Thenative Korean alphabet, calledHangul (한글) in South Korea andChosŏn'gŭl (조선글) in North Korea, is awriting system for theKorean 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 usingHanja (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.

KingSejong 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 theHunminjeongeum Haerye, one of the two texts written to introduce Hangul, the shapes of Hangul letters (calledjamo) are designed to reflect the shapes ofspeech organs and concepts in Chinese philosophy. Hangul also received inspiration fromChinese linguistic theory of the time, although these theories were innovated upon and adapted to suitKorean phonology. Some scholars believe that Hangul received minor inspiration from the Tibetan-Mongolian scriptʼPhags-pa, althoughthat hypothesis still argues that Hangul was largely original.

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 theVeritable Records of Sejong, as well as the 1446 treatises used to promulgate Hangul: theHunminjeongeum and theHunminjeongeum Haerye.^[1] Scholars have also attempted to make inferences based on other pieces of evidence as well.^[2][3]

TheVeritable Records of Sejong, part of theVeritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, were produced by government historians after the death of Sejong based on primary sources.^[4] Historians had editorial jurisdiction, independent from the king, on what to include in theRecords.^[5] Several historians have argued that the personal opinions of the historians have impacted theRecords' coverage of Hangul.^[6]

The 1446 treatises were originally published as a single book, with theHaerye being a commentary book for theHunminjeongeum. They are of separate authorship; theHunminjeongeum was authored by Sejong himself, while theHaerye was written by a group of scholars led byChŏng Inji.^[7] While theHunminjeongeum remained in the historical record, theHaerye was eventually lost and forgotten, possibly by the early 16th century. In 1940, a copy of it was rediscovered. Its discovery 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.^[12]

Before the invention of Hangul, Korea had been usingHanja (Chinese characters) since antiquity. The difficulty of the script limited its use to mostly upper-class people; commoners were largely illiterate.^[14] The script is not well suited for representing theKorean language; the Chinese and Koreanlanguages are not closely related and differ in significant ways. For example,Classical Chinese usessubject–verb–object word order whileMiddle Korean usessubject–object–verb word order.^[15] Korean pronunciation and ideas could only be indirectly represented.^[16] Some efforts were made to adapt the script to suit Korean, which resulted in theIdu script and its varieties, includingHyangch'al. Scholars have evaluated these scripts as complicated and difficult to decipher, and thus not useful for promoting widespread literacy.^[17]

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.^[18] 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 moralsSamganghaengsilto [ko].^[19] A decade later, after Hangul was announced, Sejong reiterated this frustration with regards to that text.^[20] Despite this, a Hangul version of that text would only be produced by the reign ofKing Seongjong (r. 1469–1495).[21]

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.^[22] 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.^[23] 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.^[24]

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.^[25] To Ledyard's interpretation, Hangul's announcement apparently came as a surprise to the mainline Hall of Worthies.^[26] Historian Sixiang Wang argued that the script was likely kept a secret fromMing China, asMing would have preferred that its tributary state, Joseon, use the Chinese script.^[27]

LinguistAhn 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 theVeritable 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.^[28][29]

The following is the first mention of Hangul in theVeritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty:^[30]

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."^[33][34]

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.^[35] A demonstration of the script was held, wherein clerks were assembled to learn how the script worked.^[26]

A major faction in the Hall began moving to condemn the script. That faction, centered around one of the Hall's highest-ranking membersCh'oe Malli, had been growing increasingly critical of Sejong.^[36] 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.^[37] 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 hasserved 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.^[38][39]

Sejong and the anti-Hangul faction then engaged in a fierce debate,^[40] with scribes apparently struggling to document the technical arguments made.^[41] The anti-Hangul faction expressed concern about a native Korean script being too far a departure fromChinese civilization, which they insisted Korea should be deferent to in a Confucian manner.^[42] Sejong rebutted that he felt the script was Confucian, as it was created out of a desire to benefit his subjects.^[43] 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.^[44] The script was commonly calledŏnmun (언문;諺文;lit. vernacular script), which developed an elitist connotation of "vulgar writing".[45]

Ch'oe and several of the scholars that rebuked Sejong were imprisoned for a single day.^[46] To Ledyard's knowledge, the rebuke and debate are the only surviving official records of complaints about Hangul from Sejong's time.^[41] According to historian Sixiang Wang, modern sentiment has lionized Sejong and vilified Ch'oe in this debate.^[47]

