol rhyme dictionary Menggu Ziyun. Ledyard used ʼPhags-pa transcriptions from Clauson 1959,[190] which he claims are standard among Mongolists.[191] 15th-century Middle Korean pronunciations; romanization introduced in Ledyard's thesis.[192] The top line in both slightly extend left past the left vertical line. Ledyard claims to be less sure here.[182] Hope suggests ꡅ corresponds with ㅈ and ꡛ with ㅅ,[196] but Ledyard is doubtful of this. ꡅ is an upright incisor, while ㅈ is an apical incisor, meaning a jump across subclasses.[194]

The jamo derived above are all classified as wholly clear in fanqie.^[198] In addition to the above jamo, Ledyard believes that Sejong, without inspiration from any ʼPhags-pa graphs, chose to use a circle (ㅇ) as the basic shape for the laryngeal class. Unlike the other fundamental shapes supposed to derive from ʼPhags-pa, ㅇ is classified as "neither clear nor muddy". From there, the circle is modified to reflect other sounds, including the molar ㆁ, which is in a different sound class.^[199]

Ledyard's practice has some differences from that of the Haerye; that text begins with a slightly different set of jamo (ㅁ instead of Ledyard's ㅂ) and only calls for the addition, not removal, of lines. In his 1997 paper, Ledyard defends these departures. He argues the line addition rule is poorly applied by the Haerye in the first place. There are several exceptions to the rule already given in that text, and lines are not added but in fact extended for the molars ㅁ → ㅂ → ㅍ.^[200] He argues that the line rule and even the stated derivations of the shapes as being inspired by outlines of speech organs and ancient Chinese symbolism seem post hoc, and that the correspondences he identifies go beyond coincidence.^[133]

Ledyard also thoroughly examines the historiography and historical context behind Hangul's creation and ʼPhags-pa's connection to Korea.^[201] He rules out many alternate hypothesized origins and provides evidence of knowledge of ʼPhags-pa in Sejong's court.^[202] On the "Old Seal" issue (see § Seal script hypotheses), Hope and Ledyard argue that the term may be a covert reference to ʼPhags-pa. That script had been used by the Mongols, who were regarded in China and Korea as barbarians; directly admitting inspiration from them could have prompted backlash.^[203] Ledyard describes this phrase as attempting to creatively place a Chinese "spin" on Hangul's origin.^[113] He also argues that there are attestations to "seal" being used to describe a style of Mongol script.^[204] In his 1997 paper, he argues there are attestations in Chinese literature of "古" being used to refer to Mongolia ("蒙古") and "篆" to ʼPhags-pa, although he concedes to not knowing of direct evidence that Sejong was directly aware of such literature.^[205] Ledyard also argues that ʼPhags-pa rhyme dictionaries and design either directly or indirectly influenced the design of Hangul. While there is no direct evidence of Sejong consulting such rhyme dictionaries,^[l] there is for Sin Sukchu. Sin relied on one such dictionary^[m] while producing the now-lost Sasŏng t'onggo. Also, Ledyard argues that Hangul organizes sounds and syllables in a way that more closely resembles ʼPhags-pa rhyme dictionary practice over Chinese.^[209]

In 1966, linguist Yu Chang-gyun also published a ʼPhags-pa hypothesis that Chong evaluates as having similar derivations to Ledyard's. Chong reasons that Yu's paper was published after Ledyard's thesis, and that the two had worked independently on the topic. Also, Chong claims that Yu did not consider only deriving basic characters then relying on the addition and removal of lines.^[210]

Evaluations

Linguist Nicolas Tranter claims that ʼPhags-pa hypotheses have more traction outside of South Korea than inside.^[16] In a 2006 entry in the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Chin-Woo Kim evaluates Ledyard's ʼPhags-pa hypothesis as a "gaining theory", behind original invention hypotheses.^[17]

Linguist Peter T. Daniels wrote in support of Ledyard's hypothesis. He wrote that Ledyard's choice of "five [Hangul jamo] are almost certainly based on the corresponding ʼPhags-pa letters".^[211] Chin-Woo Kim argues the similarities between the two scripts are "a little too striking to relegate them to a simple accident".^[17]

Linguist Jae Jung Song evaluated a ʼPhags-pa influence on Hangul as "within the realm of possibilities".^[212] Tranter argues that ʼPhags-pa possibly had some influence on Hangul, but that Hangul is "in many ways a more original—and perhaps 'scientific'—script than ʼPhags-pa ever was".^[16] Linguist Richard Sproat argues that, while ʼPhags-pa cannot necessarily be ruled out, there is no direct evidence for it. He argues it may have offered some inspiration to Hangul, for example by illustrating that syllables could be broken down to further divisions than the two known to Chinese linguistics.^[213]

Linguists Insup Taylor and M. Martin Taylor evaluate Ledyard's shape derivations as contrived and unlikely. They argue that a similar number number of English letters, which are almost certainly unrelated to Hangul, resemble Hangul as well, and that "a more likely explanation is that with any two sets of simple shapes a few members of the sets will almost inevitably resemble each other". They do not rule out other possible influence from ʼPhags-pa: "[it is conceivable that Hangul's inventors] saw in [ʼPhags-pa] that it was feasible for simple and squarish geometric shapes to represent consonants."^[214] Linguist Sang-Oak Lee argued that the correspondences in ʼPhags-pa hypotheses are too few to seem systematic.^[215] Linguist Geoffrey Sampson expresses skepticism of significant ʼPhags-pa influence; he also describes the "Chinese spin" aspect of the hypothesis as "contrived".^[216]

