THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF TAEKWON-DO TECHNIQUES

A concept analysis of technical terminology in ITF Taekwon-Do

Henri Savilampi
Master’s Thesis
English Philology
Faculty of Humanities
University of Oulu
Spring 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
2 Theoretical and methodological framework ........................................................................ 4
2.1 Terminology science............................................................................................................... 4
Language for general purposes and language for specific purposes .......................................... 7
Object – concept – term .............................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Practical terminology work ................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Concept analysis .................................................................................................................. 12
Concept systems and concept relations .................................................................................... 13
Concept analysis step by step .................................................................................................... 17

3 Description of research data ............................................................................................. 21

3.1 A brief history of ITF Taekwon-Do......................................................................................... 21
3.2 Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do................................................................................................ 25
3.3 Composition of ITF Taekwon-Do and its fundamental techniques .......................................... 26

4 Analysis: The building blocks of Taekwon-Do techniques................................................... 29

4.1 Stances ................................................................................................................................ 34
4.2 Attacking and blocking tools................................................................................................. 38
Hand parts ................................................................................................................................. 39
Foot parts ................................................................................................................................... 44
Miscellaneous parts ................................................................................................................... 46
4.3 Technique types ................................................................................................................... 47
Hand technique types ................................................................................................................ 47
Foot technique types ................................................................................................................. 52
Hand-foot combination technique types................................................................................... 55
4.4 Technique specifications ...................................................................................................... 56
Relative end-position of the attacking or blocking tool ............................................................ 57
Relative direction of the movement .......................................................................................... 58
Shape and orientation of the tool ............................................................................................. 59
Purpose of the technique .......................................................................................................... 60
Combination specifications........................................................................................................ 61
 4.5 Other attributes ................................................................................................................... 64
Directions, sides and orientations ............................................................................................. 65
Height......................................................................................................................................... 68
Type of movement..................................................................................................................... 69
Movement rhythm..................................................................................................................... 72

5 Discussion and conclusion ................................................................................................. 75

References ............................................................................................................................... 79
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 82
1 INTRODUCTION

We assign names to people and objects in order to distinguish between different

individuals, between objects with different properties etc. We know immediately
that “Kim Sun Dal” is not the same person as “Timothy Smith”, that “flora” is
distinct from “fauna”, that a “rock” and a “pillow” do not have identical
characteristics. – – Because of names, football can be clearly distinguished from
baseball, Taekwon-Do from Judo. (Choi, 1999, p. 370)

The quote above is from Taekwon-Do: The Korean art of self-defence (Choi, 1999), a condensed
edition of the 15-volume Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (Choi, 1985) describing the whole
composition of the Korean martial art ITF Taekwon-Do. Its founder Choi Hong Hi has on several
occasions – both in his encyclopedia and elsewhere – emphasized the need for concise terminology
in a modern martial art. (Choi, 1999, p.370; Rhee, 2012, p. 82; Rhee, 2014a; Rhee, 2014b) The
purpose of this study is to analyze the technical terminology of ITF Taekwon-Do and investigate the
relations between the concepts that the terminology is based on. This is achieved by using a method
of terminological research called concept analysis.

Terminology science is a field of research investigating the terms and concepts used in languages
for specific purposes. (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, p. 13) The methods of terminology science are also
applied into practical terminology work, with a purpose of creating term databases and dictionaries
for specific subject fields to unify the terminology used within the field. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus
r.y., 1988, p. 13)

Concept analysis is a method used both for terminological research as well as practical terminology
work. It focuses on the distinctive characteristics of each concept, and how the concepts are related
to each other. (Sanastokeskus TSK ry, 2006, p. 31) Although concept analysis happens constantly
and unconsciously during the human thought process – for example, we understand that forward
and backward are related to each other by antonymy, being opposite of each other – it is sometimes
useful to make it a conscious process to understand the special concepts and terminology within
specific fields. (Nuopponen, 2003, p. 14)

1
A typical end-product of a concept analysis is a concept system, a graphical representation of which
concepts are related to each other and in which manner. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 28)
Concept systems are also used in this paper to visualize the analysis of technical terminology in ITF
Taekwon-Do. If the method is used for practical terminology work, a concept system may be used
to create a term bank or a dictionary of the subject field. Within terminology science, the concept
system itself may be the final product, supplemented by a written analysis explaining the process.
Terminology science, practical terminology work and concept analysis are discussed and explained
in more detail in Section 2: Theoretical and methodological framework.

The inspiration for this study comes from a similar study conducted by Anita Nuopponen on the
terminology of the Japanese chadō tea ceremony. Similarly to this study, Nuopponen conducted a
concept analysis, identifying, grouping and classifying terms and concepts to streamline the
Japanese terminology used by chadō enthusiast. (Nuopponen, 2004) As terminology for ITF
Taekwon-Do has been developed both in English and Korean, both languages will be present in this
study, although the focus will be on the Korean terminology. My plan is to analyze the vast number
of concepts within the martial art to understand which concepts are related to each other and how.
Additionally, my research has a more practical purpose, as it aims to provide a comprehensive
technique naming scheme for the hundreds of fundamental techniques and their variations
performed in Taekwon-Do.

The reason for choosing the terminology of ITF Taekwon-Do as the data for this study stems from
my own interest in the martial art. Having practiced the art since 2002, I have gained an
understanding of how the Korean terminology behaves and how it is used in the dojang (Korean for
‘training hall’). Although there have been several smaller-scale studies on the terminology of
Taekwon-Do (e.g. Banicevich, n.d.), I have never encountered a thorough study on how the
terminology – and more specifically, technical terminology – of ITF Taekwon-Do should be used to
define each fundamental technique clearly and unambiguously.

My primary objective conducting this research is to remove ambiguity from the technical
terminology and harmonize the word order of technique names by creating a comprehensive
technique naming scheme, which applies to all techniques in Taekwon-Do. The terminology
presented and analyzed here is based on the data from the Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do. (Choi,
1985; Choi, 1999; see Section 3.2) However, as I do not speak the Korean language nor am I an

2
expert in its grammatical structures, wherever additional or replacement terminology is required, I
have used external sources, such as dictionaries and previous related research, to fill in the gaps.

Although some knowledge of the martial art Taekwon-Do and its concepts is necessary to fully
understand and appreciate this research, the analysis is written to be comprehensible (albeit not
necessarily of much interest) even for a commoner. Despite this study being heavily related to the
technical content of ITF Taekwon-Do due to the selection of data, my purpose is not to comment or
instruct on any technical aspects or how the techniques should be performed.

In the few instances where the performance is related to the distinct characteristics of each concept
or term, the analysis is based on the information presented in either the Encyclopedia of Taekwon-
Do or supplemental material produced by the instructors, masters and grandmasters of the art. The
history and technical contents of ITF Taekwon-Do, as well as the research data for this study, are
introduced in Section 3.

The analysis of the technical terminology in Section 4 is divided into sub-sections according to a
technique naming scheme, a way to name Taekwon-Do techniques. This scheme is based on
research done by Rhee (2012) and Banicevich (n.d.), although some alterations and
supplementations have been made based on my findings from the research data. The analysis
consists of five sub-sections. The first four, 4.1 Stances, 4.2 Attacking and blocking tools, 4.3
Technique types, and 4.4 Technique specifications, are the most common attributes used in the
technique naming scheme. The fifth sub-section, 4.5 Other attributes, briefly discusses the other
attributes in the scheme which may often be omitted entirely, or used to define variations in the
techniques, such as heights and directions.

Finally, at the end of this paper in Section 5, I discuss the results and findings of the analysis, focusing
on how Taekwon-Do organizations, instructors and practitioners may benefit from the results. In
addition, I intend to introduce ideas for possible further research on the terminology of ITF
Taekwon-Do, as well as reflect on the whole process of conducting this research.

3
2 THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Terminology science is a rather young field of research, with its inception being credited to Eugen
Wüster in the 1930s. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 22) In this section, I intend to give an
overview on the research field of terminology science and its history, as well as explain the most
important terminology within the field. Then the focus shifts to the practical terminology work and
its methods and goals, before finally focusing on the specific method of terminological research
which is used in this paper, concept analysis.

As any other subject field, terminology science also has its own special language, consisting of
special terminology. It is important to make a distinction between the two meanings of the word
terminology: it can refer to a set of designations for concepts in a specific subject field, but also to
the scientific discipline which studies the use and relations of the designations within a subject field.
(Sanastokeskus TSK ry, 2006, p. 30) For the sake of clarity, and to avoid any confusion, in this thesis
the research field terminology is referred to as terminology science, whereas terminology refers to
a set of terms. In addition, the term terminology work refers to the practical work on terminology
within a subject field, without a (primary) scientific purpose.

2.1 Terminology science

Terminology science is a field of research that investigates and examines the concepts and terms in
languages for special and specific purposes, i.e. within specific subject fields. (Nuopponen & Pilke,
2010, p. 13; Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 22) The history of terminology science started at
the end of the 19th century, when the work on the nomenclature of natural sciences – especially
biology and chemistry – started. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 22) However, the early
terminological efforts focused mainly on the practical, communicative needs to unify terms within
the fields. (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, p. 13)

The first attempts to research terminology scientifically were conducted by the Austrian graduate
engineer Eugen Wüster. Wüster is often credited with the inception of terminology science as a
research domain, and his doctoral dissertation on language standardization in technology (1931) is

4
still considered one of the most influential works in terminology science. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus
r.y., 1988, p. 13) Wüster established the methods and principles for terminology work and
terminology science, building an interdisciplinary field of research. The theories, concepts and
methods of terminology science are based on those in linguistics, philosophy, philosophy of science,
semiotics and information technology, modified into a cohesive whole. (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010,
p. 13)

Today, terminology is researched extensively around the world. Soon after Wüster’s first efforts,
terminological research started in Moscow in the Soviet Union (e.g. Chapyglin & Lotte, 1937), with
many other universities following soon after. The field of terminology science can be divided into
different schools based on the methodology and focus points of their research. The differences
between schools are, however, rather miniscule, as they are all mostly based on Wüster’s work and
his Vienna School. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, pp. 22–23)

Two notable schools of terminology science, in addition to Vienna and Moscow mentioned above,
are the Prague School (e.g. Drodz, 1981) and the Nordic School (e.g. Nuopponen, 2004). (Cabré &
Sager, 1999, pp. 12–13; Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, pp. 22–23) The methodology and focus
of this research is based on the framework and traditions of the Nordic School. In the Nordic
countries, the focus of terminological research has been on the practical terminology work. The
Nordic languages, having smaller speaker populations in comparison to several other European
languages, such as English, German and French, have benefitted from the investments the Nordic
countries have made on terminological research. The Nordic School focuses specifically on the
practical terminology work of languages for special purposes. (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, pp. 11–
12)

As terminology science works with the definitions of terms (words), it is also closely related to other
fields of linguistic research. One of these related fields is lexicology, which analyses and describes
the semantic and syntactic relations within the vocabulary (lexicon) of a language. The methods and
results are very similar to those of terminology science. The main difference between the two is that
while terminology science investigates the vocabulary in a language for specific purposes, i.e. a
specific subject field, the focus of lexicography is on the language for general purposes, i.e. a form
of language not requiring any expert knowledge (see Section 2.1.1). (Alberts, 2001, p. 71;
Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, p. 17) Lexicology is also interested in how the lexical and grammatical
units are linked together to achieve cohesion within a text. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp. 1–2)
5
Although terminology science does not focus particularly on the grammar, it also aims to achieve
cohesion within a specific subject field, albeit by the means of a unified, consistent and
unambiguous set of terms. (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, pp. 13–15)

The sub-field of lexicology which focuses on the semantic relations is called lexical semantics. Lexical
semantics studies the meanings of words and the relations between them within a language for
general purposes. (Pustejovsky, 1995, p. 1) However, lexical semantics does not work on term
building or defining terms for use in languages for special purposes, such as a language variant used
by professionals of the same field. Instead, lexical semantics studies how the words within a lexicon
relate to each other and how the syntax of the language affects the meaning. (Cruse, 1986, p. 1) The
classification methods of lexical semantics are very similar to those of terminological concept
analysis and can thus be partially applied. This will be further explored in Section 2.3.1.

Previous research in the field of terminology science can be roughly divided into two types: (1)
research focusing on further developing methodology for terminological research and practical
terminology work, and (2) research investigating the terminology within a specific subject field in
one language or translating it between two (or more) languages. (Nuopponen, 1999, p. 92)

While Wüster’s dissertation was a combination of both types – as he had to first develop the
methodology for a terminological research before examining the terminology of electrical
technology – most studies seem to focus on one or the other. (Wüster, 1931) For example, the
article by Rizzo and Perez (2010) focuses on how new terminology is built for technical English,
analysing and explaining the methods of term building.

In addition to the research developing the methodology for the discipline, terminological studies
have been conducted on several LSP’s, from animal science (Oprea, 2014) to pension systems
(Puttonen, 2000). Some of the research is prescriptive in nature, giving instructions and suggestions
on how the terminology could be harmonized within the field, while some is descriptive, focusing
on analysing how the terminology is presently used. (Nuopponen, 1999, p. 92)

In the following sub-sections, I will introduce the two basic concepts of terminology science: (1) the
difference between a language for general purposes and a language for special purposes, and (2)
the relation between object, concept and term. These two concepts are the basis of terminological
research, and more specifically, concept analysis, the methodology of this thesis. Concept analysis
will be further examined in Section 2.3.

6
 Language for general purposes and language for specific purposes

The first of the two founding pillars of terminology science is the difference between the language
for general purposes (LGP) and the language for special/specific purposes (LSP). LGP is the form of
language, which all members of the language community understand, and it is most often used in
our daily communications. LGP’s have long-standing traditions to which new vocabulary and
developments of the language automatically adapt. LSP, on the other hand, is a language form used
within a specific subject field, outside the domain of common knowledge. Thus, it is only
understandable for professionals of the said field. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 11)

There are differences in vocabulary as well as idioms and syntax between LGP and LSP’s. LSP’s are
tools for the professionals to communicate clearly and unambiguously regarding their common
subject field. Thus, it is rather important that all speakers of the LSP understand the concepts and
terms in the same way. However, the LSP should only diverge from the LGP as little as possible to
fulfill the communicative needs of the subject domain. It may be detrimental to an LSP to be too
difficult for outsiders to understand. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, pp. 11–12)

To fulfill the communicative needs of the professionals without making the LSP too different from
the LGP, the methods of terminology science can be applied. It is important to keep track of which
terms are used to describe specific concepts, and to dismiss any misfit terms. Practical terminology
work, which consists of systematically collecting, analyzing, describing and presenting terminology,
usually results in a term database for the specific subject field, with the goal of standardizing the
terminology within the subject field and the LSP. (Sanastokeskus TSK ry, 2006, p. 31; Tekniikan
sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 13)

It should be noted, that there is a distinction between LSP’s and jargons. A jargon is typically a slang
form of an LSP, and it should not be used to communicate in a formal context. The stylistic and social
value of a jargon is deemed lower than that of an LSP. If possible, the LSP should be developed in
such a way that there is no need for a jargon to make communication easier within the subject field.
(Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 12)

7
 Table 1. Two ITF Taekwon-Do techniques in LGP, LSP and Finnish jargon.
LGP (English) LSP (Korean ‘English’) Jargon (Finnish)
a kick performed with the ball of the foot to a target dollyo chagi ‘turning kick’ dollari
with a turning motion from the hips
a kick performed with the outer edge of the foot to a yop chagi ‘side kick’ yoppari
target in a straight line, with the performer facing
sideways in relation to the target at the moment of
impact

Table 1 illustrates the differences between LGP, LSP and jargon, when talking about techniques of
ITF Taekwon-Do. This specific jargon used is the one commonly used in Finland in internal
communications between Taekwon-Do practitioners. It is also noteworthy that the LGP definitions
are simplified, whereas the specifics of the techniques are fully understood by other practitioners
when using the LSP or the jargon terms.