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.^[48] By Ledyard's analysis, these men had an average age of around 28.^[49] Significant among them wasSin Sukchu, who was known to have a talent for languages.^[50] At some point, possibly soon after the announcement of the script, Sejong ordered the establishment of the officeŎnmunch'ŏng [ko] (lit. 'Vernacular Script Commission').[b]^[53] This office went on to complete a number of seminal Hangul texts.^[54]

Rhyme dictionaries were 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.^[55] The first major Hangul-related project undertaken 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.^[56][57] The project was possibly never completed.^[58] The Ŏnmunch'ŏng possibly switched to focusing on compiling another rhyme dictionaryTongguk chŏngun, which was published in 1447.^[59] 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.^[60] Work continued on rhyme dictionaries even after theTongguk chŏngun; theSasŏng t'onggo (사성통고;四聲通攷) was published some time before 1455,^[61] and theHongmu chŏngun yŏkhun [ko] was published in 1455.^[62]

In the 9th month of 1446,Hunminjeongeum and its companion commentary textHunminjeongeum Haerye were officially completed; together the texts officially introduced Hangul and illustrated its use. TheHunminjeongeum was penned by Sejong himself, while theHaerye was compiled by a group of scholars of the Ŏnmunch'ŏng led byChŏng Inji.^[63] The latter includes a defense of the script using Confucian reasoning.^[26] TheHunminjeongeum begins with this now-famous preface:^[64]

The sounds of our country's language are different from those of theMiddle 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.^[65]

Sejong attempted to integrate Hangul into government functions, to limited success.^[66] Various efforts to promote Hangul that he initiated fizzled out especially after his death.^[67] While the royal family and court women were significant early adopters of Hangul,^[68] the script would not begin to see wider adoption until the mid-16th century.^[68]

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 theVeritable 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.^[69]

The promulgation date for Hangul is also unclear. TheVeritable Records of Sejong copy of theHunminjeongeum is contained in a 29th day, 9th month of 1446 entry. However, that entry says that the saysHunminjeongeum was published some time during that month.^[70] The postface to theHaerye is dated to the first ten days (상한;上澣) 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.^[71][72] North Korea celebrates Hangul Day on January 15; it is unknown exactly why this date is used.^[73]

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.^[74]

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.^[76] The third is the "His Majesty's invention hypothesis",^[d] where Sejong designed the script on his own (친제설;親制說;ch'injesŏl).^[78]

Lee, in a 2009 paper, claims that a majority of scholars believe in the cooperation hypothesis, and that few advocate for the command hypothesis.^[79] 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.^[80] LinguistAhn Pyong-hi claims in a 2004 paper, based on research from the 1980s, that the cooperation hypothesis is dominant in North Korea.^[81] Linguists Sungdai Cho and John Whitman claim in a 2019 book that most scholars do not believe the His Majesty's invention hypothesis.^[82]

Korean scholars have expressed support of the command hypotheses for centuries. Lee identified an early attestation to the command hypothesis in the writings ofSŏng Hyŏn [ko] (1439–1504). Lee argues Sŏng made several incorrect claims about the script that make his narrative of events unreliable.^[83]Yu Hŭi [ko] wrote in the 1824 textŎnmunji [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."^[84] Korean linguistChu Sigyŏng wrote in 1906 that Sejong commanded others to develop Hangul.^[85]

A number of scholars have expressed support of the command hypothesis.^{[86][87][88][89][90]}

A number of scholars have expressed support of the cooperation hypothesis.^{[91][92][93][94][95][96][97]} Ledyard described Sejong as "the chief expert and principal researcher" of the project.^[18]

Canadian KoreanistJames Scarth Gale wrote in 1912 that Sejong, Chŏng Inji,Sŏng Sammun,Sin Sukchu, andCh'oe Hang were primarily responsible for the alphabet.^[98]

Although Lee argues in favor of the His Majesty's invention hypothesis, he identifies an attestation toCrown Prince Yi Hyang having helped his father develop the script as plausible.^[77]

Ahn believes that eight people of the Hall of Worthies that are mentioned in the preface of theHaerye 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, andYi Hyŏllo [ko].^[99] 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.^[100] Ahn also argues that one or more of Sejong's sons may have assisted him, includingthe crown prince,Grand Prince Suyang, andGrand Prince Anp'yŏng [ko]. Several records soon after Hangul's announcement mention that the princes were working on projects related to Hangul.^[101]