Indian hypotheses

A dharani written in Siddhaṃ with Chinese transliteration

Ledyard argues that most Indian scripts—particularly the Devanagari, Brahmi, and Gupta scripts—were unlikely to have inspired Hangul. He claims past Western scholars have used Korea's connection to Buddhism to justify such hypothesized connections, but rebutted that there is little direct evidence of their use or appearance in Korea.^[217] One Indian script Sejong was personally familiar with the Siddhaṃ script; Siddhaṃ dharani had been placed on Sejong's throne and the ceiling of his throne room.^[218] However, that script was heavily stylized over centuries of Chinese calligraphic practice,^[219] and not widely used by Korean monks beyond dharani.^[218] In 1997, Ledyard wrote that "no one has ever suggested any connection between Siddham and the Korean alphabet, and there is none".^[220]

Scholars have attempted to compare the letters of Hangul to various Indian scripts. Ledyard showed some receptiveness to the comparisons of several Hangul jamo to letters of Devanagari and Gupta, but said "[t]he trouble is that one can only go so far with these comparisons", and that, to his knowledge, no such comparison had ever fully and rigorously linked Hangul to any such Indian script.^[221]

Tibetan script hypotheses

Several scholars have argued that Hangul was based on the Tibetan script. In 1820, French Sinologist Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat claimed Hangul was based on the choub form of the script.^[222][223] In 1892, American Koreanist Homer Hulbert argued in favor of Tibetan inspiration for some jamo, on the basis of some graphical similarity and mutual interest in Buddhism.^[224][225] Ledyard argues that Tibetan was implausible because he and Japanese linguist Shinpei Ogura did not know of attestations to significant knowledge of the script in Korea.^[226]

Chinese scripts hypotheses

A number of scholars have hypothesized that Hangul took some inspiration from Chinese characters. For example, several have hypothesized that the Hangul ㅁ took inspiration from the Chinese 口. Both are designed to resemble human mouths. The Hangul ㅅ has also been hypothesized to have been inspired by 齒, which uses four similar shapes to represent upper and lower teeth in the mouth.^[227]

Seal script hypotheses

Seal script on a Qin-era (230–202 BC) stone slab

There are various hypotheses that attempt to link Hangul in varying ways to various styles of Chinese characters, namely seal script.^[228][229] Three pieces of documentary evidence are significant in such hypotheses:^[230]

1. "This month, His Highness personally created the twenty-eight letters of the Vernacular Script. Its letters imitate the Old Seal (古篆)..."^[n][38] (from the 1443 announcement of Hangul)
2. "Even supposing that the graphs of the Vernacular Script are all based on ancient characters (古字), and are not new characters, and even though the graphic forms imitate the ancient seal script (古之篆文), the combining of graphs according to sound is utterly opposed to the ancient ways; truly, there is nothing to base it upon..."^[o][231] (from Ch'oe Malli's 1444 rebuke of Hangul)
3. "The letters, while depicting outlines, imitate the Old Seal (古篆)..."^[p][232] (from Chŏng Inji's 1446 postface to the Haerye)

The meanings of "Old Seal" and "ancient seal script" in each of the quotes above are disputed.^[233] To Ledyard's knowledge, these are the only known attestations to these terms being used in relation to Hangul.^[234] In 1966, Ledyard claimed that the predominant interpretation at that point was that the terms refer to Chinese seal script.^[235] Hope and Ledyard argue an alternate explanation of the above quotes to support the ʼPhags-pa hypothesis (see § ʼPhags-pa hypotheses).^[236]

Scholars have debated seal script hypotheses for centuries. 18th-century Joseon scholar Yi Tŏngmu [ko] argued that some of Hangul's consonants were based, in sound and form, on seal script.^[237][228] In 1912, Canadian Koreanist James Scarth Gale evaluated arguments on how Hangul jamo could be systematically derived from seal script. He argued that while some jamo had patterns in relation to several Chinese characters, others did not.^[238] In 1957, South Korean scholar Lee Sang-baek (이상백; 李相佰) disputed Yi Tŏngmu's proposed sound connection between the scripts, while evaluating the form connection as possible.^[237]

Such hypotheses were dominant until the 1940 rediscovery of the Hunminjeongeum Haerye. They have since declined in popularity.^[239] Ledyard argued in 1997 that "the task of relating the simple and rigidly regular geometric lines of the original Korean script to the most elongated, tortuous, serpentine graphic style in the entire Chinese calligraphic repertoire is hopeless, and in fact it has been abandoned for some time".^[240]

Other scripts

The Jurchen script and language were known to a poor degree around the time of Hangul's creation. Limited courses on these were offered by the government.^[241] Ledyard dismissed the possibility of the script actively influencing Hangul. Ledyard wrote that the script "was more a code than a writing system", and that if it did influence Hangul, it was because it "discouraged Koreans from imitating it".^[242]

Japanese scripts, the Japanese language, and the Ryukyuan languages were known to some degree to Joseon around this time due to significant contact between these groups.^[243] Ledyard expressed skepticism of them influencing Hangul. Ledyard argues that they were unsuited to the phonology of Korean. If Korea had developed a Japanese-like syllabic script, it would have required thousands of graphs to write Korean unambiguously.^[242]

