前漢 말기인 AD 1세기 초에 편찬된 어휘사전 『方言』에는 前漢 王朝 영역 내에서 실제 사용되던 입말[口語] 낱말 위주로 약 1만 자가 수록되었다. 특히 『방언』에는 BC 108년 前漢에 편입된 고조선 주요 영역으로 추정되는 ‘朝鮮‧洌水’지역의 어휘 32例가 수록되어 있다. 『방언』 내 ‘朝鮮‧洌水’ 지역 어휘의 언어정체성에 관해, 이를 上古漢語 갈래인 중국어로 보는 주장과 ⾮漢語系 고조선어로 보는 견해가 대립되는 가운데, 일부 주요 선행연구 사이에는 거의 같은 중국 고대문헌 어휘 용례를 근거로 분석하였지만 결과는 크게 차이 났다. 그 주요 이유는 첫째, 성립 시기가 『방언』보다 늦은 문헌자료를 인용하여 이보다 앞선 『방언』 내 어휘의 연원 및 유래 등을 입증하려는 비논리적인 사례가 많았으며, 둘째, 『방언』 편찬자가 ⾮漢語系 異⺠族 어휘를 채록할 때 발음이 같거나 유사한 漢字를 단순한 발음부호로 借用하여 표기한 소위 ‘記音字’ 사례가 많았지만 이를 무시하고, 단순 차용된 漢字와 같은 한자 어휘로 쓰인 상고문헌 용례를 인용하여 동 記音字 어휘와 연관성을 주장하는 것 등에 기인한다. 이런 문제점을 보완하고 필자가 새롭게 찾아낸 관련 문헌 용례 등을 반영하여, 『방언』 내 朝鮮‧洌水지역 어휘 32례의 연원 및 上古漢語와의 연관성 등을 엄밀히 분석한 결과는, 선행연구와 달리 7~8례만이 上古漢語와의 직접적인 연관성이 밝혀지고, 여타 어휘 25~26례는 『방언』 이전 문헌에서 『방언』에서 의 의미로 쓰여진 용례가 발견되지 않는다. 한편 동 어휘들은 전한 왕조의 영역 내에서 다른 지역에서는 거의 사용되지 않으면서 고조선지역인 朝鮮‧洌水 일대에서만 사용되었던 어휘이기에 上古漢語로 보기 어려우며, 『방언』 편찬 당시 異⺠族 어휘에 대해 발음이 유사한 漢字를 단순한 음성기호로 차용한 ‘記音字’ 어휘로 보는 것이 타당해 보인다.
FangYan, the earliest dictionary of dialectic vocabulary compiled in the early 1st century AD, at the end of the Former Han Dynasty, contains about 10,000 words mainly spoken words actually used in each region in the territory of the Dynasty. In particular, the dictionary contains 32 vocabularies from the Joseon-Ryeolsu region, which is presumed to be the main area of Gojoseon kingdom, which had been incorporated into the Former Han Dynasty in 108 BC. Regarding the linguistic identity of the vocabularies of Joseon-Ryeolsu region in FangYan, while there has been a academic conflict between the view that it is Chinese and the view that it is Korean language, some preceding study has insisted that based on the usage examples of the words in ancient Chinese literature texts, among 32 vocabularies of Joseon-Ryeolsu region, 23 or 24 words could be classified as Chinese vocabularies[漢語詞], and 9 were classified as Korean vocabularies[朝鮮詞]. However, in another previous study, even though it was cited and analyzed based on almost the same literature usage, it claimed a conclusion that is significantly different from the previous study. The main reasons for the large difference in analysis results based on the same literature usage between previous studies are as follows. First, there are many cases of illogical problems trying to prove the origin of vocabulary in FangYan by the usage exampes of the words which were used later than FangYan. Second, although there were many cases of so-called JiYinZi[記音字] in which Chinese characters with the same or similar pronunciation were borrowed as simple phonetic codes when the editors of FangYan were collecting non-Chinese vocabularies, the prior researcher insisted the strong connection with the JiYinZi vocabulary by citing examples of archaic literature written in the same Chinese character vocabulary, ignoring the situation in which vocabulary was marked with borrowed phonetic symbols. After the above fatal problems in methodology were supplemented and, in addition, the newly discovered usage examples of related literature were reflected by the author, the results of a rigorous analysis on the origins of 32 vocabularies in Joseon-Ryeolsu region showed that, unlike previous studies, only 7 or 8 words have direct relationship with ancient Chinese but the other 25 or 26 words have no close relationship in the Chinese literature text before FangYan. These words, which were less related to ancient Chinese, had been hardly used in other regions of the former Han Dynasty, so that it is difficult to classified them as Chinese vocabulary. On the other hand, it is reasonable to view them as a non-Chinese words marked with so-called JiYinZi, Chinese phonetic transcription characters.