Object – concept – term

Within the field of semiotics, there are various theories which describe how specific words (terms)
relate to their meaning and their actual referents. For example, social semiotics define language as
a social fact, meaning that it is the culture and the people who use the language who define the
meanings, making the meaning a non-verbal agreement. (Halliday, 1978, pp. 1–5) Ogden and
Richards, on the other hand, depict meaning-making as a triangular process: a symbol (e.g. a word)
symbolizes a thought or reference, which in turn refers to an actual referent. (Ogden & Richards,
1985, pp. 8-12)

Within the Nordic school of terminology, the semiotic basis for terminological research is usually
the aforementioned theory by Ogden and Richards. The triangular process is the same, although the
terminology used is more specific to the field of research: referent is called object, thought is
concept and symbol is term. This three-way relation between object, concept and term is the second
of the two founding pillars of terminology science. It is often depicted using a modified version of

8
the Ogden/Richards triangle, (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 24) also known as the concept
triangle. (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, p. 19)

Figure 1. The concept triangle (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 24)

Most people intuitively understand what a concept is and analyze them without understanding the
meta-concepts they are actively using. A concept can be simply defined as a mental image.
(Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, p. 18) It can depict anything concrete (e.g. people, animal or items),
abstract (e.g. qualities, skills or processes) or imaginary (e.g. fairytale characters). (Sanastokeskus
TSK ry, 2006, p. 10)

For example, when thinking of a chair, everyone has their own mental image of what chairs are like
and how they look. That mental image is the concept of a chair. Having the mental image of a chair
makes it effortless to recognize a chair when seeing one. Thus, the word ‘chair’ is a term, a symbol
for the concept, the mental image we have of the actual object. The dashed line between object and
term in the concept triangle (Figure 1) represents the fact that although the two are linked, their
relation exists primarily through the concept, not directly. (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, pp. 18–19)

All concepts can be classified into one of two categories: general concepts or individual concepts.
Individual concepts are specific objects, and they are usually symbolized by a proper name, such as
Mona Lisa. Each individual concept has special characteristics that separate them from others. The
characteristics can be internal (e.g. material, shape, size, color and consistency) or external (e.g.
location, age, use case and creator). When several individual concepts are brought together, and
their characteristics are analyzed, the common characteristics make general concepts. For example,
Mona Lisa and Vincent van Gogh’s The Starry Night have common characteristics that classify them
under the general concept painting. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, pp. 26–27)

9
2.2 Practical terminology work

Practical terminology work refers to applying the methods of terminological research for more
practical purposes, fading out the scientific focus. The most typical example of practical terminology
work is a project to create a dictionary or a term database on a specific subject field. (Nykänen,
1999b, p. 62) In this section, I intend to give a brief overview on the methods, steps and results of
typical terminology projects. This overview is based on the projects conducted in the Finnish center
for terminology, Sanastokeskus TSK ry. While methods may vary between projects and especially
between coordinating organizations, the main phases introduced here should provide a general
understanding of how a terminology project progresses.

Nykänen (1999b, p. 68) divides a terminology project into six main phases: (1) planning, (2) starting,
(3) formulation, (4) feedback, (5) finalization, and (6) follow-up. Although these phases are
presented here as a linear process, they often overlap each other during actual projects, and some
phases may even have to be repeated. For example, the project may have to return to formulation
phase after the feedback phase, if large-scale alterations are necessary for the quality of the final
product. (Nykänen, 1999b, pp. 67–68)

The first phase, planning, which is done before the project properly starts, consists of an inquiry of
demand, setting the goals, devising a project plan, and financial planning. (Nykänen, 1999b, p. 63)
As a terminology project should always emerge from practical needs, the experts of the field in
question should be interviewed to understand their requirements and to set clear and concise goals
for the project. The needs and goals become a starting point for the project plan. Additionally, the
project plan should describe the methods and resource requirements, schedules and deadlines, and
where and in what format the resulting dictionary will be released. Finally, before properly
beginning the project, it needs financial planning. The projects conducted in Sanastokeskus TSK in
Finland are usually financed by companies and other organizations from the field in question.
(Nykänen, 1999b, pp. 63–64)

After the project plan is approved, the project moves to the starting phase. At this point, a project
team led by a project manager is appointed. Not all members of the team are necessarily
terminologists, as experts from the subject field are also vital to the success of the project. Despite
that, all members must be at least in some way familiar with the methods and tools of a terminology

10
project. If necessary, the subject field experts are given an intensive course on terminology work.
Additionally, the project plan is revised at this phase, with specific responsibilities appointed to each
member of the team. (Nykänen, 1999b, pp. 64–65)

The third phase, formulation, consists of the actual work with the terminology of the subject field.
It is the most time-consuming of the phases, with Nykänen attributing almost half of the total
workload to this phase. (Nykänen, 1999b, p. 66) The formulation phase usually begins by collecting
pre-terms from literary works of the subject field. Pre-terms may be any words or phrases that
appear in texts about the subject field that look like they could be field-related terminology. There
are usually 2–4 times more pre-terms than there are terms in the final product. Alternatively, the
formulation may begin by selecting a small number of the most vital concepts and starting to build
the terminology around them. (Nykänen, 1999b, p. 65) The latter method more closely resembles
the one used in this thesis, as the collection of terms has been conducted around pre-determined
themes.

Most of the formulation phases consists of concept analysis, which is a method in both terminology
science and practical terminology work (see Section 2.3). At this point, the terminologists and the
experts of the project team analyze the distinctive characteristics and definitions of each concept
and how the concepts relate to each other. Based on this, the team decides on their choices of terms
for the concepts. If the dictionary is multi-lingual, the concept analysis may be done individually on
each language, and the terminology in each language harmonized, or the dictionary may be
collected in one primary language, with equivalent terms presented in other languages. (Nykänen,
1999b, p. 66) Although this research is based on the terminology of ITF Taekwon-Do in both English
and Korean, it was mostly unnecessary to analyze the terminology multi-lingually (with a few
exceptions), as the terminology in both languages is presented side-by-side in the data.

After the concept analysis is completed and the terms have been selected, the dictionary is usually
subjected to a round of feedback (phase 4) from experts of the field. At this point, any criticism and
suggestions from the actual end-users of the dictionary are considered, and the dictionary may be
revised if the project team deems it necessary and justifiable. (Nykänen, 1999b, p. 67) Depending
on the project, there may be more than one feedback rounds, with further terminology work
between each of them. After revising the dictionary or term database based on the feedback, the
project moves into the finalization phase, where final touches are done on the dictionary. If the
dictionary will be released in print, graphical design, editing and other publication-related
11
requirements are also fulfilled at this point. The dictionary should also be marketed to its target
group in accordance with the plan devised in the first phase. (Nykänen, 1999b, p. 69)

Finally, after the actual project has ended and the dictionary has been released, the project moves
to the final phase, follow-up. At this point, the dictionary is updated based on further feedback and
the evolving needs of the subject field. Additionally, a report on how the project progressed, how
the methods served the purpose of the project, how well the project stayed on schedule, and what
could have been done better, may be useful for future projects. (Nykänen, 1999b, p. 69–70)

2.3 Concept analysis

The analysis of practical relations depicted in general form in the concept triangle (Figure 1) is called
concept analysis. It is a method of both terminological research and practical terminology work, and
it is used to investigate and describe the contents of and relations between concepts within a
subject field. (Sanastokeskus TSK ry, 2006, p. 31) Normally, concept analysis happens intuitively
during a thought process, often without even noticing, understanding or paying attention to it.
(Nuopponen, 2003, p. 14) For example, our thoughts automatically process certain words as
synonyms, when they have the same meaning, and other words as antonyms, when they have
opposite meanings. (Cruse, 1986, pp. 197, 265)

However, on some occasions, it is necessary to make this automatic process more conscious as a
tool for a terminology project. (Nuopponen, 2003, p. 14) Concept analysis is commonly used as a
method of research within terminology science, (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, pp. 17–18, 22–24)
especially in the Nordic School, where the main focus of research is on the practical terminology
work (see Section 2.1).

Because all concepts are always related to larger concepts, it is impossible to research them
individually. The focus of concept analysis – building on the foundation laid by the LSP in question
and the object–concept–term relation – is to identify and define relations between concepts, and
to structure them into a concept system. The identification and definition process is based on the
common and differing characteristics of concepts, which directs their classification. (Nuopponen &
Pilke, 2010, p. 24)

12
In the following sub-section (Section 2.3.1), I will explain the different types of relations between
concepts which are used to build larger concept systems. Using examples from ITF Taekwon-Do
technical terminology, the research data for this study (see Section 3), I will also show how the
concept systems are represented graphically. Then, in Section 2.3.2, I will explain the process of
concept analysis used for this thesis.

Concept systems and concept relations

As mentioned above, concepts are not separate phenomena with no relation to each other. Instead,
they form concept systems based on their characteristics and relations to other concepts. As
different languages classify concepts in different manners, concept systems may in some cases be
language-dependent. Concept relations are divided into three primary sub-types: generic relations,
partitive relations and associative relations. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 28) The first two
types are also used in the field of lexical semantics (see Section 2.1), albeit using a different kind of
graphical representation. (Cruse, 1986, pp. 136, 157, 181)

In a concept system with generic relation (genus-species relation) the superordinate (broader)
concept and the subordinate (narrower) concept have exactly the same characteristics, but the
subordinate concept has at least one additional characteristic. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988,
p. 29) In lexical semantics, generic relation is called hyponymy, and its hierarchy is known as a
taxonomy. As such, the terms hyponym and hyperonym are also used to refer to subordinate and
superordinate concepts, respectively. (Cruse, 1986, pp. 88, 136)

In Table 2, terms for some foot technique types in Taekwon-Do are classified based on their
characteristics. All four concepts have the same characteristic (1): they are techniques performed
with a part of the foot. In addition to this, chagi ‘kick’, cha jirugi ‘piercing kick’, and cha tulgi
‘thrusting kick’ also have other characteristics. Thus, bal gisool ‘foot technique’ is clearly the
hyperonymous concept. The three remaining concepts share another characteristic (2): they are
used for attacking purposes. Cha jirugi ‘piercing kick’ and cha tulgi ‘thrusting kick’ have further
characteristics regarding their purpose, making them hyponymous to chagi ‘kick’. (Choi, 1999, pp.

13
251, 254, 259) The full analysis of these concepts, as well as other related concepts, is a part of
Section 0.

Table 2. Characteristics of some foot technique types in ITF Taekwon-Do.

bal gisool chagi cha jirugi cha tulgi
‘foot technique’ ‘kick’ ‘piercing kick’ ‘thrusting kick’
1 technique performed technique performed using technique performed using a technique performed
using a part of the a part of the foot part of the foot using a part of the foot
foot
2 technique used for technique used for attacking technique used for
attacking attacking
3 technique with a purpose of technique with a purpose
piercing the target of thrusting the target

Concept systems with generic relations are typically depicted using a tree diagram, where the
superordinate concept is either topmost or leftmost, depending on whether the diagram is meant
to be read from top to bottom or from left to right. Figure 2 depicts the concepts from Table 2 as a
tree diagram. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, pp. 29–30) The empty nodes in the diagram
represent other possible subordinate concepts, which are not explored in the diagram in question.
(Nykänen, 1999a, pp. 19–21)

Figure 2. An example of generic relations.

Partitive relation (part-whole relation) is a relation between a whole (comprehensive concept) and
a part (partitive concept). Lexical semantics refers to a partitive relation as meronymy, calling the
hierarchy a meronomy. The comprehensive concept is known as the holonym and the partitive
concepts are meronyms. (Cruse, 1986, pp. 159–160)

14
Unlike in generic relations, the partitive concepts in partitive relations cannot be defined by
common characteristics. Partitive relations are depicted using a rake-shaped diagram with vertical
and horizontal lines. If the comprehensive concept consists of more than one unit of the same
partitive concept, double line is used. (Nykänen, 1999a, pp. 17–18) In lexical semantics, the graphical
representation of meronomies is usually the same as taxonomies (generic relations): a tree diagram.
(Cruse, 1986, p. 157)

0 is an example of partitive concept relation. The comprehensive concept, palmok ‘forearm’ consists
of four sides. These sides are called anpalmok, bakatpalmok, mitpalmok and dungpalmok in ITF
Taekwon-Do terminology. None of these sides exist in forearm more than once, which is why single
vertical lines are used for each. Hand parts as attacking and blocking tools are analyzed in Section
4.2.1.

Figure 3. An example of partitive relations: Forearm.

In cases where multiple occurances of the same meronyms may exist, a double line is commonly
used. As there are no examples of this in the research data for this study, I have used other
terminology to exemplify the phenomenon. In Figure 4, ‘house’ consists of ‘kitchen’ and multiple
occurrences ‘bedroom’, as indicated by the double line. Similarly to the concept systems with
generic relations, concept systems with partitive relations may also have empty nodes to indicate
other possible concepts. This would be marked by a horizontal line without ending in a vertical line.
In Figure 4, the vertical line indicates that there may be rooms (parts) other than ‘kitchen’ and
‘bedroom(s)’ in ‘house’

Figure 4. An example of partitive relations: House.

15
The third type of concept relation is associative relation. Associative relation symbolizes temporal,
causal, locative, instrumental or some other kind of pragmatic relation between two concepts.
Unlike in the other concept relation types, associative relations may exist between all concepts. It is
commonly used when the concepts refer to processes of any sort. The graphical representation for
associative relation is an arrow. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, p. 31) Within lexical semantics,
associative relations are known as non-branching hierarchies, and they are typically depicted as
chains, helices or cycles, depending on the types of relations between the lexemes. (Cruse, 1986,
pp. 187–195)

Figure 5 is an example of an associative relation. This example is a case of a subtype known as

genetic relation: the relation between the creator and the product. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y.,
1988, p. 31) The arrow points from General Choi Hong Hi to Taekwon-Do; from the founder of the
martial art to the art itself.