One hypothesis is that Hangul was inspired by the Koreanic script kugyŏl, which are themselves derived from Chinese characters. Chin-Woo Kim claimed linguist Kim Wan-jin [ko] is the predominant advocate of this hypothesis. Kim Wan-jin reportedly argues that highly simplified characters from that script eventually inspired Hangul, similar to how the Japanese script katakana evolved from highly simplified Chinese characters.^[17]

Notes

1. Ch'oe Malli's rebuke of Hangul contains a mention that Hangul has 27 letters, but this is generally regarded as a printing error.^[36] Despite this, linguist Ahn Pyong-hi argues it cannot be ruled out that the number of letters had shifted between the announcement of Hangul and this point, although Hangul was eventually promulgated with 28 letters.^[37]
2. Ledyard argues that Ŏnmunch'ŏng was likely not the name of the department at the time, and that that name was likely inserted into the Veritable Records of Sejong by anti-Hangul literati.^[5] The office's official establishment is recorded in the Veritable Records as on the 8th day, 11th month of 1446,^[59] but Ledyard argues the office was likely active before this, likely soon after Sejong announced the script. Either way, scholarly work was actively being performed on Hangul before 1446.^[60]
3. Ahn calls this the "His Majesty's invention and cooperation hypothesis" (친제협찬설; 親制協贊說; ch'injehyŏpch'ansŏl).^[86]
4. Hypothesis name translated based on Lee's translation of the phrase.^[88]
5. This version is described in the text Queyun zhizhang tu (切韻指掌圖), which was known to Sejong's court.^[136]
6. Sang-Oak Lee and other scholars argue that ㅂ should be considered to have just one more stroke more than ㅁ, because the latter is written with three brush strokes and the former four.^[144]
7. Ledyard argues that ㆁ is unlikely to have ever been useful as an initial consonant for Korean, as that language likely never had an initial ng sound, and that it was mostly meant for representing Chinese.^[146]
8. Ledyard calls the script "Uighur", but based on his description of said script elsewhere,^[171] he appears to be describing the Mongolian script and not the Old Uyghur alphabet.
9. It is assumed in this article that the 1997 paper is more up-to-date with Ledyard's thinking. Both works largely align, although he reaches different conclusions on several jamo. Also, his 1966 thesis was only partially revised to desired standard before it was republished in 1998; the latter half containing the bulk of his argumentation on ʼPhags-pa reportedly received fewer revisions.^[177]
10. In his Ph.D. thesis, Ledyard is doubtful of Hope's derivation of ㅁ, although he does not altogether rule it out.^[181] In his 1997 paper, he rules out ㅁ as too implausible.^[182]
11. Ledyard criticizes a number of Hope's derivations. For example, Ledyard felt it was unnecessary to bring in headless; instead he proposes that several ʼPhags-pa graphs can be rotated to derive Hangul jamo.^[183] He also argues that Hope's derivation of ㅇ is implausible. Hope attempts to derive the modern version of ㅇ, which has dual function as null and ng in the syllablic final position. However, the separate jamo ㆁ was originally used for syllabic final positions and eventually merged into ㅇ.^[184]
12. Despite this, Ledyard argues that Sejong possibly introduced such rhyme dictionaries to Sin, rather than the other way around, given Sejong's depth of knowledge in this area and breadth in others.^[206]
13. The dictionary is attested to indirectly through Joseon linguist Ch'oe Sejin (1465–1542); Ch'oe calls this book Ménggǔ yùn (Chinese: 蒙古韻; lit. 'Mongol Rhymes'), but it is unclear which book this is. Ch'oe, in his own rhyme dictionary Sasŏng t'onghae [ko] published in 1517, relied on a Sino-Mongol rhyme dictionary he called Menggu yunlüe (Chinese: 蒙古韻略; lit. 'Mongol Rhyme Dictionary'). Ledyard believes Ch'oe is implying these two Sino-Mongol dictionaries are different, and that the latter is possibly the 14th-century Menggu Ziyun.^[207] Lee and Ramsey believe that work is separate and is simply lost.^[208]
14. 是月上親製諺文二十八字 其字倣古篆 分爲初中終 合之然後乃成字
15. 儻曰 諺文皆本古字 非新字也 則字形雖倣古之篆文 用音合字盡反於古 實無所據^[44]
16. 癸亥冬 我殿下創製二十八字 略揭例儀以示之名曰訓民正音 象形而字倣古篆因聲音協七調三氣之義 二氣之妙莫不該括