A number of scholars have attributed the development of the script mainly to Sejong.^{[102][103][77][104][105][106][107][108]}

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.^[109] Ki-Moon Lee argues that theVeritable 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 theVeritable Records would in general attempt to flatter Sejong by falsely attributing accomplishments to him, this is the only instance where theVeritable 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.^[77] 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 theHaerye and pushed to enforce his vision of Hangul orthography on literary projects that he is known to have been heavily involved with.^[110] Cho and Whitman evaluated Lee's argument about Sejong's deep understanding of the topic as strong.^[111] Joe Jungno Ree found some of Lee's arguments compelling but overall expressed skepticism of the hypothesis.^[112]

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".^[113]

Many scholars have assumed that Sejong would have been too busy with the affairs of state to invent Hangul.^[114] Lee provided a 1989 quote from Japanese linguistKōno 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...^[115]

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...^[116]

Lee, who supports the hypothesis, rebuts that such arguments are inferences and are not based on direct evidence.^[114]

Ahn argues against the hypothesis. He argues that because Hangul reflects principles in the rhyme dictionaryTongguk 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.^[117] He also argues that, while Sejong attributes theHunminjeongeum to himself in that text's preface, on another occasion Sejong vocalized personal responsibility for work on theTongguk chŏngun, despite it being known that Sejong worked alongside other scholars for that text.^[118]

According to Ahn, a 1994 paper by linguistRi Ga-won [ko]^[119] argues that Sejong's second daughterPrincess 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 hypothesis is fringe, and that Ri uncritically bases her information on a claim made in a mid-19th document, entitledMongyuyadam (몽유야담;夢遊野談^[120]), that was far removed from the creation of Hangul.^[121][122]

TheHunminjeongeum Haerye gives a number of explanations for the design of Hangul letters, although Ledyard disputes aspects of their explanations.^[123]

Hangul's consonants were partially influenced by centuries of Chinese linguistic theory, although Hangul modified and innovated upon that theory to suitKorean phonology.^[124] The Chinesefanqie linguistic system splits Chinese syllables into two parts: the initial (initial consonant) and the final (also called "rhyme"; everything after the initial).^[125] 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, theHaerye 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.^[127]

TheHaerye claims that the consonants of Hangul are mostly related to each other by a principle of adding strokes to basic shapes (calledgahoek;kahoek;가획;加劃^[130]). The basic shapes are claimed to depict the outline ofspeech organs during the pronunciation of the letter's sound.^[131]IPA values given in this section correspond to the sound value at the time of Hangul's promulgation.^[132]

• 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 ([∅]^[133] or[ɦ]) depicts the throat

Strokes are added to the above letters to represent related sounds that are more "severe" (려;厲):^[134]

• ㄱ →ㅋ ([kʰ])
• ㄴ →ㄷ ([t]) →ㅌ ([tʰ])
• ㅁ →ㅂ^[f] ([p]) →ㅍ ([pʰ])
• ㅅ →ㅈ ([c]) →ㅊ ([cʰ])
• ㅇ →ㆆ ([ʔ]^[136]) →ㅎ ([h])

For most characters, strokes relate characters across the same sound class. TheHaerye acknowledges several exceptions to this that have been dubbed theich'e characters (이체자;異體字):^[137][138]

• ㆁ ([ŋ]) belongs to the molar class, yet has a stroke added fromㅇ of the laryngeal class.ㅇ is anull or zero initial. An initialng sound was a then-disappearing feature of the Chinese language. Thus, there was perceived to be a relationship between the disappearing initialng soundㆁ and the null initialㅇ.^[g][140]
• ㄹ ([l]) depicts the tongue and is in the semilingual class. It has strokes added to it fromㄴ, which is of the lingual class.
• ㅿ ([z]) depicts the incisor and is in the semiincisor class. It has a stroke added to it fromㅅ, which is of the incisor class.