Figure 5. An example of associative relation.

These three types of relations – generic, partitive, and associative – do not exist independently or
separately. Instead, it is rather common for more than one type of relation to appear in the same
concept system. Such concept systems are called concept systems with mixed relations. In addition,
concept systems can be multidimensional and multilevel. In multidimensional concept systems, two
or more characteristics are used to separate the concepts on the same level, whereas multilevel
concept system consists of several levels of branches (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, pp. 34–
35)

Multidimensionality is usually depicted using a thicker line, and sometimes a descriptive text to
separate the branches. However, a multidimensional multilevel concept system with mixed
relations can be difficult to read and perceive. Thus, it is often useful – if not necessary – to divide
the concept system into smaller sections that are easier to process. (Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y.,
1988, pp. 37–40) In this thesis, most of the relations between concepts are generic, although there
are some instances of partitive relations as well. The full concept systems formed during the analysis
of this thesis are included in Appendices 1–7.

16
 Concept analysis step by step

Concept analysis as an independent research method is a method of non-empirical research, and it

is very useful for developing the terminology and theory of the field in question. (Puusa, 2008, p.
36) In addition to terminology science, it is also used as a tool for practical terminology work.
(Nykänen, 1999b, pp. 65–66) Researchers have developed several kinds of processes for concept
analysis. The process used for this thesis is mostly based on the one introduced by Nuopponen
(2010) and Nuopponen & Pilke (2010), with influence from Wilson (1969), as introduced by Puusa
(2008). This amalgam of methods consists of seven phases:

1. Selecting the subject field and setting the goals for the analysis
2. Forming a general overview of the subject field
3. Dividing the subject field into smaller subfields
4. Describing each concept’s characteristics
5. Finding relations between concepts
6. Structuring a concept system for the subject field
7. Writing a synthesis of the results of analysis
(Puusa, 2008, pp. 36, 39–41; Nuopponen, 2010, p. 6)
The process is often depicted in a linear manner. However, many of the phases overlap with each
other, and information gained during a later phase may require that results from an earlier phase
be re-evaluated and re-iterated upon. (Puusa, 2008, p. 41) Next, I will explain each of these seven
steps, and how they are related to the analysis of this research (see Section 4).

The first phase, selecting the subject field, is in a way the most challenging phase of the whole
process. The concept should be interesting on a personal level but also useful for future research or
practical communicative needs. After selecting the LSP of a subject field for analysis, the researcher
should define the purpose and goals for the analysis, so that the reader can perceive the possible
use cases for the results. (Puusa, 2008, p. 39) As explained in Section 1, my choice of subject field is
the technical terminology in the martial art Taekwon-Do, as I have trained the art since 2002, and
have both formed an understanding how terminology in it works and seen the need for
standardization within it. Thus, my goal is to create a guideline for standardizing the naming
convention of the techniques.

After setting the goals, the actual process of analysis can begin. In the second phase, forming a
general overview of the subject field and its LSP, the researcher should do a literary review of the

17
field to examine the concepts that appear in different contexts and what kind of definitions and
terms for the concepts exist in previous works. (Puusa, 2008, pp. 39–40) Interviewing experts and
professionals for more information about the subject field is also recommended. (Nuopponen &
Pilke, 2010, p. 24) After gaining a general understanding of subject field and its concepts, it may be
useful to divide it into several subfields for analysis, especially if not all aspects of the field are
relevant for the research goals. (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, p. 24) For this thesis, I have delimited
the analysis to the terminology related to how fundamental techniques are named in Taekwon-Do.
This delimitation has cropped hundreds if not thousands of terms outside the scope of this study,
as they are irrelevant for my goal.

While acquiring an overview of the field and deciding the division into subfields, the researcher can
start to collect and classify concepts from the field. A useful tool for concept collection in the early
phases of the research is the satellite model. It is a graphical representation of the concepts and
terms, similar to a mind map. It shows which concepts are connected to each other but does not
define the type of relation. The benefit of the satellite model is that by using a computer software,
it is easy and quick to update the graphic as the research progresses. In this model, the main concept
is placed in the central node, and its subordinate concepts are placed around it. The satellite model
can consist of multiple levels: subordinate concepts may have their own subordinates. (Nuopponen
& Pilke, 2010, pp. 43–48)

Figure 6. An example of the satellite model.

There are many free and paid applications that can be used to generate satellite model graphics.
For this thesis, I have used the freeware application called FreeMind. (FreeMind Wiki, 2016) Figure
6 is an example of an early satellite model used in the research for this thesis (see Section 4.1). My
analysis for this thesis began by creating a large satellite model of all technical terminology in the

18
data. However, as this was done before the actual analysis process, I have not included the full
satellite model, several pages in size, in this thesis.

The distinctive characteristics of the concept come into question in the fourth phase. The
characteristics help to define the concept and separate it from coordinate concepts. (Puusa, 2008,
p. 40) An example of using characteristics to make a distinction between similar concepts can be
seen in Table 2 in the Section 2.3.1. Depending on the subject field, characteristics can take many
forms. For example, physical measurements, color, material, timing, direction or position.
(Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, p. 31)

After defining the characteristics for each concept, they should be used to separate similar concepts
from each other. As mentioned in Section 2.3.1, coordinate concepts always have at least one
distinct characteristic that separates them. (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, p. 26) Based on the
characteristics, researcher should start to formulate relations between the concepts according to
the three types introduced in Section 2.3.1: generic, partitive and associative relations. (Nuopponen
& Pilke, 2010, pp. 32–33)

If necessary for the goals of the study, the researcher may also formulate definitions for each
concept at this phase. Definitions should consist of the distinct characteristics, model examples of
how to use the term, as well as counter-examples of how not to use the term. (Puusa, 2008, pp. 40–
41) Terms are generally used to define other concepts, but it is important to make sure that they
are not defined circularly. Circular definition is a definition that uses the term to define itself
(internal circular definition), or two terms to define each other (external circular definition).
(Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y., 1988, pp. 57–62)

After creating the concept systems and writing the definitions for concepts if required, it is time for
the seventh and final phase of the analysis: synthesizing the results. (Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, p.
24) In other words, writing a text which describes what was done and how, as well as what were the
results of the research and how well the goals set beforehand were fulfilled. Results of a terminology
project are usually presented in two ways: in practical terminology work, they are presented as word
lists, term databases and terminology standardizations, while in terminology science, they also
become thesis and research papers, such as this Master’s Thesis. In the case of research for a
practical terminology work, it is also important to collect feedback from experts who represent the

19
end-users of these results, and updating the results based on the feedback, if necessary.
(Nuopponen & Pilke, 2010, p. 92)

As mentioned above, the phases of the analysis process do not always exist in a linear manner, one
after the other. Instead, many of the overlap which each other, and sometimes it is necessary to
return to an earlier phase to re-examine the findings based on information uncovered during a later
phase. This iterative nature of the process helps in coming to appropriate conclusions. It is also
important to understand etymology of the terms and history of the concepts analyzed, as they may
open new points of view into the analysis. (Puusa, 2008, p. 41)

This thesis is built around the 7-step model for concept analysis introduced in this section. Steps 1–
2 of the model are introduced in Section 3 (Description of research data). In that section, I explain
the choice of research data, as well as the goal of this research. After that, I proceed to give a general
overview of the subject field in the sub-sections. Steps 3–6 are presented in Section 4 (Analysis),
which is divided into sub-sections based on the different categories of terminology analyzed. Finally,
a synthesis and discussion of the results are given in Section 5 (Discussion and conclusion), to reflect
on how the research progressed and what could be further researched within this subject field.

20
3 DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH DATA

The research data for this concept analysis comes from the Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (Choi, 1985;
henceforth referred to as the Encyclopedia), and more specifically, its condensed edition, called
Taekwon-Do: The Korean art of self-defence. (Choi, 1999) ITF Taekwon-Do terminology consists of
hundreds of terms in Korean and English with specific meanings referring to certain aspects of its
techniques. As this research is descriptive in nature, my primary focus will not be on term building
but on analysing the existing terminology, as well as examining how it is used and how it should be
used based on the data. My goal with this concept analysis is to help the comprehension of this
terminology in both English and Korean.

As the amount of terminology in the Encyclopedia is very large, I have delimited my analysis to the
terminology which is related to or describes the technical contents of ITF Taekwon-Do. The reason
for selecting this delimitation is that in my personal experience, it is the most commonly used part
of the Korean terminology during Taekwon-Do classes, and there is a clear need to create guidelines
for how the naming of fundamental techniques should behave.

In this section, I will first briefly explain the history of the martial art Tae Kwon Do1 and its different
styles. As the field of Tae Kwon Do is very scattered and divided, this historical overview is required
to fully understand the context and coverage of this thesis. Then, I will introduce the Encyclopedia
of Taekwon-Do and the condensed edition, which will be the primary sources of data for this
research. Finally, I will give an overview of what the fundamental techniques in ITF Taekwon-Do are
and how the terminology is used to describe to them.

3.1 A brief history of ITF Taekwon-Do

Tae Kwon Do is a martial art developed in Korea during the 20th century. (Choi, 1999, pp. 9–10) After
the art’s creation and naming in 1955, (Gillis, 2016, pp. 52–58) the art has split into several styles

1
When referring to all the styles of Tae Kwon Do, this neutral three-word spelling is used. The spelling Taekwon-Do
refers specifically to the ITF style, whereas Taekwondo refers to the WT style. (Gillis, 2016, p. 9)

21
and factions, governed by different international organizations. In this section, I intend to briefly
explain the history of Tae Kwon Do from its inception in Korea to the 21st century. This overview will
focus on the style known as ITF Taekwon-Do (occasionally spelled Taekwon-Do ITF), named after its
governing body, International Taekwon-Do Federation (ITF), as it is the terminology of that
particular style that is researched in this thesis.

As the organizations governing Tae Kwon Do have separated from each other during the last six
decades, the way they tell the history of the art has also changed. Each international federation has
interpreted the history to their own benefit, which has made it rather difficult to know for sure what
is fact and what is fiction. In addition, the origins of Tae Kwon Do are plagued by corruption, lies and
myths, which further complicates the attempt to achieve a truthful description of the art’s history.
(Gillis, 2016, back cover) Because unbiased interpretations of the history of Tae Kwon Do are rather
few, I have based this overview on the research done by Gillis (2016). It is worth noting that although
Gillis’ book is not a scientific research, its sources are well-documented, giving credibility to its
interpretation of the history of Tae Kwon Do. (Gillis, 2016, pp. 229–257)

In the ITF style, the creation of Tae Kwon Do has been credited to Choi Hong Hi, a two-star general
of the Korean army. (International Taekwon-Do Federation, 2018) Choi developed Tae Kwon Do
based on Shotokan-style Karate he had studied for self-defence2 when he was younger. After the
Second World War had ended in 1945, Choi, then a second lieutenant in the Korean army, had
started teaching Karate to his subordinate soldiers. In 1946, Choi decided to start developing his
own martial art of Korean origin to distinguish from Japan, the former oppressor of Korea. (Gillis,
2016, pp. 26, 38) The first technique he introduced into this new Korean martial art was a low block,
stolen, as Gillis suggests (2016, pp. 38), directly from Karate.

During the next decade, Choi continued to develop and teach his martial art, called Tang Soo Doo
or Korean Karate at that point. Choi, along with his most trusted students, was able to convince the
president of South Korea, Syngman Rhee, about the immense power of this martial art. (Gillis, 2016,
pp. 48–50) However, at that point, the name of the martial art became an issue, as Japan was
considered a hostile nation by South Korea, and thus, having the name Tang Soo Doo refer to the
art’s Japanese roots was unacceptable. (Gillis, 2016, p. 51)

2
The BrE spelling defence (instead of AmE defense) is used in this thesis to keep the spelling consistent with the data.

22
This development lead to Choi organizing two meetings of Korean martial arts instructors and
politicians in 1955 to name the new martial art. Choi eventually managed to get his own suggestion,
Tae Kwon Do, accepted. (Gillis, 2016, pp. 54, 58) The name consists of three syllables: tae, meaning
jumping, kicking or stamping, kwon, a fist, and do, the art or the way. Choi claimed that this name
may be related to the old Korean art of foot-fighting T’aekkyŏn, although the two names had no
connection to each other: in Korean, the syllables tae and kwon are not the same as t’aek and kyŏn.
(Gillis, 2016, pp. 54–55)

During the next few years, Choi and his disciples continued to develop Tae Kwon Do even further.
Many of the techniques developed were not new: they were taken directly from Karate and other
martial arts. However, Choi renamed the techniques for Tae Kwon Do, developing a completely new
terminology for his martial art. For example, Karate had previously used animal names to describe
its stances. While many of those same stances exist in Tae Kwon Do, Choi wanted to develop a
martial art “based on scientific principles for the human body”. (Gillis, 2016, pp. 71–72) Thus,
Karate’s ‘horse stance’ and ‘cat stance’ became Tae Kwon Do’s annun sogi ‘sitting stance’ and
dwitbal sogi ‘rear-foot stance’, respectively. (Gillis, 2016, p. 72)

Choi and his students began to market Tae Kwon Do aggressively outside South Korea in the 1960s
with a tour of demonstrations around the world. The martial art was well received in many
countries, and several national associations for Tae Kwon Do were founded. (Gillis, 2016, pp. 80–
83) Eventually, in 1966, International Taekwon-Do Federation (ITF) was formed by nine pioneering
national associations: Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany),
the United States, Turkey, Italy, Arab Republic of Egypt and the Republic of Korea (South Korea).
(International Taekwon-Do Federation, 2018)

By the 1970s, Choi’s ITF had gotten into deep disagreements with the Korean Tae Kwon Do
Association (KTA). In 1972, KTA opened the Kukkiwon, the world headquarters for Taekwondo, and
the international wing of the KTA was renamed World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) 3, which worked
under the Kukkiwon. After that, the ITF and the Kukkiwon have developed the martial art into
different directions entirely separate from each other. The Kukkiwon style Taekwondo is often

3
World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) was rebranded as World Taekwondo (WT) in 2017. Thus, in more recent texts,
both the organization and the style are referred to by the acronym WT. (World Taekwondo, 2017)

23
referred to as WT Taekwondo, after the World Taekwondo, which governs the sports aspect of the
art. (Gillis, 2016, pp. 127–128)

In the early 2000s, the International Taekwon-Do Federation has further split into three main groups
and several minor ones. The first major split occurred in 2001, when Choi Hong Hi’s disagreements
with his son, Choi Jung Hwa, resulted in Choi Jung Hwa founding his own federation, also called the
International Taekwon-Do Federation. (Gillis, 2016, p. 197) Then, after Choi Hong Hi died in 2002,
the disagreement regarding who should be elected president caused a rift in the original ITF,
resulting in a split in two. One group appointed Chang Ung as the president, as Choi had reportedly
said that he wanted Ung to be his successor. The other group democratically elected Trân Triêu
Quân as the president. Both these federations call themselves the International Taekwon-Do
Federation and have had little to no collaboration as of 2016. (Gillis, 2016, p. 205)

Figure 7. Timeline of international Tae Kwon Do organizations

As the three organizations all known as the International Taekwon-Do Federation have split from
each other rather recently, they may still be considered one style of Tae Kwon Do, whereas the
World Taekwondo style has completely different techniques, rules and terminology. Thus, the
analysis of terminology in this thesis should be valid in all ITF styles but not in the Kukkiwon/WT
style. The main splits into different organizations are depicted as a visual timeline in Figure 7.