References

1. Ledyard 1998, pp. 127, 134–135; Lee 2009, p. 14; Peterson 1992, p. 17; Yoo 2006, pp. 23–24; Ahn 2004, pp. pp.
2. Ahn 2004, pp. 7–12; Hope 1957, pp. 155–156; Ledyard 1997, pp. 63–70.
3. Ledyard 1998, pp. 70, 423; Ahn 2004, pp. 18–20.
4. Peterson 1992, pp. 15–17; Ahn 2004, pp. 12–13.
5. Ledyard 1998, p. 156.
6. Peterson 1992, pp. 15–17; Ahn 2004, p. 16.
7. Ledyard 1998, pp. 161–162.
8. Ledyard 1998, pp. 161–162; Ledyard 1997, p. 57.
9. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 306–307; Kim 2005, p. 26; Kim-Renaud 1997a, p. x.
10. Ledyard 1997, p. 79.
11. Ledyard 1998, pp. 401–403.
12. Ledyard 1998, pp. 17–22.
13. Ledyard 1998, p. 427; Gale 1912.
14. Kim-Renaud 1997a, p. x.
15. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 306–307, 310.
16. Tranter, Nicolas (2001). "Script 'Borrowing', Cultural Influence, and the Development of the Written Vernacular in East Asia". In McAuley, Thomas E. (ed.). Language Change in East Asia (1st ed.). Curzon Press. pp. 200–202. doi:10.4324/9781315028521. ISBN 0-7007-1377-8 – via Taylor & Francis.
17. Kim, Chin-Woo (1 January 2006). "Korean Script: History and Description". In Brown, Keith (ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 239–243. ISBN 978-0-08-044854-1. Retrieved 9 August 2025.
18. Lee & Ramsey 2011, p. 55.
19. Sohn 2001, p. 122; Oh 2013, pp. 140–141; Haarmann 1993, pp. 144–145.
20. Wang 2023, pp. 70–71; Haarmann 1993, p. 145; Kim-Renaud 2000, p. 18.
21. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 1–2; Kim 2005, pp. 3, 7–9; Oh 2013, pp. 140–142.
22. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 1–2, 53, 57; Kim 2005, pp. 9–10; Peterson & Margulies 2010, p. 85; Haarmann 1993, pp. 146–147.
23. Ledyard 1990, p. 13.
24. Ledyard 1998, pp. 130–131; Lee 2009, pp. 15–16; Yoo 2006, pp. 31–32.
25. Lee 2009, p. 16.
26. Ledyard 1997, p. 35.
27. Ledyard 1998, pp. 109–111.
28. Ledyard 1998, pp. 132–133; Ramsey 1992, pp. 49–50.
29. Ledyard 1997, pp. 52–53; Ledyard 1998, pp. 366–369.
30. Lee 1997, pp. 14–19; Ahn 2004, pp. 12–14.
31. Ledyard 1990, p. 15.
32. Wang 2014, p. 76.
33. Ahn 2004, pp. 12–14, 16–22.
34. Ahn 2018, pp. 153–158.
35. Ledyard 1998, pp. 85, 134; Yoo 2006, p. 26; Kim-Renaud 2000, p. 14; Ahn 2004, p. 5.
36. Ledyard 1998, p. 157; Ahn 2018, p. 92.
37. Ahn 2018, p. 92.
38. Ledyard 1998, p. 134.
39. Office of Annals (1443). 훈민정음을 창제하다. Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty [Hunminjeongeum is created] (in Korean). National Institute of Korean History. Retrieved 19 July 2025.
40. Ledyard 1998, pp. 85, 134–136; Yoo 2006, p. 32.
41. Ledyard 1998, pp. 116–117, 136–138; Ledyard 1990, p. 15.
42. Ledyard 1998, pp. 116–117, 136–138.
43. Oh 2013, p. 153; Ledyard 1998, pp. 141–149.
44. Office of Annals (1444). 집현전 부제학 최만리 등이 언문 제작의 부당함을 아뢰다 [Hall of Worthies First Advisor Ch'oe Malli and others protest the injustice of the development of the Vernacular Script]. Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty (in Korean). National Institute of Korean History.
45. Oh 2013, pp. 153–154; Yoo 2006, pp. 27–28.
46. Ledyard 1998, pp. 146–147, 151.
47. Ledyard 1998, pp. 150–151; Nahm 1996, p. 120; Wang 2014, p. 60; Yoo 2006, p. 26.
48. Yoo 2006, p. 26.
49. Ledyard 1998, pp. 150–152; Kim 2012, p. 211; Haarmann 1993, pp. 152–154; Song 2006, pp. 47–48.
50. Kim-Renaud 2000, pp. 17–18; Pratt 2007, p. 122; Ramsey 1992, p. 44; Song 2006, pp. 47–48.
51. Kim-Renaud 2000, pp. 17–18.
52. Pratt 2007, p. 122; Song 2006, pp. 47–48.
53. Kim 2005, p. 33.
54. Yoo 2006, p. 29; Kang 2006a, p. 236; Ledyard 1998, p. 149.
55. Wang 2023, pp. 74–75.
56. Yoo 2006, pp. 28–29; Ledyard 1998, pp. 116–117, 136–138; Volpe 2025, pp. 53–54.
57. Ledyard 1998, pp. 136–138.
58. Ledyard 1997, p. 32.
59. Office of Annals (1446). 《태조실록》을 어효첨과 양성지로 하여금 초록하여 바치게 하였다 [Ŏ Hyoch'ŏm and Yang Sŏngji are made to transcribe and present the Veritable Records of Taejo]. Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty (in Korean). National Institute of Korean History.
60. Ledyard 1998, pp. 139–140.
61. Ledyard 1998, pp. 139–140; Paek 2011, p. 3; Lee 1984, pp. 191–192.
62. Ledyard 1998, p. 139.
63. Yoo 2006, p. 26; Volpe 2025, pp. 53–54.
64. Office of Annals (1444). 집현전 교리 최항·부교리 박팽년 등에게 언문으로 《운회》를 번역하게 하다 [Hall of Worthies fifth rank members Ch'oe Hang, Pak P'aengnyŏn are commissioned to translate the Yunhui into Ŏnmun]. Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty (in Korean). National Institute of Korean History.
65. Ledyard 1997, pp. 36–44; Ledyard 1998, pp. 343–344, 367–369.
66. Ledyard 1997, pp. 46–48.