Other consonants are derived by duplicating or combining the above consonants.^[141] Duplicated consonants were originally meant to be used only for the transcription of Chinese.^[142]

Fanqie does not describe vowels, and thus Hangul departed from and innovated uponfanqie 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 truealphabet.^[143]

TheHunminjeongeum introduces three basic vowels:^[144]

• ㆍ ([ʌ])
• ㅡ ([ɨ])
• ㅣ ([i])

One or twoㆍ are added toㅡ orㅣ to yield these other vowels:^[145]

The above vowels can again be combined to yield other vowels.^[146]

According to theHaerye, Hangul's design incorporates elements of Chinese philosophy. The text referencesZhu Xi's concept ofli a number of times.Li is a belief in underlying patterns and order in the natural world. TheHaerye argues that Hangul was not invented but discovered from these underlying patterns.^[147]

Several modern scholars have skeptically described a number of the above Chinese philosophical concepts (and consequently their link to Hangul) as seeming contrived and forced.^[152]

TheHaerye argues that the three fundamental vowels of Hangul correspond to concepts from the textI Ching, particularlyyin and yang. It argues thatㅡ corresponds to yin (symbolizing earth),ㆍ to yang (symbolizing the sun), andㅣ to man (neutral). The remaining vowels are derived from these. It also argues that the derived vowels can be classified as yin and yang, withㅜ,ㅓ,ㅠ, andㅕ being yin andㅗ,ㅏ,ㅛ, andㅑ being yang. The rationale given for this is that yin characters have dots "emerging from the earth" as they are below and inside, while yang characters are the opposite and "emerge from heaven".^[153]

LinguistSang-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) ofㄱ,ㅋ, andㄴ. Lee argues that these were not used because Hangul letters tend to try and minimize the number ofbrush strokes needed. Lee also analyzes why the character derived fromㅂ wasㅍ and not a character resembling日. He argues this was likely decided against because it is easy to visually confuse withㅌ, the mirror image ofㅌ, andㄹ.^[155]

Whileㅿ is a voiced variant ofㅅ, other consonants likeㄱ,ㄷ, andㅂ do not have voiced variants. Ledyard argues this is because such variants would not fit into the sound classes prescribed in the contemporary version offanqie.^[156]

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] LinguistChin-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.^[158]

The original invention hypothesis is dominant among South Korean academics.^[159][158]

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.^[160] Ledyard hypothesized that these justifications may have been intended to defend Hangul by making criticisms of Hangul seem like criticisms of Chinese philosophy.^[161]

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".^[162] LinguistRoss King finds none of the inspiration theories sufficiently convincing over the original invention hypothesis.^[163]

Since Hangul's invention, Korean scholars have hypothesized that Hangul is based on some Indo-Tibetan script.^[164] 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.^[165] One of the earliest attestations to an Indo-Tibetan hypothesis is bySŏng Hyŏn [ko] (1439–1504), who claimed Hangul was based on apŏm 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.^[166] Other attestations includeYi Sugwang in the 17th century,Hwang Yunsŏk [ko] in the 18th, and Yi Nŭnghwa in the 20th.^[167]

Western scholars have argued Indo-Tibetan hypotheses since the 19th century.^[168] In 1892,Albert Terrien de Lacouperie andGeorg von der Gabelentz both made such arguments.^[169]

ʼPhags-pa is a script designed in 1269 by a Tibetan Buddhist monk for use in the administration of theMongol Empire.^[170] It saw use until the end of theYuan dynasty (1271–1368), whereupon its use sharply declined. It was known to Korea; it was invented around the time that the Korean stateGoryeo was under Mongol rule (1270–1356).^[171] Joseon still taught the script, although by 1423 its instruction was in decline.^[172]

Since the invention of Hangul, Joseon scholars had long hypothesized a link between Hangul and ʼPhags-pa, although Ledyard evaluated almost all of these hypotheses as similarly weak and surface-level.^[167]

In a 1957 paper, Canadian linguist E. R. Hope was the first to propose graphic correspondences between ʼPhags-pa and Hangul letters. He attempts to derive almost all Hangul consonant shapes from those of ʼPhags-pa.^[173]

In Ledyard's 1966 Ph.D. thesis (revised in 1998) and in a 1997 paper, he expands upon Hope's analysis.^[h] Ledyard derives fewer (ㄱㄷㄹㅅㅂ and possiblyㅈ^[i]). He argues that there is no need to rely on further derivations because they seem tenuous and also one only needs to derive a single fundamentaljamo in each sound class. From there, one adds or removes lines to derive the other consonants.^[177] He also thoroughly examines the historiography and historical context behind Hangul's creation and ʼPhags-pa's connection to Korea.^[178]