24
3.2 Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do

While developing the martial art, Choi Hong Hi authored several iterative books documenting the
techniques of Taekwon-Do. The final version, Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do, is a 15-volume set of
books consisting of approximately 5,000 pages and 30,000 photographs. Choi finished authoring the
set in 1985, with five editions printed as of 2018. The Encyclopedia consists of everything that is
Taekwon-Do, from history and philosophy to training schedules, theory of power and attacking and
blocking tools, to all hand and foot techniques, fundamental exercises and 24 unique patterns
(specific series of techniques). (International Taekwon-Do Federation, n.d.)

In 1988, Choi released a condensed version of the Encyclopedia, so that students could easily take
it to class and seminars. The book, officially known as Taekwon-Do: The Korean art of self-defence,
consists of 768 pages, with most of the technical information retained from the full 15-volume set.
However, the descriptive photos and footwork pictures for patterns have been significantly reduced
in number to allow for them to fit in one book. There have been six editions of the condensed
Encyclopedia. However, the 6th edition was released in 2004 by Chang Ung’s ITF after Choi’s passing
in 2002, which is why the changes made in the 5th edition, released in 1999, are the last ones
accepted universally by all ITF factions.

In both Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (1985) as well as Taekwon-Do: The Korean art of self-defence
(1999), most of the technical terminology is presented in both English and romanized Korean.
According to Choi’s own words during a seminar in 1998, the terminology was first developed in
English, and only later in Korean. (Banicevich, n.d.) It is worth noting that the terms in romanized
Korean do not follow any standard for romanizating the Korean hangul alphabet. Instead, they have
been romanized by Choi to resemble how they should be pronounced if they word English words.
For example, the word ‘fist’ is joomuk in Choi’s books, whereas according to the commonly used
McCune-Reischauer system of romanization it should be chu-mŏk. (Jones & Rhie, 1995, p. 126) The
romanizations have also changed between editions, and it actually varies within the Encyclopedia
itself. For example, the word ‘knee’ is moorup in some places, murup in others. (Banicevich, n.d.)

25
The use of the Korean terms during Taekwon-Do classes varies from country to country. For
example, in English-speaking countries, the Korean terminology is rarely used to describe
techniques as there are official English counterparts available. On the other hand, when ITF
Taekwon-Do came to Finland, the Finnish pioneers of the martial art made a unanimous decision to
use the Korean terminology instead. Although there are two official languages for Taekwon-Do, the
Korean terms and commands are considered the lingua franca amongst practitioners around the
world. (Allinniemi, 2016)

The names for Taekwon-Do techniques consist of several words, ordered in a specific way, to
describe the technique as accurately as possible. Previous research into the terminology of
Taekwon-Do has been done by Banicevich (n.d.) as a part of the requirements for his 2nd Degree
black belt grading. Banicevich’s research consists of a collection of vocabulary in both English and
Korean from the 2nd edition of the condensed Encyclopedia, as well as a collection of all techniques
in patterns in both languages, as detailed as possible. (Banicevich, n.d.)

In this thesis, I will focus on the technical terminology that serves as the building blocks for the
names of each technique. As my research is descriptive in nature, I aim to analyse the concepts and
the existing terminology to make distinction between certain similar concepts. However, in some
instances it may be necessary to discuss and resolve inconsistencies in the terminology. In such cases
I aim to provide suggestions for more suitable alternatives.

3.3 Composition of ITF Taekwon-Do and its fundamental techniques

As explained in the Encyclopedia, ITF Taekwon-Do consists of five aspects, which are interrelated to
each other: fundamental techniques, patterns, conditioning and equipment training (dallyon),
sparring, and self-defence. (Choi, 1999, p. 725) Fundamental techniques are singular techniques
that are performed in pre-determined ways in pre-determined stances against imaginary
opponents. (Choi, 1999, p. 414) The 24 patterns practiced in ITF Taekwon-Do combine these
fundamental techniques into longer series of attacks and defensive movements, still performed
individually without an actual opponent. The length of the patterns ranges from 19 to 72

26
movements, with the qualities of each individual technique described meticulously. (Choi, 1999, pp.
524, 529, 589)

In addition to patterns, these techniques are also applied into sparring. The system of sparring in
Taekwon-Do consists of several different types with each their own rules. The most typical form of
sparring, free sparring, applies the fundamental techniques in free movement, whereas step
sparring is more like patterns, just with an actual target. (Choi, 1999, p. 598) In self-defence training,
techniques are similarly applied into free-form use, with the exception that self-defence situations
do not conform to a specific set of rules. For example, it is illegal to attack below the belt level in
free sparring, but it may be necessary or even recommended in certain real-life self-defence
situations. (Choi, 1999, p. 681)

Although both sparring and self-defence training are used in Taekwon-Do to develop the
practitioner’s body and toughen their attacking and blocking tools to sustain impact, the
Encyclopedia introduces conditioning and equipment training, or dallyon, as its own aspect. The
Encyclopedia compares dallyon to the maintenance of equipment in military training. (Choi, 1999,
p. 725) Dallyon training consists of different kinds of conditioning of the body, be that toughening
the knuckles or strengthening the abdominal muscles. The Encyclopedia introduces several methods
of dallyon, including special training equipment, such as forging posts. (Choi, 1999, p. 376)

Figure 8. Fundamental technique: Sitting stance punch (Choi, 1999, p. 417)

The aspect of ITF Taekwon-Do that this study investigates are the fundamental techniques, as well
as their combinations into the 24 patterns practiced within the art. Fundamental techniques are
singular techniques performed using either the hand or the feet in a specific stance, moving or
stationary. (Choi, 1999, p. 414) One of the first fundamental techniques introduced in ITF Taekwon-

27
Do is annun so jirugi ‘sitting stance punch’ (see Figure 8). The stance, annun sogi ‘sitting stance’,
referse to how the performer’s feet are placed in relation to each other, whereas the term jirugi
‘punch’ refers to the type of technique being performed. (Choi, 1999, p. 417)

However, as there are hundreds of different fundamental techniques, each with several possible
variations, the simple name of the technique above is not precise enough to describe the nuances
of each variation. For example, the punch could be performed to eye-level instead of shoulder-level,
or using the middle-knuckle fist instead of the forefist, but it would still be one type of annun so
jirugi ‘sitting stance punch’.

To more precisely distinguish the two similar but distinct techniques from each other, the technique
pictured in Figure 8 would be called annun so ap joomuk kaunde jirugi ‘sitting stance forefist middle
punch’, whereas the aforementioned variation would be annun so joongji joomuk nopunde jirugi
‘sitting stance middle-knuckle fist high punch’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 92, 120) However, not all techniques
are possible with all tools, in all stances or with all types of movement. For example, jirugi ‘punch’
cannot be performed using sonkut ‘fingertips’, and mikulgi ‘sliding’ is not allowed in gunnun sogi
‘walking stance’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 124, 346) These limitations are explained in the Encyclopedia, and
as they do not affect the terminology, per se, they will not be examined in the scope of this thesis.

This research paper focuses on analyzing the different attributes, the Korean and English
terminology used, and the word order in the full distinctive names of each fundamental technique
in ITF Taekwon-Do, extrapolating from the descriptions, instructions, and hundreds of examples
presented in the Encyclopedia.

28
4 ANALYSIS: THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF TAEKWON-DO TECHNIQUES

The terminology for fundamental techniques and patterns ITF Taekwon-Do, as touched upon in
Section 3.3, is a complex collection of terms in both English and Korean that are conjoined to form
a name for each technique. In this section, I intend to analyze how the technique names are built,
how the individual terms are classified and how they relate to each other. Previous research
conducted by other practitioners of ITF Taekwon-Do, such as Banicevich (n.d.) and Rhee (2012;
2014a; 2014b) is used as a reference, although my analysis does not strictly conform to their results
and findings.

First, I intend to investigate the complete word order for the most accurate names possible for
fundamental techniques. The Encyclopedia (Choi, 1999) does not instruct on how technique names
should be constructed; however, there are hundreds of examples of technique names in the
Encyclopedia, upon which the technique names in this paper are built. In the analysis, I will refer to
the different methods of ordering terms in technique names as technique naming schemes. Each
scheme consists of numbered attribute slots. For example, in Rhee’s technique naming scheme
(Figure 9), the term describing the stance attribute (e.g. gunnun so ‘walking stance’) is placed in slot
#1.

1. WHAT STANCE AM I IN?

2. WHAT IS THE ACTIVE PART OF USE IN THE MOVEMENT?

3. WHERE IS THE TECHNIQUE DIRECTED?

4. WHAT IS THE TECHNIQUE OR ACTION?

Figure 9. Rhee’s technique naming scheme. (Rhee, 2012, p. 83)

As mentioned in Section 3.3, the common naming convention for the techniques is based on several
pre-assumptions, which are used to simplify and shorten the names. The Encyclopedia itself
presents some of these, e.g. “All punches throughout this book are considered front punches unless
special directions are given.”, (Choi, 1999, p. 124) while Rhee (2012, p. 83) further explains that

29
“Unless specified all techniques can be considered as middle techniques and to be performed
obverse.”4

Looking at the study materials of the two largest ITF Taekwon-Do clubs in Finland (based on their
number of licensed members), Tampereen Taekwon-Do seura (TamTKD) and Taekwon-Do Akatemia
(Akatemia), the naming and especially the word order of the technique names is inconsistent. While
some of the differences are in spelling, which this study does not focus on, the word order of each
technique does not seem to comply to any logical naming scheme. In Table 3, the same two
techniques from the study materials of each club are shown attribute by attribute to visualize the
inconsistent word order. Especially the placement of height varies, not only between clubs but
within the materials of each club as well.

Table 3. Examples of technique names from the study materials of Finnish Taekwon-Do clubs
(applied from Kärki, Sarkkinen & Heloterä, 2018, pp. 20, 32;
applied from Taekwon-Do Akatemia, n.d.)
Technique 1 (Pattern Do-San, movement #7) Technique 2 (Pattern Choong-Moo, movement #27)
TamTKD Akatemia TamTKD Akatemia
Gunnun so ‘walking stance’ Gunnun so ‘walking stance’ Niunja so ‘L-stance’ Niunja so ‘L-stance’
nopunde ‘high’ – – –
dung joomuk ‘backfist’ dung joomuk ‘backfist’ kyocha sonkal kyocha sokal
‘X-knife-hand’ ‘X-knife-hand’

– nopunde ‘high’ kaunde ‘middle’ –

yop ‘side’ yop ‘side’ momchau ‘checking’ momchau ‘checking’
taerigi ‘strike’ taerigi ‘strike’ makgi ‘block’ makgi ‘block’

For his book, This is Taekwon-Do (2012), Rhee has simplified the naming of the techniques and the
word order into four attribute slots, as shown in Figure 9. This is a simplified system to describe the
techniques with a certain level of precision without making the task of learning the Korean
terminology too much of a burden for the students of the martial art. However, as Rhee explains in
the book, a lot of secondary terminology is omitted in his scheme. (Rhee, 2012, p. 83) Although
these four attributes are usually the most important ones in naming the technique, they are

4
See Section 4.5.2 for more on technique heights, and Section 4.5.1 for more on obverse and reverse sides.

30
certainly not enough to distinguish all different techniques and their variations that the
Encyclopedia presents.

Banicevich (n.d.) expands upon the naming of techniques by introducing 13 attributes using which
each technique can be named. It is noteworthy that it does not contradict with Rhee’s technique
naming scheme, as the same attributes appear in the same order, albeit with others in between.

1) direction of stance
2) left/right
3) stance/flying/ground
4) direction of technique
5) tool
6) spot
7) height
8) inward/outward
9) obverse/reverse
10) technique name
11) technique type
12) forward/backward
13) type of movement
(Banicevich, n.d.)
Banicevich acknowledges that the Encyclopedia is frequently inconsistent with the spelling of terms
in Korean (as they are not romanized according to common convention but based on how they
would be pronounced in English) as well as the word order for techniques. (Banicevich, n.d.)
However, according to Banicevich (n.d.), this order “seems to be used most frequently in the
encyclopaedia”. For a comparison with Rhee’s technique naming scheme, I have bolded the
corresponding attributes in Banicevich’s scheme.

It is interesting that what Rhee (2012, p. 83) calls “Where is the technique directed?”, Banicevich
(n.d.) refers to as “technique name”. While Rhee’s decription of this attribute is very simplified,
Banicevich’s description is confusing in relation to the full name of the technique. It is also not to be
confused with the attributes related to the directions of the direction diagram (attributes #1 and
#4), as Rhee’s description could suggest. Because of this, I call this attribute “technique
specification”, as it is often used to specify not only where the technique is directed, but also how
it is performed and what is the purpose of the technique. (See Section 4.4.)

Another matter of discussion is the placement of “inward/outward” as attribute #8 in Banicevich’s

technique naming scheme. This clearly contradicts several examples presented in the Encyclopedia,
e.g. gunnun so sonkal najunde bandae anuro makgi ‘walking stance knife-hand low reverse inward
31
block’. (Choi, 1999, p. 479) In this example, bandae ‘reverse’ (#9 by Banicevich) is presented before
anuro ‘inward’ (#8). In fact, there are no examples in the Encyclopedia where the two attributes are
placed in the order introduced by Banicevich’s technique naming scheme.

Additionally, the inward and outward variations are introduced along with other technique names
(or, as they are called in this paper, technique specifications). Based on these findings, I have
omitted a separate attribute for inward/outward entirely, and included it in the attribute “technique
specifications”. It is possible that this difference is a result from the fact that Banicevich’s research
is based on the 2nd edition (Choi, 1991) of the Taekwon-Do: The Korean art of self-defence, instead
of the 5th edition (Choi, 1999) used in my research.