67. Ledyard 1997, pp. 46–47; Ledyard 1998, p. 344; Volpe 2025, pp. 53–54.
68. Ledyard 1997, pp. 46–48; Volpe 2025, pp. 53–54.
69. Ahn 2004, p. 8.
70. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 106–107; Wang 2023, pp. 73–74.
71. Ledyard 1998, pp. 357–358; Ledyard 1997, pp. 41–42.
72. Martin 1997, p. 264.
73. Ledyard 1998, p. 358; Volpe 2025, p. 59.
74. Ledyard 1998, p. 363; Ledyard 1997, p. 43; Lee & Ramsey 2011, p. 107; Volpe 2025, p. 59.
75. Kang 2006a, p. 231; Ledyard 1998, pp. 161–162; Ramsey 1992, pp. 44–45.
76. Ledyard 1998, p. 170; Wang 2014, p. 60; Kim-Renaud 2000, p. 17.
77. Ledyard 1998, p. 170; Kim 2000, p. 7; Kim-Renaud 2000, p. 17.
78. Paek 2011, p. 6.
79. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 108–109; Paek 2011, pp. 6–7.
80. Paek 2011, p. 9.
81. Ledyard 1998, p. 85.
82. 김경제. 한글날 [Hangul Day]. Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (in Korean). Academy of Korean Studies. Retrieved 9 August 2025.
83. Cho & Whitman 2019, pp. 35–36.
84. 심우섭 (9 October 2018). 한글날, 북한선 15일 '조선글날'…남북 다른 이유는? [Hangul Day, celebrated in North Korea as 'Chosŏn'gul Day' on the 15th... Why do North and South do it differently?]. Seoul Broadcasting System (in Korean). Retrieved 11 August 2025.
85. Lee 2009, pp. 15–16.
86. Ahn 2004, p. 7.
87. Lee 1997, p. 13.
88. Lee 1997, pp. 14–19.
89. Sampson 1985, pp. 122–123; Lee 1997, p. 11; Ahn 2004, p. 6.
90. Lee 2009, p. 14.
91. Lee, Hyeon-hie (September 2010). "A Survey of the History of Hunmin jeongeum Research". Scripta. 2. The Hunmin jeongeum Society: 18–19. ISSN 2092-7215.
92. Ahn 2004, p. 6.
93. Cho & Whitman 2019, p. 36.
94. Lee 1997, pp. 11–12.
95. Lee 1997, p. 12.
96. Lee 1997, pp. 12–13.
97. Seth 2010, p. 179.
98. Grayson 2002, p. 109.
99. Nahm 1996, p. 119.
100. Wells 2015, p. 80.
101. Kim, Djun Kil (2005a). The History of Korea (1st ed.). Greenwood Press. pp. 74–77. ISBN 0-313-33296-7.
102. Sohn 2001, p. 129.
103. Kim 1997, pp. 158–159.
104. Kim 2005, p. 14.
105. Yoo 2006, p. 24.
106. Lee 1984, pp. 192–193.
107. Lee 1997b, p. 108.
108. Gale 1912, pp. 20–22.
109. Ahn 2004, pp. 35–36.
110. Ahn 2004, p. 37.
111. Ahn 2018, pp. 178–179.
112. Martin 1997, p. 267.
113. Ledyard 1997, p. 70.
114. Ramsey 1997, p. 131.
115. Wang 2023, pp. 71–73.
116. Haarmann 1993, p. 145.
117. Taylor & Taylor 2014, p. 180.
118. Song 2006, pp. 47–48.
119. Lee 1997, pp. 14–19; Haarmann 1993, pp. 151–152; Ahn 2004, p. 6.
120. Lee 1997, pp. 19–27; Cho & Whitman 2019, pp. 37–38.
121. Cho & Whitman 2019, pp. 37–38.
122. Ree, Joe Jungno (1999). "The Korean Alphabet: Its History and Structure ed. by Young-Key Kim-Renaud (review)". Acta Koreana. Keimyung University: 176–177.
123. Song 2006, p. 48.
124. Lee 1997, pp. 14–19; Lee 2009, p. 13.
125. Lee 1997, pp. 13–14.
126. Ahn 2004, p. 6; Lee 2009, pp. 13–14.
127. Ahn 2004, pp. 7–12.
128. Ahn 2004, p. 36.
129. 리가원 (April 1994). "訓民正音의 創制" [The creation of Hunminjeongeum]. 열상고전연구 (in Korean). 7: 5–24 – via EArticle.
130. "몽유야담 (夢遊野談)", 한국민족문화대백과사전 [Encyclopedia of Korean Culture] (in Korean), Academy of Korean Studies, retrieved 30 September 2025
131. Ahn 2004, pp. 24–26.
132. Ahn 2018, pp. 168–178.
133. Ledyard 1997, pp. 39–40, 59–62.
134. Ledyard 1998, pp. 176–177, 192–195; Chong 2015, p. 34; Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 115–116.
135. Ledyard 1998, pp. 183–184; Lee & Ramsey 2011, p. 115.
136. Ledyard 1998, p. 185.
137. Ledyard 1998, p. 185; Ledyard 1997, pp. 37–39; Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 116–118.
138. Ledyard 1997, p. 38.
139. 최희수 (2021). 《한청문감(汉清文鉴)》의 중국어 치음 표기법 [Chinese incisor notation in the Hanch'ŏng mun'gam]. 한국어사 연구 (in Korean). 7. 국어사연구회: 334–335 – via DBpia.
140. 김주필. 가획 (加劃). Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (in Korean). Academy of Korean Studies. Retrieved 29 September 2025.
141. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 116–117; Ledyard 1998, pp. 243–246.
142. Lee & Ramsey 2011, p. 117.
143. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 116–117; Ledyard 1998, pp. 243–246; Kim-Renaud 1997b, p. 164.
144. Lee 1997b, p. 111.
145. Kim-Renaud 1997b, p. 164.
146. Ledyard 1998, pp. 213–214.
147. Ledyard 1998, pp. 213–214, 245–246; Lee 1997b, pp. 110–111.
148. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 116–117; Ledyard 1998, pp. 244–245.
149. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 117–118; Ledyard 1998, pp. 219, 226–229.
150. Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 116–117; Ledyard 1998, pp. 192–194, 232–233.
151. Ledyard 1998, pp. 204–206, 242–243, 248–249; Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 120–121.
