• Sijohaknonchong
• /
• v.25
• /
• pp.5-27
• /
• 2006

This paper aims at examining how sijo works, including ancient sijo works, those published before the 1960s, those written by China-residing Koreans, and those published in the 2000s, convey the poetic meaning in terms of sentence structure. Firstly, ancient sijo works, those published before the 1960s, and those written by China-residing Koreans, have sentences. whose meaning the readers can easily grasp, with simple structures and little rhetoric words. But moderns works published In the 2000s (modern sijo works after) are mingled with too many rhetoric expressions, sometimes misused. Secondly, ancient sijo works, those published before the 1960s, and those written by China-residing Koreans, having a clarified subject-verb context. are easily understood by the readers. But, in modern sijo works, there are many cases with an unclarified subject-verb context and redundant rhetoric words, which will cause misunderstanding of the meaning of the work. Thirdly, in ancient sijo works. those published before the 1960s and those written by China-residing Koreans, each of the three statements (called in) in a stanza is separate from the others in context. But, in some modern sijo works, the first and second statements (called chojang and jungjang) fall into just rhetoric parts for the last statement (called jongjang), and each of them is not read as an independent statement. Fourthly, there are some cases whose forms are distant from those of siio works. but are written in three statements like traditional sijo works. Regular poems, though written in regular rhythm, should be also acoustically regular. Sijo works should be easily understood when recited. If not, they are basically far from sijo works. If modern sijo works should overcome their easy expressions and simplicity of themes, they should be composed through using not complicated sentence structures but brand-new metaphors, clear images, and fresh themes.