Based on Rhee’s (2012, p. 83) and Banicevich’s (n.d.) technique naming schemes and the examples
in Choi’s Encyclopedia (1999), the 12-attribute technique naming scheme used in this research is
the following:

1) direction of stance (in relation to the direction diagram)

2) left/right stance
3) stance/flying/ground
4) direction of technique (in relation to the direction diagram)
5) attacking or blocking tool
6) spot
7) height
8) obverse/reverse side
9) technique specifications
10) technique type
11) forward/backward movement
12) type of movement
As mentioned above, it is usually not necessary to use all the attributes of the naming scheme to
name a technique. In fact, not all attributes are even applicable in all techniques. For example, the
attribute #6 (spot) is only used when describing certain instances, where the technique is performed
on the spot. If this is not the case, the attribute is omitted entirely. In addition, when the techniques
appear in the general LSP or slang amongst the practitioners, any pre-assumptions tend to be left
out.

Although this research is based heavily on the Korean terminology used in ITF Taekwon-Do, I intend
not to elaborate on Korean grammar and word inflections. However, some degree of understanding
of the inflections is necessary to use the technique naming scheme properly. The final attribute used
in each technique’s name seems to always be one of the final three attributes in the technique

32
naming scheme: #10 (technique type), #11 (forward/backward movement), or #12 (type of
movement). The final attribute is always presented in the so called -gi-form (ending in the syllable -
gi). This is an inflection based on the Korean grammar. (Banicevich, n.d.)

For example, one of the first techniques taught in a Taekwon-Do class is a walking stance obverse
middle punch: gunnun so kaunde baro jirugi. This shortened name consists of four attributes: stance
(gunnun so ‘walking stance’), height (kaunde ‘middle’), obverse/reverse (baro ‘obverse’) and
technique type (jirugi ‘punch’). The other attributes are omitted, as they follow the standard pre-
assumptions. If the same technique was to be performed moving backwards, it would be necessary
to differentiate between the pre-assumption of moving forwards: gunnun so kaunde baro jirumyo
duruogi. In this case, the –gi-form moves to the final attribute, forward/backward movement
(duruogi ‘backward-stepping’), and the technique type jirugi reverts to the form jirumyo.
(Banicevich, n.d.) In the concept systems of this analysis, only one form of each term is presented.

In addition to the terminology presented in the Encyclopedia, there are also several omissions;
techniques and concepts for which Choi did not have time to develop terminology before his passing
in 2002. According to Rhee (e.g. Rhee, 2012, p. 82), Choi tasked Rhee and his other most valued
students to develop the missing terminology. A few examples of the techniques and concepts
missing the Korean terminology in the Encyclopedia are, for example, the two techniques performed
in a kneeling position in the pattern Choong-Jang, (Choi, 1999, pp. 562–563) techniques used for
releasing from a grab, (Rhee, 2012, pp. 82–83) and the different movement rhythms, or ‘motions’,
presented in the Encyclopedia in the pattern descriptions. (Rhee, 2012, pp. 90–91)

Rhee, a native speaker of the Korean language, has developed and corrected some of the missing
and unsatisfactory terminology to rectify these issues. (Rhee, 2012, p. 82) However, as the
International Taekwon-Do Federation has split into several factions after Choi’s death (see Section
3.1), the terminology developed by Rhee is not commonly used in all of them. For the purposes of
this research, I have used the terminology developed by Rhee in cases where the Encyclopedia has
not presented an official alternative. These instances are always discussed in the analysis.
Additionally, in some cases I have also used material from different ITF factions to make the concept
analysis as comprehensive as possible. As each faction has developed the specifics of each technique
individually since the split, they are not necessarily applicable under the other factions. All
terminology that is not present in the Encyclopedia itself is written in grey font in the concept
systems to denote their questionable status.
33
It is also worth noting that the technique naming scheme only refers to the word order in Korean.
When the English names for the fundamental techniques are used, the sequence of the terms may
be different to accommodate for the English grammar. For example, the attributes #1 and #4, which
refer to the directions of stance and technique in relation to the direction diagrams cannot be placed
in the same slots in English. For example, F-bang orun kyocha would be literally *‘toward F right X-
stance’. However, in English, ‘right X-stance toward F’ is more idiomatic. The attributes #1 and #4
are explained in more detail in Section 4.5.1.

The following analysis of the terminology is divided into five sub-sections. The first four focus on the
four most important attributes: stances, attacking and blocking tools, technique types, and
technique specifications. As the technique specifications rely heavily on the technique types, the
types will be analyzed before the specifications, despite the order of the attributes in the technique
naming scheme. The fifth sub-section consists of the remaining attributes in the technique naming
scheme. They are analyzed in less detail, as there are generally less terminology and options
available for those attributes.

Each section of the analysis constitutes a separate occurrence of the steps 4–6 of concept analysis,
as introduced in Section 2.3.2. The characteristics of different concepts are analyzed and described,
relations between concepts examined, and a concept system structured of each section. This
introductory section constitutes the step 3, where the subject field has been divided into smaller
subfields (namely the attributes in the technique naming scheme). While the steps 1–2 were
covered in Section 3, the whole research is summarized and reflected upon in Section5, which is the
step 7 of the concept analysis. (Puusa, 2008, pp. 36, 39–41; Nuopponen, 2010, p. 6)

4.1 Stances

According to the Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do, the stance is the starting point of every Taekwon-Do
movement. (Choi, 1999, p. 65) The term for a stance is sogi, shortened into so when used as part of
a technique name, obeying the rule that only the final word in the name of a technique is in -gi-
form. (Banicevich, 1995) The different stances are defined based on feet positioning, weight
distribution between feet, and bending of knees. There are 17 different stances in Taekwon-Do, but

34
not all of them are commonly used in techniques, as some of them serve primarily as preparatory
positions. (Choi, 1999, pp. 65–83) Additionally, there are four non-stances which may appear in the
place of attribute #3 (stance) either independently or in conjunction with an actual stance. These
will also be examined and analyzed, as they affect the technique naming scheme.

In addition, most of the 17 stances also have a junbi sogi ‘ready stance’ form, where hand placement
is also predetermined. These ready stances are, in some cases, counted as techniques. However,
their purpose is not to attack or block but to prepare for the following technique, both physically
and mentally. (Choi, 1999, p. 79) It is noteworthy, that of the 17 stances, charyot sogi ‘attention
stance’ is used exclusively as a ready stance and for bowing.

In this section, I intend to analyze the 17 stances and their characteristics to create a meaningful
division into a concept system. Then, the ready stances will be placed subordinate to their respective
stances.

To classify these stances logically into a concept system, I have analyzed their defining
characteristics. The first level of analysis was to divide the stances into four groups:

1) symmetrical stances
2) asymmetrical stances with even weight distribution
3) asymmetrical stances with uneven weight distribution
4) non-stances
In symmetrical stances (group 1), the feet are positioned symmetrically in relation to each other and
body weight is distributed evenly on both feet. In asymmetrical stances, feet are positioned
differently, and weight may be distributed evenly (group 2) or with more weight on one foot than
the other (group 3). Based on this analysis, there are six stances in group 1, five stances in group 2,
and six stances in group 3.

In addition to the stances in these three groups, there are also other terms that may appear in the
attribute slot #3, stance, either in conjunction with a stance or independently. These terms are
twimyo ‘flying’, and its variations twio dolmyo ‘mid-air’ and twio nomo ‘overhead’, and noowo
‘ground’. Twimyo ‘flying’ and its variations techniques performed jumping in the air, each type
describing a different kind of jump (twio dolmyo ‘mid-air’ consists of a 180 or 360 degree spin, and
twio nomo ‘overhead’ is a jump over an obstacle), whereas noowo ‘ground’ refers to techniques
performed from a reclining position on the ground. (Choi, 1999, pp. 180–181, 246–247) A proper
stance is sometimes used with twimyo ‘flying’, twio dolmyo ‘mid-air’, and twio nomo ‘overhead’ to

35
define the stance to land in, e.g. twio dolmyo niunja sogi ‘mid-air L-stance’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 180–
181) Noowo ‘ground’, is used independently without an actual stance. (Choi, 1999, pp. 246–247)
These additional terms are included as a fourth group in the concept system.

As all of these four groups are independent and not related to each other, they form a concept
system where each of them is a separate subordinate concept under the general concept sogi
‘stances’. This four-way division is depicted in Figure 10, with the full concept systems for stances in
Appendix 1.

Figure 10. Concept system: Stance groups

Because each stance is unique in its proportions, further analysis could be based on many different
characteristics, such as width, length, or knee bending, each resulting in a slightly different outcome.
However, the aforementioned grouping into the four groups based on symmetry and weight
distribution is the only characteristic which has an impact on the naming of the technique,
specifically on the attribute #2: left/right stance (see Section0).

The stances in group 1 are symmetrical, and thus they do not have a left or right orientation. (Choi,
1999, pp. 65–66, 72, 79) In group 2, the front foot defines whether the stance is left or right. For
example, gunnun sogi ‘walking stance’ with right foot in front is orun gunnun sogi ‘right walking
stance’, whereas a walking stance with left foot in front is wen gunnun sogi ‘left walking stance’.
(Choi, 1999, pp. 67, 71–74, 78) In group 3, the foot with more weight defines the orientation. For
example, niunja sogi ‘L-stance’ with right foot in front is wen gunnun sogi ‘left L-stance’, because
the back leg has more weight than the front leg, and vice versa. (Choi, 1999, pp. 69, 75–77)

The concept system in Appendix 1 is drawn based only on the two characteristics of symmetry and
weight distribution, as these are the defining characteristics in the bigger picture: naming of the
techniques. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that all these stances have further characteristics, and
not all stances are used with all techniques and movement types. Additionally, oguryo sogi
‘crouched stance’, an asymmetrical stance with even weight distribution, is described as being a

36
“variation” of sasun sogi ‘diagonal stance’, making it a subordinate in the concept system. (Choi,
1999, p. 74)

Many of these stances also have a junbi sogi ‘ready stance’ form, which are used for preparation
before a specific technique, pattern or exercise. The actual stance they are performed in is clearly
visible in the names of most of the ready stances, e.g. narani junbi sogi ‘parallel ready stance’, niunja
junbi sogi ‘L- ready stance’, and gunnun junbi sogi ‘walking ready stance’. For stances with multiple
ready stances, a letter starting from A is placed after the name to distinguish the ready stances from
each other, such as guburyo junbi sogi A ‘bending ready stance A’ and guburyo junbi sogi B ‘bending
ready stance B’. Also named in this section of the Encyclopedia is the bow posture, kyong ye jase,
which is performed in charyot sogi ‘attention stance’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 79–83)

The only two exceptions to these naming rules are moosa junbi sogi A ‘warrior ready stance A’ and
moosa junbi sogi B ‘warrior ready stance B’. Although these ready stances are called moosa sogi
‘warrior stance’, the feet placement is identical with narani sogi ‘parallel stance’. (Choi, 1999, pp.
82–83) These two ready stances are symbolic in nature, as is evident from the description for the
pattern Yoo-Sin, which begins with moosa junbi sogi B ‘warrior ready stance B’: “The ready posture
signifies a sword drawn on the right rather than left side, symbolizing Yoo Sin’s mistake of following
his king’s orders to fight with foreign forces against his own nation.” (Choi, 1999, p. 526) Thus, these
two ready stances can be classified under narani sogi ‘parallel stance’ despite their irregular names.

The full concept system of stances in Appendix 1 visualizes the four-way division of stances based
on their naming convention, including twimyo ‘flying’, twio dolmyo ‘mid-air’, twio nomo ‘overhead’,
and noowo ‘ground’, as well as the ready stances used as preparatory positions before exercises
and patterns. It is noteworthy that other ready stances are used in patterns than just the ones
mentioned here. However, those stances are named differently, based on the hand position, and
they do not include the term junbi sogi ‘ready stance’. These stances include but are not limited to
narani so hanulson ‘parallel stance with a heaven hand’, narani so sang yop palkup ‘parallel stance
with a twin side elbow’, and narani so kyocha sondung ‘parallel stance with an X-back hand’. (Choi,
1999, pp. 549, 553, 566, 583)

37
4.2 Attacking and blocking tools

In ITF Taekwon-Do, one of the training secrets is to choose the appropriate attacking tool for each
vital spot. (Choi, 1999, p. 104) The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (Choi, 1985) and its condensed
edition Taekwon-Do: The Korean art of self-defence (Choi, 1999) describe dozens of attacking and
blocking tools. The definition for a tool is as follows: “The part or surface through which the shock
or power is transmitted to the opponent’s body is called the attacking tool and any part or surface
which intercepts or repulses the attack is called the blocking tool.” (Choi, 1999, p. 85) Any location
of the concentration of strength can be used as an attacking tool, and most of them also serve as
blocking tools.(Choi, 1999, p. 85)

According to the Encyclopedia, there are nineteen tools commonly used for attacking and blocking,
as they can be easily concentrated and toughened. However, neither the full Encyclopedia nor the
condensed edition elaborates on which of the nineteen tools are in question. The books emphasize
the need to condition, harden and toughen these tools to be able to apply force without breaking
the tool: “No matter how skilful (sic) one’s techniques are, if the techniques lack force, one is unable
to impart any pain or shock to the opponent during the actual combat.” (Choi, 1999, p. 85)

In the full name of a technique in ITF Taekwon-Do, the attacking or blocking tool is usually attribute
#5. However, as mentioned in Section 3.3, there are certain pre-assumptions for the tools. For
example, one of the most common techniques and one of the first techniques a beginner learns is
gunnun so kaunde baro jirugi ‘walking stance middle obverse punch’. (Choi, 1999, p. 528) The
attacking tool, ap joomuk ‘forefist’, is usually omitted to keep the name simple, as it is assumed to
be the tool unless otherwise specified. A similar technique is used in the pattern Choi-Yong: dwitbal
so joongji joomuk nopunde bandae jirugi ‘rear-foot stance middle-knuckle fist high reverse punch’.
In this technique, all the attributes except the last one, jirugi ‘punch’, are different, and the attacking
tool is named, as it goes against the pre-assumption that punching techniques (jirugi) are performed
using ap joomuk ‘forefist’. (Choi, 1999, p. 576)

The Encyclopedia divides the attacking and blocking tools into three groups: hand parts, foot parts
and miscellaneous parts. (Choi, 1999, pp. 87–104) However, some of the miscellaneous parts are
also foot parts but they are not listed in the main foot part section, as they are difficult to toughen
or harden, easy to break, or results from using them may be significantly lower. (Choi, 1999, p. 103)

38
For the purpose of this study, I have decided to partially ignore this classification, and instead classify
some of the miscellaneous parts under foot parts. These parts, however, will be marked with an
asterisk (*) in the concept systems to show that they are not preferred tools for attacking or
blocking.