152. Ledyard 1998, pp. 202–204.
153. Ledyard 1998, pp. 178–179, 284–285, 298–299.
154. Lee 1997b, pp. 107–108.
155. Lee 1997b, pp. 109–112.
156. Ledyard 1998, pp. 218–219.
157. Taylor & Taylor 2014, p. 194.
158. Ledyard 1997, pp. 62–63; Ledyard 1998, pp. 196–197, 207–208.
159. Ledyard 1998, pp. 196–197.
160. Taylor & Taylor 2014, p. 197.
161. Ledyard 1998, pp. 422–426.
162. Ledyard 1998, pp. 403–404, 424.
163. Ledyard 1998, pp. 423–426.
164. Ledyard 1998, pp. 420–422, 464.
165. Ledyard 1998, p. 18; Hope 1957, pp. 150, 154.
166. Ledyard 1998, p. 18.
167. Ledyard 1998, pp. 406–407; Ledyard 1997, pp. 55–56; Chong 2015, pp. 7–8.
168. Hope 1957, p. 152.
169. Ledyard 1998, pp. 406–407; Ledyard 1997, pp. 55–56.
170. Ledyard 1997, p. 56; Ledyard 1998, pp. 102–104.
171. Ledyard 1998, p. 406.
172. Ledyard 1998, pp. 405–406.
173. Hope 1957, pp. 150–152; Ledyard 1997, pp. 56–57.
174. Ledyard 1998, pp. 405, 429.
175. Hope 1957, p. 151; Ledyard 1998, p. 409.
176. Ledyard 1998, pp. 409, 414–415.
177. 이익섭 1998, p. 4.
178. Ledyard 1998, pp. 436–439.
179. Ledyard 1998, p. 437.
180. Chong 2015, pp. 30–31.
181. Ledyard 1998, pp. 414–415, 438; Taylor & Taylor 2014, p. 195.
182. Ledyard 1997, pp. 58, 60.
183. Ledyard 1998, pp. 408–414.
184. Ledyard 1998, p. 413; Ledyard 1997, pp. 58–59.
185. Ledyard 1998, pp. 411–417, 438.
186. Ledyard 1997, pp. 57–58.
187. Ledyard 1997, pp. 38, 45, 60.
188. "Qie yun zhi zhang tu". National Library of Australia. Retrieved 8 August 2025.
189. Ledyard 1997, pp. 37–39.
190. Clauson, Gerard (1959). "The HP'ags-pa Alphabet". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 22 (1/3). Cambridge University Press: 322 – via JSTOR.
191. Ledyard 1997, pp. 44–45.
192. Ledyard 1998, pp. 212–213.
193. Ledyard 1997, p. 57.
194. Ledyard 1997, p. 58.
195. Ledyard 1997, p. 59.
196. Hope 1957, pp. 150–151.
197. Ledyard 1997, pp. 58–59.
198. Ledyard 1997, pp. 38, 59–61.
199. Ledyard 1997, pp. 58–60, 63.
200. Ledyard 1997, pp. 39–40, 59–62; Chong 2015, pp. 32–33.
201. Ledyard 1997, pp. 56–57; Lee & Ramsey 2011, pp. 306–307; Kim-Renaud 1997a, p. x.
202. Ledyard 1998, pp. 401–407, 418–434.
203. Hope 1957, pp. 155–156; Ledyard 1997, pp. 63–70.
204. Ledyard 1998, pp. 433–435.
205. Ledyard 1997, pp. 63–70.
206. Ledyard 1997, p. 51.
207. Ledyard 1997, pp. 43–44, 46–47.
208. Lee & Ramsey 2011, p. 157.
209. Ledyard 1997, pp. 43–44, 46–47, 50–51; Ledyard 1998, pp. 360–362; Martin 1997, pp. 263–264.
210. Chong 2015, pp. 31–32.
211. Daniels, Peter T. (1 March 2013). "The History of Writing as a History of Linguistics". In Allan, Keith (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-19-958584-7. Retrieved 10 August 2025.
212. Song 2006, pp. 53–54.
213. Sproat, Richard (2010). Language, Technology, and Society. Oxford University Press. pp. 69–70. ISBN 978-0-19-954938-2.
214. Taylor & Taylor 2014, pp. 195–196.
215. Lee 1997b, p. 107.
216. Sampson 1985, p. 134.
217. Ledyard 1997, p. 55; Ledyard 1998, pp. 403–404.
218. Ledyard 1998, pp. 403–404.
219. Ledyard 1998, p. 404.
220. Ledyard 1997, p. 55.
221. Ledyard 1998, pp. 401–402.
222. Abel-Rémusat, Jean-Pierre (1820). Recherches sur les langues tartares ou memoires sur differens points de la grammaire et de la litterature des Mandschous, des Mongols, des Ouigours et des Tibetains [Research on the Tartar languages or memoirs on different points of grammar and literature of the Manchus, Mongols, Uighurs, and Tibetans] (in French). Paris: Imprimerie Royale. pp. 83–84 – via Internet Archive.
223. Ledyard 1998, pp. 16–17.
224. Hulbert, Homer (March 1892). "The Korean Alphabet II". The Korean Repository. 1 (3): 69–74 – via Brother Anthony.
225. Ledyard 1998, pp. 18–19.
226. Ledyard 1998, p. 403.
227. Kim-Renaud 1997b, pp. 163–164; Kim 2005, p. 48.
228. 김주필. 고전모방설 (古篆模倣說). Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (in Korean). Academy of Korean Studies. Retrieved 6 August 2025.
229. 김주필. 자방고전 (字倣古篆). Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (in Korean). Academy of Korean Studies. Retrieved 6 August 2025.
230. Ledyard 1997, pp. 79–80; 황경수 2005, p. 223; Taylor & Taylor 2014, p. 194.
231. Ledyard 1998, p. 141.
232. Ledyard 1998, p. 319.
233. Ledyard 1997, pp. 63–64; 황경수 2005, pp. 223–224.
234. Ledyard 1997, pp. 79–80.
235. Ledyard 1998, p. 427.
236. Ledyard 1997, pp. 63–70; Ledyard 1998, pp. 427, 433–434.
237. 황경수 2005, pp. 223–224.
238. Gale 1912, pp. 50–59.
239. 황경수 2005, pp. 222–223.
240. Ledyard 1997, p. 64.
241. Ledyard 1998, pp. 104–105.
242. Ledyard 1997, p. 54.
243. Ledyard 1998, pp. 105–106.