These hypotheses, namely Ledyard's, have received a range of reactions from other scholars ever since. Some have expressed approval,^{[190][191][158]} others merely say they are possible,^{[192][97][193]} while others find them implausible.^[194]

Ledyard argues that most Indian scripts—particularly theDevanagari,Brahmi, andGupta 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.^[195] One Indian script Sejong was personally familiar with theSiddhaṃ script; Siddhaṃdharani had been placed on Sejong's throne and the ceiling of his throne room.^[196] However, that script was heavily stylized over centuries of Chinese calligraphic practice,^[197] and not widely used by Korean monks beyond dharani.^[196] In 1997, Ledyard wrote that "no one has ever suggested any connection between Siddham and the Korean alphabet, and there is none".^[198]

Scholars have attempted to compare the letters of Hangul to various Indian scripts. Ledyard showed some receptiveness to the comparisons of several Hanguljamo 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.^[199]

Several scholars have argued that Hangul was based on theTibetan script. In 1820, French SinologistJean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat claimed Hangul was based on thechoub form of the script.^[200][201] In 1892, American KoreanistHomer Hulbert argued in favor of Tibetan inspiration for somejamo, on the basis of some graphical similarity and mutual interest in Buddhism.^[202][203] Ledyard argues that Tibetan was implausible because he and Japanese linguistShinpei Ogura did not know of attestations to significant knowledge of the script in Korea.^[204]

A number of scholars have hypothesized that Hangul took some inspiration from Chinese characters. For example, several have hypothesized that the Hangulㅁ took inspiration from the Chinese口. Both are designed to resemble human mouths. The Hangulㅅ has also been hypothesized to have been inspired by齒, which uses four similar shapes to represent upper and lower teeth in the mouth.^[205]

There are various hypotheses that attempt to link Hangul in varying ways to various styles of Chinese characters, namelyseal script.^[206][207] Three pieces of documentary evidence are significant in such hypotheses:^[208]

1. "This month, His Highness personally created the twenty-eight letters of the Vernacular Script. Its letters imitate the Old Seal (古篆)..."^[j][33] (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..."^[k][209] (from Ch'oe Malli's 1444 rebuke of Hangul)
3. "The letters, while depicting outlines, imitate the Old Seal (古篆)..."^[l][210] (from Chŏng Inji's 1446 postface to theHaerye)

The meanings of "Old Seal" and "ancient seal script" in each of the quotes above are disputed.^[211] To Ledyard's knowledge, these are the only known attestations to these terms being used in relation to Hangul.^[212] In 1966, Ledyard claimed that the predominant interpretation at that point was that the terms refer to Chinese seal script.^[213] Hope and Ledyard argue an alternate explanation of the above quotes to support the ʼPhags-pa hypothesis(see§ ʼPhags-pa hypotheses).^[214]

Scholars have debated seal script hypotheses for centuries. 18th-century Joseon scholarYi Tŏngmu [ko] argued that some of Hangul's consonants were based, in sound and form, on seal script.^[215][206] In 1912, Canadian KoreanistJames Scarth Gale evaluated arguments on how Hanguljamo could be systematically derived from seal script. He argued that while somejamo had patterns in relation to several Chinese characters, others did not.^[216] 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.^[215]

Such hypotheses were dominant until the 1940 rediscovery of theHunminjeongeum Haerye. They have since declined in popularity.^[217] 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".^[218]

TheJurchen script andlanguage were known to a poor degree around the time of Hangul's creation. Limited courses on these were offered by the government.^[219] 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".^[220]

Japanese scripts, theJapanese language, and theRyukyuan languages were known to some degree to Joseon around this time due to significant contact between these groups.^[221] 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.^[220]

One hypothesis is that Hangul was inspired by the Koreanic scriptKugyŏl, which are themselves derived from Chinese characters. Chin-Woo Kim claimed linguistKim 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 scriptkatakana evolved from highly simplified Chinese characters.^[158]

• 홍윤표 (13 December 2019).한글 [Hangul] (in Korean) (Ebook ed.). 세창출판사.ISBN 978-89-8411-924-6.

• History of Hangul
• 15th century in Korea
• Origins

• Articles containing Chinese-language text
• Articles containing Korean-language text
• CS1 uses Korean-language script (ko)
• CS1 Korean-language sources (ko)
• CS1 French-language sources (fr)
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Use dmy dates from September 2021
• Pages with Korean IPA
• Pages with plain IPA