The Encyclopedia lists a total of 63 different attacking and blocking tools, most of which can be used
for both attacking and blocking. Because this number of items will make for a very large concept
system, I will analyze it in smaller units, one group at a time. For the purposes of this concept
analysis, it was necessary to create some sub-classes, which are not tools, but are necessary to
divide the different concepts into meaningful groups. These nodes will be presented in grey font
within the concept systems, to differentiate from actual tools. The first level of analysis was a simple
task of dividing the tools into the three primary groups: hand parts, foot parts and miscellaneous
parts (Figure 11). Although the terms used within the Encyclopedia are hand and foot, these groups
include tools from further up arms and legs, as well.

Figure 11. Concept system: Attacking and blocking tools

For the most part, the relations between different concepts in this category are generic, as the
different attacking tools are not parts but logical subordinates of their superordinate concepts.
However, there are some exceptions to this, such as palmok ‘forearm’, which consists of four
different sides, all of them attacking and blocking tools. (Choi, 1999, pp. 97–98) In such cases, it is
clearly a question of a partitive relation and thus a rake-shaped diagram is used in the concept
system.

Hand parts

I will first analyze hand parts, the largest of the three groups. In the Encyclopedia, the hand parts
are not classified into logical sub-groups very consistently. For this reason, my analysis led to a four-
39
way division: fist, hand, forearm and elbow. However, fist could very well be a sub-group of hand,
as it is the same anatomical part of the arm, from wrist to fingertips. As the fist and its sub-types are
some of the most important tools in the martial art, this concept system uses joomuk ‘fist’ to refer
to a clenched hand, whereas son ‘hand’ refers to an open hand. There is some overlap between the
two sub-groups, which will be analyzed later in this section.

As many of the tools fall naturally in place in the taxonomies (and meronomies), this section focuses
mainly on the exceptions that have appeared during the analysis. In addition, additional modifiers
used in the names of the techniques are discussed at the end of this section. The full concept system
of hand parts is included in Appendix 2.

Figure 12. Concept system: Attacking and blocking tools > Hand parts

There are seven different types of fists or parts of fist introduced in the Encyclopedia, which fall
under the joomuk ‘fist’ subcategory: ap joomuk ‘forefist’, dung joomuk ‘back fist’, yop joomuk ‘side
fist’, mit joomuk ‘under fist’, ghin joomuk ‘long fist’, songarak joomuk ‘knuckle fist’ and pyun joomuk
‘open fist’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 87–92) In addition to these seven, knuckle fist has three further sub-
types depending on the finger used: joongji joomuk ‘middle knuckle fist’, inji joomuk ‘fore-knuckle
fist’ and umji joomuk ‘thumb knuckle fist’. (Choi, 1999, p. 92) With open fist, there is a notable
connection to the co-ordinate category hand, as unlike other fists, open fist is not clenched. Because
the Encyclopedia quite clearly names it as a type of fist, I have honored that classification in my
analysis. (Choi, 1999, p. 92) However, I have also made pyun joomuk ‘open fist’ subordinate to son
‘hand’, connecting it to two different superordinate concepts.

The subcategory son ‘hand’ consists of many kinds of tools, all of which are formed by hand parts
from wrist to fingertips. In my analysis, I have classified each of them under the following sub-
categories based on their naming convention and anatomical position: sonkal ‘knife-hand’, songarak
‘finger’, sonbadak ‘palm’, sonmok dung ‘bow wrist’, and bandal son ‘arc hand’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 93–
99) Within these subtypes, sonkal ‘knife-hand’ is an exception in two ways: first, it is a

40
comprehensive concept to three partitive concepts, one of which is the sonkal ‘knife-hand’ itself;
secondly, it is one of the rare cases where a rake-shaped diagram is used to denote partitive relation,
as the three sonkal ‘knife-hand’ concepts are parts of the same concept. (Figure 13) The three tools
under the concept of sonkal are sonkal ‘knife-hand’, sonkal dung ‘reverse knife-hand’, and sonkal
batang ‘base of knife-hand’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 93, 98)

Figure 13. Concept system: Attacking and blocking tools > Knife-hand

In the same vein, palmok ‘forearm’ is also a comprehensive concept, consisting of four different
sides of palmok: bakatpalmok ‘outer forearm’, anpalmok ‘inner forearm’, dungpalmok ‘back
forearm’ and mitpalmok ‘under forearm’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 97–98) Palmok, especially bakatpalmok
and anpalmok are some of the most commonly used blocking tools in ITF Taekwon-Do, based on
their frequency of appearance within the 24 patterns. (Banicevich, 1995) If the part of palmok is not
given in the technique name, it is usually assumed to be bakatpalmok, such as in: gunnun so
(bakat)palmok chookyo makgi ‘walking stance (outer) forearm rising block’ and gunnun so
(bakat)palmok najunde makgi ‘walking stance (outer) forearm low block’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 198, 217)

The category songarak ‘finger’ has a sub-category sonkut ‘fingertips’, where another exception
occurs. Some of the tools within this category are the exact same tools but they are denoted by
different terms based on their orientation. When the palm is facing downward, the tools is called
opun sonkut ‘flat fingertip’. When the palm is facing inward, the tool is called sun sonkut ‘straight
fingertip’, and when the palm is facing upward, the tool is called dwijibun sonkut ‘upset fingertip’.
(Choi, 1999, pp. 94–95) Similar orientation-based division into different tools also exists in the
second-level category palkup ‘elbow’. It is also divided into different forms of palkup based on the
position and orientation of the elbow: ap palkup ‘front elbow’, yop palkup ‘side elbow’, sun palkup
‘straight elbow’, nopun palkup ‘high elbow’, wi palkup ‘upper elbow’, and dwit palkup ‘back elbow’.
(Choi, 1999, p. 98)

There is also another exception within the sub-category sonkut ‘fingertip’. In addition to the three
mentioned above, there are also other tools under the sub-category, such as han songarak

41
‘forefinger’, doo songarak ‘double fingertip’, and homi sonkut ‘angle fingertip’. The literal
translations of han songarak and doo songarak from Korean to English would be ‘one finger’ and
‘two fingers’, respectively. However, the English terms used in the Encyclopedia are rather
inconsistently ‘forefinger’ and ‘double fingertip’. (Choi, 1999, p. 95)

In addition to the hand parts listed in the Encyclopedia and analyzed here, some techniques further
specify the number, position or orientation of the tools in their names. Such specifications are sang
‘twin’, doo ‘double’, wae ‘single’, kyocha ‘X-‘, sun ‘straight’, euhkallin ‘alternate’, and narani
‘parallel’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 116, 172, 223, 233, 249) Although these modifiers do not alter the tool
itself, they are crucial information placed within the attacking or blocking tool attribute (#5) in the
name of the technique. Thus, it is necessary to understand their meaning. In the full concept system
(Appendix 2), these modifiers are placed as sub-types under their respective tools, similarly to
different kinds of sonkut ‘fingertips’ and palkup ‘elbow’.

Sang ‘twin’ and doo ‘double’ have a very similar meaning in English, as both terms refer to two
hands being used. The distinction between these terms is not explicitly explained in the
Encyclopedia. However, examining the use of the terms within the collection of techniques in the
book, it would seem that sang ‘twin’ is most commonly used to describe techniques where each
hands performs a separate attack or block (for example, sang joomuk jirugi ‘twin fist punch’, where
both hands perform a separate punch), whereas with doo ‘double’, both hands are used for the
same technique (for example, doo bandal son makgi ‘double arc-hand block’, where both hands are
used for one block). (Choi, 1999, pp. 130, 239)

This logic is supported by Rhee’s (2012, pp. 91, 99) explanations of the differences between sang
palmok makgi ‘twin forearm block’ and doo palmok makgi ‘double forearm block’. However, Rhee
focuses on the difference in direction (two hands block into two directions vs. two hands block into
one direction). This distinction, however, is not as comprehensive, as in sang joomuk jirugi ‘twin fist
punch’, for example, the two punches are both performed forwards. (Choi, 1999, p. 130)

The modifiers wae ‘single’ and kyocha ‘X‘ are rather simple to define, compared to sang ‘twin’ and
doo ‘double’. Wae ‘single’ is simply used to emphasize that only one hand is used. It is often used
when talking about a one-handed variation of a technique typically performed with two hands, such
as sang joomuk sewo jirugi ‘twin fist vertical punch’ and wae joomuk vertical jirugi ‘single fist vertical
punch’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 131–132) Kyocha ‘X‘, like the stance kyocha sogi ‘X-stance’ where legs are

42
crossed, denotes that the two hands are crossed. The following term defines the hand position; for
example, kyocha sonkal ‘X-knife-hand’ has two knife-hands crossed from the forearm, whereas
kyocha joomuk ‘X-fist’ has two fists crossed from the forearm. (Choi, 1999, pp. 116, 214)

The modifier sun ‘straight’, is presented inconsistently in the Encyclopedia, as sun palkup ‘straight
elbow’ and sun sonkut ‘straight fingertip’ are mentioned separately in the attacking and blocking
tools section, but sun sonkal ‘straight knife-hand’ and sun palmok ‘straight forearm’ are only
introduced in the hand techniques section. However, the definition of the term sun ‘straight’ is
consistent: it means that the tool is in a vertical position. (Choi, 1999, pp. 94, 154, 215)

Although they are also not explained in the Encyclopedia, the final two modifiers, euhkallin
‘alternate’ and narani ‘parallel’, seem to be antonymous to each other. Based on the techniques
where the term is used, narani ‘parallel’, like narani sogi ‘parallel stance’ where the two feet are
next to each other pointing in the same direction, refers to both hands being parallel to each other,
pointing in the same direction. (Choi, 1999, p. 249) Euhkallin ‘alternate’, which seems to be a rather
inaccurate translation from Korean into English, on the other hand, means that the two hands are
pointing into opposite directions. (Choi, 1999, p. 223, 248–249) However, they are still placed
parallel to each other, although as mirror images. These two terms are used rarely as modifiers to
attacking or blocking tools. In fact, the only two instances of euhkallin ‘alternate’ in the 24 patterns
are the two instances euhkallin sonbadak makgi ‘alternate palm block’ in the pattern Eui-Am. (Choi,
1999, p. 561) Narani ‘parallel’ is not used as a tool modifier within the patterns at all. However, both
modifiers are used in the Encyclopedia for ground techniques outside of patterns. (Choi, 1999, pp.
248–249)

In addition to these specifiers, orun ‘right’ and wen ‘left’ are in some situations used to define which
hand or foot is used. While baro ‘obverse’ and bandae ‘reverse’ are most commonly used to define
whether the front hand or the rear hand is used in hand techniques, orun ‘right’ and wen ‘left’
replace them when the stance is symmetrical, as there are no baro ‘obverse’ and bandae ‘reverse’
sides when performing in a symmetrical stance. (e.g. Choi, 1999, p. 535) Further analysis on orun
‘right’ and wen ‘left’, as well as baro ‘obverse’ and bandae ‘reverse’ is conducted in Section0.

43
 Foot parts

The foot techniques of Taekwon-Do are performed using different parts of the foot (and leg),
depending on the angles and the purpose of the technique. According to the Encyclopedia, feet
techniques can “produce twice the amount of force of the hand motions”. (Choi, 1999, p. 100)
Unlike with hand techniques, where the attacking or blocking tool is often visible in the name of the
technique, foot techniques rarely include the tool in the name. There are exceptions, such as
moorup ollyo chagi ‘knee upward kick’ and moorup apcha busigi ‘knee front snap kick’, where a tool
other than the primary one is used to perform a variation of the technique. (Banicevich, 1995) This
naming convention sets precedence to other possibilities. For example, a turning kick with instep
(instead of the ball of the foot) would be baldung dollyo chagi ‘instep turning kick’, although it is not
introduced in the Encyclopedia. The Encyclopedia emphasizes the importance of using the correct
tool for each vital spot (target). (Choi, 1999, p. 104)

Like the hand parts in Section 4.2.1, the analysis of foot parts used as attacking and blocking tools is
based on both the anatomy and the naming convention used in the Encyclopedia. As mentioned
above, I have decided to include some of the parts in this section which are classified under
miscellaneous parts in the Encyclopedia. These are leg parts which are not commonly used as
attacking or blocking tools because they are more difficult to harden or toughen, and the results
from using them may be sub-optimal. (Choi, 1999, p. 103) These parts are marked with an asterisk
(*) in the concept systems.

Figure 14. Concept system: Attacking and blocking tools > Foot parts

The first level of analysis within the foot parts was to find a meaningful anatomical division for the
tools. Thus, I divided the tools into four groups: bal ‘foot’, balmok gwanjol ‘ankle joint’, jong
kwaeng-i ‘shin’, and moorup ‘knee’. (Figure 14) Apart from moorup, all these concepts are further

44
divided into different tools and/or sub-categories. (Choi, 1999, pp. 100–104) As the number of foot
parts is considerably lower than that of hand parts, the concept system they form is smaller and
easier to comprehend. The full concept system of foot parts is included in Appendix 2.

The first group, bal ‘foot’, consists of five sides in a partitive relation: ‘sole’, ‘footsword’, ‘heel’,
‘instep’ and ‘toes’. However, not all these sides are attacking or blocking tools themselves but
superordinate concepts to the actual tools, and thus they are not denoted by Korean terms. In the
concept system, these ‘invisible concepts’ are symbolized by grey font. It is also noteworthy that in
the Encyclopedia, ‘toes’ is used in conjunction with the Korean term balkut. However, this is an
incorrect translation from Korean into English, as the tool (and the correct translation of balkut) is
actually ‘toe tip’. The Korean term for ‘toe’ is balgarak, which is also visible in one of the tools,
balgarak nal ‘toe edge’. To clear this confusion, the concept system in this thesis uses the correct
translation balgarak ‘toes’ as a superordinate concept to balkut ‘toe tip’ and balgarak nal ‘toe edge’,
despite how the Encyclopedia names and classifies these tools. In the Encyclopedia, balgarak nal
‘toe edge’ is listed under “miscellaneous parts” (Choi, 1999, pp. 102, 104)

Similarly to sonkal ‘knife-hand’ in Section 4.2.1, balkal ‘footsword’ is also a comprehensive concept
for two partitive concepts: itself and balkal dung ‘reverse footsword’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 100, 102)
Aside from these inconsistencies and clarifications, the rest of the tools in the group bal ‘foot’ can
be easily divided into their respective subgroups based on their anatomical position, as can be seen
in the full concept system (Appendix 2).