Sources

In English

Books

• 알기 쉽게 풀어 쓴 훈민정음 [Hunmin jeongeum: Written Plainly As to be Understood by Everyone] (in Korean and English). National Institute of Korean Language. 15 August 2008. ISBN 978-89-8498-876-7.
  • Lee, Sang-Oak. "Understanding 'Hunmin jeongeum' (The Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People)". In NIKL (2008).
• Ahn, Pyong-hi (2018) [2007]. Studies in Hunminjeongeum. Translated by Jung, Ha-yun (English ed.). National Hangeul Museum. ISBN 979-11-89438-00-5.
• Cho, Sungdai; Whitman, John (2019). Korean: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781139048842. ISBN 978-0-521-51485-9.
• Grayson, James Huntley (25 October 2002). Korea: A Religious History (1st ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7007-1605-0.
• Kang, Jae-eun (2006a). The Land of Scholars: Two Thousand Years of Korean Confucianism. Homa & Sekey Books. ISBN 978-1-931907-37-8.
• Kim, Jinwung (5 November 2012). A History of Korea: From "Land of the Morning Calm" to States in Conflict. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-00024-8.
• Kim, Zong-Su (2005) [1990]. The History and Future of Hangeul: Korea's Indigenous Script. Translated by King, Ross. Brill Publishers. ISBN 978-90-04-21369-2.
• Kim-Renaud, Young-Key, ed. (1992). King Sejong the Great: The Light of Fifteenth Century Korea. International Circle of Korean Linguistics. ISBN 978-1-882177-00-4.
  • Peterson, Mark. "The Sejong Sillok". In Kim-Renaud (1992).
  • Ramsey, S. Robert. "The Korean Alphabet". In Kim-Renaud (1992).
• Kim-Renaud, Young-Key, ed. (1997). The Korean Alphabet: Its History and Structure. University of Hawai'i Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-1989-7.
  • Kim-Renaud, Young-Key (1997a). Preface. In Kim-Renaud (1997).
  • Lee, Ki-Moon. "The Inventor of the Korean Alphabet". In Kim-Renaud (1997).
  • Ledyard, Gari. "The International Linguistic Background of the Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People". In Kim-Renaud (1997).
  • Lee, Sang-Oak (1997b). "Graphical Ingenuity in the Korean Writing System: With New Reference to Calligraphy". In Kim-Renaud (1997).
  • Ramsey, S. Robert. "The Invention of the Alphabet and the History of the Korean Language". In Kim-Renaud (1997).
  • Kim, Chin W. "The Structure of Phonological Units in Han'gŭl". In Kim-Renaud (1997).
  • Kim-Renaud, Young-Key (1997b). "The Phonological Analysis Reflected in the Korean Writing System". In Kim-Renaud (1997).
  • Martin, Samuel E. "Commentary". In Kim-Renaud (1997).
• Ledyard, Gari Keith (1998) [1966]. The Korean Language Reform of 1446: The Origin, Background, and Early History of the Korean Alphabet. 신구문화사.
  • 이익섭. "간행사". In Ledyard (1998).
• Lee, Ki-baik (1984). A New History of Korea. Translated by Wagner, Edward W. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-61575-1.
• Lee, Ki-Moon; Ramsey, S. Robert (2011). A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780511974045.
• Nahm, Andrew C. (1996) [1988]. Korea: Tradition & Transformation (2nd ed.). Hollym International Corporation. ISBN 1-56591-070-2.
• Oh, Young Kyun (24 May 2013). Engraving Virtue: The Printing History of a Premodern Korean Moral Primer. Brill's Korean Studies Library. Vol. 3. Brill Publishers. ISBN 978-90-04-25196-0.
• Peterson, Mark; Margulies, Phillip (2010). A Brief History of Korea. Facts On File. ISBN 978-0-8160-5085-7.
• Pratt, Keith (2007). Everlasting Flower: A History of Korea. Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1861893352.
• Sampson, Geoffrey (1985). Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-1756-7 – via Internet Archive.
• Seth, Michael J. (16 October 2010). A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7425-6717-7.
• Shin, Michael D., ed. (9 January 2014). Economy and Society. Everyday Life in Joseon-Era Korea. Brill Publishers. ISBN 978-90-04-26115-0.
  • Shin, Michael D. "An Introduction to the Joseon Period". In Shin (2014).
• Sohn, Ho-Min (2001). The Korean Language. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-36943-5.
• Song, Jae Jung (2006). The Korean Language: Structure, Use and Context. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-33590-9.
• Taylor, Insup; Taylor, M. Martin (2014) [1995]. Verhoeven, Ludo; van den Broek, Paul W. (eds.). Writing and Literacy in Chinese, Korean and Japanese. Studies in Written Language and Literacy. Vol. 14 (Revised ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/swll.14. ISBN 9789027269447.
• Wang, Sixiang (1 January 2014). "The Sounds of Our Country: Interpreters, Linguistic Knowledge, and the Politics of Language in Early Chosŏn Korea". In Elman, Benjamin A. (ed.). Rethinking East Asian Languages, Vernaculars, and Literacies, 1000–1919. Sinica Leidensia. Vol. 115. Brill. pp. 58–95. ISBN 978-90-04-27927-8. Retrieved 27 July 2025.
• Wang, Sixiang (July 2023). Boundless Winds of Empire: Rhetoric and Ritual in Early Choson Diplomacy with Ming China. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-55601-9.
• Wells, Kenneth M. (29 June 2015). Korea: Outline of a Civilisation. Brill's Korean Studies Library. Vol. 4. Brill Publishers. ISBN 978-90-04-30005-7.

Academic articles

• Gale, James Scarth (1912). "The Korean Alphabet". Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society Korea Branch. 4 (1). Royal Asiatic Society Korea Branch: 13–61.
• Haarmann, Harald (1993). "The emergence of the Korean script as a symbol of Korean identity". In Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.). The Earliest Stage of Language Planning. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 143–158. doi:10.1515/9783110848984.143. ISBN 978-3-11-084898-4.
• Hope, E. R. (1957). "Letter Shapes in Korean Önmun and Mongol hPhagspa Alphabets". Oriens. 10 (1): 150–159. doi:10.2307/1578766. ISSN 0078-6527. JSTOR 1578766 – via JSTOR.
• Kim, Chin W. (2000). "The Legacy of King Sejong the Great". Studies in the Linguistic Sciences. 30 (1): 3–12. ISSN 0049-2388 – via University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign University Library.
• Kim-Renaud, Young-Key (2000). "Sejong's Theory of Literacy and Writing". Studies in the Linguistic Sciences. 30 (1): 13–45. ISSN 0049-2388 – via University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign University Library.
• Ledyard, Gari Keith (1990). The Cultural Work of Sejong the Great (PDF) (Report) (published November 2002). pp. 7–18. Retrieved 26 July 2025 – via Korea Society.
• Lee, Ki-Moon (September 2009). "Reflections on the Invention of the Hunmin jeongeum". Scripta. 1. The Hunmin jeongeum Society: 1–34. ISSN 2092-7215.
• Paek, Doohyeon (September 2011). "Hunmin jeongeum: Dissemination Policy and Education". Scripta. 2. The Hunmin jeongeum Society: 1–23. ISSN 2092-7215.
• Volpe, Giovanni (1 May 2025). "The Power of Sound: Rethinking the Invention of the Korean Vernacular Script". Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies. 25 (1): 51–74. doi:10.1215/15982661-11631558. ISSN 1598-2661 – via Duke University Press.
• Yoo, Mi-rim (1 September 2006). "King Sejong's Leadership and the Politics of Inventing the Korean Alphabet". The Review of Korean Studies. 9 (3): 7–38. ISSN 2733-9351 – via AccessON.

In Korean

Academic articles

• 황경수 (2005). 훈민정음의 기원설 [A Study on the Origin of Hunminjeongum]. 새국어교육 (70). 한국국어교육학회: 221–238 – via Korea Open Access Journals.
• Ahn, Pyong-hi (2004). "世宗의 訓民正音 創製와 그 協贊者" [On Se-jong's creation of Hunminjeongeum(訓民正音) and his supporters]. 국어학 (in Korean) (44). 국어학회: 3–39.
• Chong, Che-mun (March 2015). 파스파 문자와 훈민정음 [The ḥPʽags-pa Script and Hunminjeongeum]. 한글 (in Korean) (307): 5–43. doi:10.22557/HG.2015.03.307.5. ISSN 1225-0449 – via DBpia.