The three remaining groups of foot parts are also rather straightforward to place in the concept
system. Moorup ‘knee’ does not have any subordinates. (Choi, 1999, p. 101) Balmok ‘ankle’ consists
of two tools: an balmok gwanjol ‘inner ankle joint’ and bakat balmok gwanjol ‘outer ankle joint’,
both under “miscellaneous parts”. (Choi, 1999, p. 103) Jong kwaeng-i ‘shin’, which is listed as a tool
in itself, consists of kyong gol ‘tibia’, an kyong gol ‘inner tibia’, bakat kyong gol ‘outer tibia’, and
dwit kyong gol ‘back tibia’. (Choi, 1999, p. 104) To avoid confusion, kyong gol ‘tibia’ could be
presented as ap kyong gol ‘front tibia’, as according to the illustrations it is not a superordinate
concept of different parts of tibia but refers to the anterior part of the bone. In the concept system,
this clarification is presented in parentheses: (ap) kyong gol ‘(front) tibia’. Jong kwaeng-i ‘shin’ and
all its subordinates are presented under “miscellaneous parts” in the Encyclopedia. (Choi, 1999, p.
104)

45
 Miscellaneous parts

In the Encyclopedia, the section gita boowi ‘miscellaneous parts’ describes 11 tools which may be
used as attacking or blocking tools only when it is absolutely necessary. However, as all the foot
parts within this section have been placed in the concept system for ha bansin ‘foot parts’, only
three tools (and one superordinate concept) remain for analysis in this section, making this process
very concise. (Choi, 1999, pp. 103–104) The full concept system for these remaining tools is shown
in Figure 15, as well as in Appendix 2.

Figure 15. Concept system: Attacking and blocking tools > Miscellaneous parts

Two of these tools are classified under the superordinate concept mori ‘head’. These two tools are
ima ‘forehead’, which is described as an effective tool when attacking the face or chest of the
opponent, and hudoo ‘occiput’, which can be used to attack the face of the opponent when grasped
from behind, although other tools may be better suited to avoid head injury. The final remaining
tool is euhke ‘shoulder’, which can be used to push away an opponent at a close distance. (Choi,
1999, p. 103)

In addition to attacking and blocking tools, the Encyclopedia has a lot of terminology for other body
parts. These are the targets (kupso ‘vital spots’) for attack techniques to cause the optimal amount
of damage to the opponent. (Choi, 1999, p. 104) The Encyclopedia also has a list of preferred
attacking tools for each vital spot, as well as a list of suitable blocking tools for different kinds of
attacks. (Choi, 1999, pp. 114–117) However, as the target is not a part of the name of the technique,
their terminology will not be discussed within the scope of this thesis.

46
4.3 Technique types

Every technique in ITF Taekwon-Do, performed either with hand or foot, belongs to one of the
several technique types within the martial art. These types are named and defined based on their
function and the way they are performed. In this section, I will analyze the different technique types
introduced in the Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (Choi, 1985) and Taekwon-Do: The Korean art of self-
defence. (Choi, 1999) Mostly adhering to the structure of those books, I will first analyze the hand
technique types, followed by foot technique types. Technique types combining both hand and foot
techniques simultaneously will be analyzed in their own section, despite being introduced under
foot techniques in the Encyclopedia. The full concept system of technique types is included in
Appendix 3.

Unlike the books, which classify different types of movement under foot technique type pihagi
‘dodging’, I have omitted them from this analysis. When naming the techniques, these types behave
differently compared to all the other technique types, as they are not placed into the name as the
attribute #11 (technique type) but as attribute #13 (type of movement). (Choi, 1999, pp. 316–364)
As such, they will be briefly analyzed in Section 4.5.

Hand technique types

There are 10 different types of hand techniques introduced in the Encyclopedia, four of them being
under the heading attack technique (jirugi ‘punch’, tulgi ‘thrust’, ghutgi ‘cross-cut’, and taerigi
‘strike’), three under defence technique (makgi ‘block’, japgi ‘grasp’, and pihagi ‘dodge’) and three
under ground technique (bachigi ‘holding’, momchugi ‘checking’, and karioogi ‘covering’). (Choi,
1999, pp. 119, 191, 241, 245, 248) However, for the analytical purposes I have decided to streamline
this division by combining the three technique types specific to ground techniques with the defence
technique category.

In addition to the defence techniques, the book also introduces attacking techniques performed
from the ground. The term noowo ‘ground’ used in conjunction with any of the attacking technique
types refers to an attack performed from a reclining position. For example, noowo jirugi ‘ground
47
punch’ is a punch performed while lying down. (Choi, 1999, pp. 246–247) In the naming convention,
noowo ‘ground’ takes the place of a stance, attribute #3. Thus, those techniques will be further
examined in Section 4.5.

The division of different attacking technique types is based on their function as well as the attacking
tool used. However, even the Encyclopedia itself says that “since three of these techniques – punch,
strike and thrust – are so closely interrelated in principle, it may be difficult to make a clear
distinction among them”. (Choi, 1999, p. 119) According to the descriptions, the distinction between
these three lies not only in the purpose of the technique but also in how much the attacking tool is
twisted at the moment of impact to achieve a “corkscrew effect”. (Choi, 1999, pp. 119, 124)

The first type, jirugi ‘punch’, consists of attacking techniques with the primary purpose of causing
internal hemorrhage to the opponent rather than superficial damage. (Choi, 1999, p. 119) The
techniques are usually performed using some type of joomuk ‘fist’. Ap joomuk ‘forefist’ seems to be
used most commonly, but other types of fists such as joongji joomuk ‘middle knuckle fist’ may also
be used. (Choi, 1999, pp. 124–146)

The purpose of the tulgi ‘thrust’ techniques is to penetrate and cut through the muscle or bone of
the vital spot (target). This motion is performed with a slight twist of the attacking tool; however, it
is smaller than that used with jirugi ‘punch’ techniques. (Choi, 1999, p. 119) Tulgi ‘thrust’ techniques
are primarily performed using some form of sonkut ‘fingertips’ or palkup ‘elbow’ as the attacking
tool. (Choi, 1999, p. 150)

The least amount of twisting of the attacking tool is used with taerigi ‘strike’ techniques. The
purpose of a taerigi ‘strike’ is to smash or break the bones or muscles of the target area. (Choi, 1999,
p. 119) Taerigi ‘strike’ techniques are shown being performed using a wide variety of tools, such as
palkup ‘elbow’, sonkal ‘knife-hand’, and dung joomuk ‘backfist’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 161, 163, 167)

The fourth type of attacking techniques, ghutgi ‘cross-cut’, has a more distinctive definition
compared to the previous three. Ghutgi ‘cross-cut’ techniques are only performed using opun
sonkut ‘flat fingertip’, and their purpose is to slash the target, such as the opponent’s eyes. (Choi,
1999, p. 159) The selection of ghutgi ‘cross-cut’ techniques is comparatively small, with only three
different specifications and one additional ground technique being introduced. (Choi, 1999, pp. 159,
247) While the jirugi ‘punch’, tulgi ‘thrust’, and taerigi ‘strike’ techniques are taught to students

48
early in the Taekwon-Do system of rank, the first occurences of ghutgi ‘cross-cut’ come significantly
later in the pattern Juche, which is taught to 2nd degree black belts. (Choi, 1999, p. 566)

The concept system for these attacking technique types (Figure 16) shows each type as co-ordinate
concept to each other in a generic relation. In addition to these four types of attacking techniques,
the Encyclopedia also mentions that additional pressing and breaking techniques are used for self-
defence purposes. (Choi, 1999, p. 119) However, as those techniques are not specifically named
using the naming system under research here, and they are not a part of the technical content which
appears in the patterns and fundamental exercises of Taekwon-Do, they will not be examined in the
scope of this thesis.

Figure 16. Concept system: Technique types > Hand techniques > Attack techniques

As mentioned above, the Encyclopedia introduces three types of techniques under the heading
defence technique: makgi ‘block’, japgi ‘grasp’, and pihagi ‘dodging’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 191, 241, 245)
However, as pihagi ‘dodge’ is explained to be performed with feet using a guarding block as a
protection, it does not seem to be an actual type of hand technique. (Choi, 1999, p. 245) Pihagi
‘dodging’ also appears as a sub-heading under foot techniques for the different types of movement.
(Choi, 1999, p. 316) Thus, I have decided to omit it from this section of the analysis for logical
purposes. The different types of movement will be analyzed separately in Section 4.5.3.

Most of the defensive hand techniques introduced in the Encyclopedia fall under the category of
makgi ‘block’. One exception is a variation of digutja makgi ‘U-shaped block’, where the top hand is
used to grab the stick being blocked, called digutja japgi ‘U-shaped grasp’. (Choi, 1999, p. 241) This
technique is the only instance of the term japgi ‘grasp’ in the Encyclopedia. However, several
external sources, including Rhee (2012, DVD: Toi Gye Tul), refer to the head grabbing technique in
patterns Toi-Gye and Choong-Moo as mori japgi ‘head grasp’ or sang ap japkee [japgi] ‘twin front
grasp’. (e.g. Grygiel, 2016, p. 155; Meyour, 2014, p. 197; Kärki, Sarkkinen & Heloterä, 2018, p. 26)
49
The Encyclopedia leaves this technique, if it can even be called one, entirely unnamed, only
explaining the movement: “Extend both hands upwards as if to grab the opponent’s head – –“ (Choi,
1999, pp. 543, 547)

However, there are other grasping techniques introduced, such as butjaba makgi ‘grasping block’
and butjapgo chagi ‘grasping kick’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 230, 278) While the specifications of these
techniques share the word stem with the term japgi ‘grasp’, they are categorized as makgi ‘block’
and chagi ‘kick’, respectively. For these reasons, my analysis led to japgi ‘grasp’ being a subordinate
to makgi ‘block’ instead of being a co-ordinate concept.

Similarly, Rhee (2012, DVD: “Yul Gok Tul”) refers to the measurings in Yul-Gok, which are not named
in the Encyclopedia, as annun so gueri jaegi ‘sitting stance measuring’. In the Encyclopedia, this
“technique” is only explained verbally: “extending the left[/right] fist to D horizontally”. (Choi, 1999,
p. 538) As they are not proper techniques and their terminology is not presented in the
Encyclopedia, they are not analyzed within the scope of this thesis.

As mentioned above, additional defensive hand technique types are introduced in the ground
techniques section of the Encyclopedia, though included here for logical purposes. There are three
types introduced: bachigi ‘holding’, momchugi ‘checking’, and karioogi ‘covering’. While these three
types are shown being performed exclusively from a reclining position, they are very clearly defence
techniques. As these technique types seem to be variations of blocking, it seems natural to make
them co-ordinate concepts to japgi ‘grasp’, subordinate to makgi ‘block’, even though their
categorization in the Encyclopedia is different. (Choi, 1999, pp. 248–249)

It could be argued that makgi ‘block’ should not be a superordinate to these four types, and instead
all five types should be on the same level. The description and basic principles for makgi ‘block’ also
applies to the other four types, which have some distinctive characteristics of their own. Japgi
‘grasp’ is used for simultaneous blocking and grasping, bachigi ‘holding’ is used from a reclining
position to hold the opponent’s attacking tool and may be followed by a grasp, momchugi ‘checking’
is used to protect the face in a reclining position, and karioogi ‘covering’ is used to cover the body
as a passive form of defence. However, as there are dozens of defence techniques which falls under
none of these four types, I have decided to include makgi ‘block’ as both a superordinate, as well as
a subordinate concept, to emphasize that not all defence techniques can be categorized as one of
these four sub-types of makgi ‘block’. (Figure 17)

50
 Figure 17. Concept system: Technique types > Hand techniques > Defence techniques

In addition to the hand technique types presented in the Encyclopedia, there are some techniques
in the patterns which are not named consistently, as Choi had no time to develop proper
terminology for them before his passing. (Rhee, 2012, p. 82–83) Perhaps the most notable
terminological absence are the releasing techniques, e.g. movement #6 in the pattern Do-San,
movements #15 and #18 in the pattern Joong-Gun, and movement #12 in the pattern Hwa-Rang.
(Choi, 1999, pp. 534, 541, 546)

As the self-defence section of the Encyclopedia (separate from the patterns and other technical
content) provides a term jappyosul tae with the English heading ‘How to release from a grab’, many
sources cite this as the Korean term for releasing techniques. (Choi, 1999, p. 681) However,
according to Rhee, jappyosul tae, or properly romanized as jap-hyut-sul dhé, means literally ‘I’ve
been grabbed!’ (Rhee, 2012, p. 82). Thus, it is not applicable terminology for the technique type.
Instead, Rhee presents the term pulgi ‘release’ as the correct alternative, and introduces additional
specifications for the four types of pulgi ‘release’ used in the patterns: dangimyo pulgi ‘pulling
release’, bitulmyo pulgi ‘twisting release’, hech(y)o pulgi ‘wedging release’, and ggok ggok pulgi or
ggok uh pulgi ‘breaking release’. (Rhee, 2012, p. 82–83; Rhee, 2014b)

Despite this terminology not appearing in the Encyclopedia, I have included it in the concept systems
for this study, as they fill a notable gap in the terminology. The term pulgi ‘release’ is included in
Figure 17, whereas the specifications will be further analyzed as a part of Section 4.4.4. As with all
supplemental terminology, pulgi ‘release’ is presented in grey font in the concept systems.

51
 Foot technique types

Similarly to hand technique types, foot technique types are also introduced in the Encyclopedia in
three groups: attacking techniques, defence techniques, and ground techniques. This section of
analysis follows the same principle of reclassification set by the previous section (see Section 4.3.1):
ground techniques as a category is omitted, and instead, techniques under that category are
considered either attacking techniques or defence techniques, depending on their purpose. In
addition, the Encyclopedia introduces pihagi ’dodging’ under defence techniques. (Choi, 1999, p.
316) As mentioned above, due to their nature and placement in the different attribute in the
technique naming scheme (#12, type of movement), they will not be analyzed in this section but in
Section 4.5.3. I will first analyze the types of attacking techniques, followed by an analysis of defence
techniques. The full concept system for all technique types, including both hand and foot technique
types, is included In Appendix 3.

The Encyclopedia classifies the attacking techniques into nine types: cha jirugi ‘piercing kick’, cha
tulgi ‘thrusting kick’, cha busigi ‘smashing kick’, noollo chagi ‘pressing kick’, cha milgi ‘pushing kick’,
jigeau chagi ‘straight kick’, suroh chagi ‘sweeping kick’, yonsok chagi ‘consecutive kick’, and twimyo
chagi ‘flying kick’. (Choi, 1999, p. 254) However, this classification is inconsistent and illogical in
several ways. First, the naming convention is clearly inconsistent, as some types are marked by the
word cha ‘kick’, followed by another word, whereas others present another attribute first, followed
by the word chagi ‘kick’.5 Secondly, yonsok chagi ‘consecutive kick’, meaning two or more kicks
being performed in succession by the same foot, is included as its own type but honap chagi
‘combination kick’, both feet used to kick two or more kicks in succession, is not. (Choi, 1999, p. 251)
Thirdly, twimyo chagi ‘flying kick’ consists of the same kicks divided into the other types but
performed while jumping. (Choi, 1999, p. 286) Similarly to noowo ‘ground’, twimyo ‘flying’ also takes
the place of attribute #3 (stance) in the technique naming scheme. And finally, there are techniques
that do not conform to any of the types: bal golgi ‘foot tackling’, bada chagi ‘counter kick’, duro
gamyo chagi ‘skip kick’ and cha bapgi ‘stamping kick’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 267, 281–282)

5
Cha ‘kick’ and chagi ‘kick’ are the same word in Korean with different inflection. See Section 4 for the explanation on
how the -gi-inflection is used in the Korean names for ITF Taekwon-Do techniques.

52
 Figure 18. Concept system: Technique types > Foot techniques > Attack techniques

To resolve these inconsistencies, a similar method to that used with defensive hand techniques may
be used: chagi ‘kick’ is used as both a superordinate concept and its own subordinate, co-ordinate
to the types whose names begin with cha. This way, the concept system consists of six co-ordinate
concepts under chagi ‘kick’: chagi ‘kick’, cha jirugi ‘piercing kick’, cha milgi ‘pushing kick’, cha tulgi
‘thrusting kick’, cha busigi ‘smashing kick’, and cha bapgi ‘stamping kick’. (Choi, 1999, p. 254) Bal
golgi ‘foot tackling’, despite being an offensive foot technique, is not a kick. (Choi, 1999, p. 282)
Thus, its place in the concept system is subordinate to the subheading gong gyok gi ‘attack
technique’, co-ordinate to chagi ‘kick’. Their relations are illustrated in Figure 18.

Bada chagi ‘counter kick’ and duro gamyo chagi ‘skip kick’ are omitted from this concept system
entirely, as they are not separate techniques; they are the same kicks introduced under other
categories but performed as a counter-attack (bada chagi ‘counter kick’) or with a skipping
movement (duro gamyo chagi ‘skip kick’). (Choi, 1999, pp. 281–282) Bada ‘counter’ and duro gamyo
‘skip’ are analyzed as technique specifications in Section 4.4.4. Although skipping could be
considered a type of movement instead, it is not placed in the attribute slot #12 in the Encyclopedia.
Thus, it is considered a technique specification instead.

Yonsok chagi ‘consecutive kick’ and honap chagi ‘combination kick’, as well as other types of
multiple foot techniques performed simultaneously or in succession are also not analyzed in this
section. They cannot be considered foot technique types, as they are combinations of the same
techniques that exist under different types. (Choi, 1999, p. 251) Thus, they will be analyzed as
technique specifications in Section 4.4.5. Additionally, as mentioned above, technique types

53
combining both hand and foot techniques simultaneously will be examined separately in Section
4.3.3, despite being introduced under foot attacking techniques in the Encyclopedia.

The defensive foot techniques are presented under the heading makgi ‘block’ and divided into
several sub-types. (Choi, 1999, p. 310) However, as there is a possibility of confusion with the hand
technique type called makgi ‘block’, another term should be used for defensive kicks. My
proposition for this term is cha makgi ‘blocking kick’, obeying the naming format used in other
classes in both offensive and defensive foot techniques. Although not a term officially presented in
the Encyclopedia, it is clearer in its meaning and erases the possibility of misunderstanding. Like
other supplemental terminology, cha makgi ‘blocking kick’ is also presented in grey font in the
concept system (Figure 19).

The Encyclopedia presents two clear types of cha makgi ‘blocking kick’, called cha olligi ‘rising kick’
and cha momchugi ‘checking kick’, as well as several unique kicks which do not conform to these
two types. (Choi, 1999, p. 310) Thus, a similar solution to the one used with offensive foot
techniques can be applied. Cha makgi ‘blocking kick’ will be used as subordinate to itself, and the
unique kicks are placed under that node in the concept system (Figure 19).

Figure 19. Concept system: Technique types > Foot techniques > Defence techniques

In addition to cha makgi ‘blocking kick’, the Encyclopedia introduces two defensive foot techniques
in the ground techniques section and three more under the heading pihagi ‘dodging’, which are not
kicks but are indeed defence techniques: noowo dari kogi ‘ground leg crossing’, noowo moorup
guburigi ‘ground knee bending’, twigi ‘jumping, mom nachugi ‘body dropping, and bal dulgi ‘foot
lifting’. (Choi, 1999, p. 362–364, 367) The first two of these are direct subordinates to bang eau gi

54
‘defence techniques’, whereas the latter three are placed under the concept of pihagi ‘dodging’ in
the concept system (Figure 19).

It is noteworthy, that while twigi ‘jumping’ is based on the same word stem as twimyo ‘flying’ (see
Section 4.1), they are used differently. Twigi ‘jumping’ refers to a separate technique where a jump
is used for dodging purposes, whereas twimyo ‘flying’ and its subordinates are used like stances to
describe how another technique is performed.

Hand-foot combination technique types

In addition to the technique types examined in the previous two sections, the Encyclopedia also
presents several attacking techniques that combine hand and foot techniques. These techniques
are presented under foot techniques in the book, but as they do not naturally conform to the same
principles as other foot techniques, it is logical to analyze them separately. These technique types
are presented rather unambiguously, and their naming convention is a combination of the hand
technique type and foot technique type applied. The three types are jirumyo chagi ‘punching kick’,
taerimyo chagi ‘striking kick’, and tulumyo chagi ‘thrusting kick’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 279–281)

Figure 20. Concept system: Technique types > Hand-foot combination techniques

The third type, tulumyo chagi ‘thrusting kick’, constructed from tulgi ‘thrust’ and chagi ‘kick’, causes
a possibility of a misunderstanding. The English term is identical to cha tulgi ‘thrusting kick’. To
circumvent this, the gerunds (‘punching’, ‘striking’, ‘thrusting’) in the English terms for all three
types could be replaced by simple nouns (‘punch’, ‘strike’, ‘thrust’). This way, the ambiguity between
the terms cha tulgi ‘thrusting kick’ and tulumyo chagi ‘thrust kick’ is reduced without compromising

55
the intelligibility. This change is also reflected in the concept system (Figure 20), with the English
translations presented in grey font.

4.4 Technique specifications

In this section, I intend to examine the terms specifying how each distinct technique is performed.
While these attributes are referred to as “technique names” by both Choi (1999) and Banicevich
(n.d.) and as “Where is the technique directed?” by Rhee (2012, p. 84), for clarity’s sake I have
decided to refer to this attribute as “technique specification”, and the whole combination of
attributes as the name of the technique. It is noteworthy, that although the specifications for hand
and foot techniques use the same terminology, not all specifications are applicable to both hand
and foot techniques. In addition, it is possible to use several specifications together to define a
technique in more detail.

According to the Encyclopedia, attack techniques are named based on the relative position of the
attacking or blocking tool, the angle facing the target, the method and purpose of the attack or
block, and the stance taken. (Choi, 1999, p. 119, 191) However, as this rather simplified classification
does not account for all specifications introduced in the Encyclopedia, I have divided the analysis of
technique specifications into five sub-sections based on the data: (1) relative position of the tool;
(2) relative direction of movement; (3) shape or orientation of the tool; (4) purpose of the technique;
and (5) combination specifications (see Figure 21).

Figure 21. Concept system: Technique specifications

As stances have been analyzed in Section 4.1 and they take the place of a different attribute in the
technique naming scheme, they are not considered technique specifications in this thesis. In
addition, the Encyclopedia introduces the terms anmakgi ‘inside block’ and bakat makgi ‘outside
block’ which are not examined within the scope of this thesis. These terms are relative to the
positioning of the opponent instead of the performer and are typically not used as attributes in the

56
technique naming scheme. (Choi, 1999, p. 216) The full concept system of technique specifications
is included in Appendix 4.

Relative end-position of the attacking or blocking tool

One of the most common specifications in naming the technique is the relative position of the tool
compared to the rest of the body at the end of the technique. There are five relative positions: ap
‘front’, yobap ‘side front’, yop ’side’, yopdwi ‘side back’ and dwi(t) ‘back’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 177, 205,
208, 211, 258) These directions are relative to the facing of the upper body. For example, ap ‘front’
is in the center line of the upper body. Thus, when the attacking tool is in the center line of the
upper body, the specification ap ‘front’ can be used. (Choi, 1999, p. 126) The concept system
consisting of these concepts is depicted in Figure 22.

Figure 22. Concept system: Technique specifications > Relative position of the tool

The Encyclopedia refers to ap ‘front’ as the pre-assumption for jirugi ‘punch’, tulgi ‘thrust’, and
ghutgi ‘cross-cut’. This means that all the techniques introduced under those types are ap ‘front’
techniques unless otherwise specified. (Choi, 1999, pp. 124, 150, 159) In addition to hand
techniques, these directions are also used to specify foot techniques in several sub-types of chagi
‘kick’. For example, apcha busigi ‘front snap kick’ is a cha busigi ‘smashing kick’ performed into the
front section and dwitcha jirugi ‘back piercing kick’ is a cha jirugi ‘piercing kick’ performed into the
back section. (Choi, 1999, pp. 258, 261)

57
 Relative direction of the movement

In addition to the relative position of the tool at the end of the technique, the direction of the
movement in relation to the performer’s body may also be specified. There are six directions
introduced as technique specifications in the Encyclopedia: anuro ‘inward’, bakuro ‘outward’, ollyo
‘upward’, naeryo ‘downward’, chookyo ‘rising’, and noollo ‘pressing’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 135, 138, 159,
217, 225)

While it would seem logical to classify ollyo ‘upward’ and chookyo ‘rising’, as well as naeryo
‘downward’ and noollo ‘pressing’, as synonymous based only on their English terminology, they are
clearly distinct specifications. Both ollyo ‘upward’ and naeryo ‘downward’ are specified as being
performed at the solar plexus level of the performer, with some exceptions. (Choi, 1999, pp. 220,
222) On the other hand, chookyo ‘rising’ refers to head level and higher and noollo ‘pressing’ to
groin level and lower, again with some exceptions. (Choi, 1999, pp. 217, 225) Due to this distinction
the terms are nothing but co-ordinate to each other in the concept system. However, they are so
closely related that multidimensionality (see Section 2.3.1) is used in the concept system to connect
chookyo ‘rising’ and ollyo ‘upward’, and another one to connect noollo ‘pressing’ and naeryo
‘downward’ (see Figure 23).

Figure 23. Concept system: Technique specifications > Relative direction of the movement

Despite them not being introduced in the Encyclopedia, I have also decided to include two additional
specifications in the concept system: apuro ‘forward’ and dwiro ‘backward’ (see Figure 23). While
the latter term is used to describe backward movement in the “Fundamental exercises” section of
the Encyclopedia, it is not used as a technique specification. (Choi, 1999, p. 421) The former, on the
other hand, is not used in the book at all. Instead, apuro ‘forward’ is a dictionary-based term and
the antonym of dwiro ‘backward’. (Jones & Rhie, 1995, p. 132) As there are two very distinctively
different techniques with exactly the same name introduced in the patterns, this additional term
could be used to distinguish them.

58
These techniques are the movement #36 in the pattern Yul-Gok and the movements #7 and #20 in
the pattern Eui-Am. Both techniques are called kyocha so dung joomuk nopunde yop taerigi ‘X-
stance high side strike with the back fist”. While both techniques are specified as yop ‘side’, as they
are performed to the side of the body, the direction of movement is different. In Yul-Gok, the
technique is performed outwards, whereas in Eui-Am, it is performed forward. (Choi, 1999, pp. 539,
559–560) In addition to Yul-Gok and Eui-Am, both techniques also appear in other patterns. To
distinguish these techniques from each other by name, additional specifications regarding the
direction of the movement could be used.

Based on this, the technique in Yul-Gok would be called kyocha so dung joomuk nopunde yop bakuro
taerigi ‘X-stance high side outward strike’, and the one in Eui-Am would be kyocha so dung joomuk
nopunde yop apuro taerigi ‘X-stance high side forward strike’. This further specification would solve
the issue of identical naming of these distinct techniques, justifying the presence of apuro ‘forward’
in the concept system. However, as apuro ‘forward’ is not present in the encyclopedia, it is
presented in grey font in the concept system.

Shape and orientation of the tool

The third group of technique specifications consists of shapes and orientations used to describe how
and where the attacking or blocking tool(s) are placed. This is quantitively the largest group of
technique specifications, and most of the concepts do not seem to be connected to each other in
any way. The only three with a connection to each other are bandal ‘crescent’, dollyo ‘turning’, and
giokja ‘angle’, which are defined based on each other in the Encyclopedia. (Choi, 1999, pp. 139–
141) However, these definitions only apply to the hand techniques, such as bandal taerigi ‘crecent
strike’ and dollyo jirugi ‘turning punch’. Foot techniques such as bandal chagi ‘crescent kick’ and
dollyo chagi ‘turning kick’ are not related to each other. (Choi, 1999, pp. 268, 312) Thus, these are
presented as direct co-ordinates to each other in the concept system (Figure 24). It is also
noteworthy, that some of these specifications are only compatible with specific tools. For example,
*giokja chagi ‘angle kick’ does not exist in the Encyclopedia.

59
An interesting point of discussion within this section are the English translations of some Korean
terms, specifically digutja ‘U-shaped’, san ‘W-shaped’, gutja ‘9-shaped’, giokja ‘angle’, gokaeng-i
‘pick-shaped’, and kawi ‘scissor-shaped’. As the Korean language uses a different alphabet system
from English, the development of terminology for each language has clearly been constructed
independent of each other. (Lee & Ramsey, 2000, p. 14)

Figure 24. Concept system: Technique specifications > Shape and orientation of the tool

Digutja ‘U-shaped’, giokja ‘angle’, and gutja ‘9-shaped’ translated literally into English would be
‘digut-shaped’, ‘giok-shaped’, and ‘gu-shaped’, referring to the letters digeut (ㄷ), giyeok (ㄱ) and the
number nine (9) in the Sino-Korean number system, gu. 6 (Lee & Ramsey, 2000, pp. 14, 95) Similarly,
niunja sogi ‘L-stance’ (see Section 4.1) is literally ‘niun-shaped stance’, referring to the letter nieun
(ㄴ). (Lee & Ramsey, 2000, p. 14)

San ‘W-shaped’ refers to the Chinese symbol also used in the Korean language called san (山). The
literal translation of this symbol is mountain. (Lee & Ramsey, 2000, p. 47) However, as the symbol
slightly resembles a W-shape in the Latin alphabet, the specification is called ‘W-shaped’ instead of
‘mountain’ in English, as the shape is used as the defining factor instead of the translation.
Gokaeng-i ‘pick-shaped’ and kawi ‘scissor-shaped’ are identical in meaning in English and Korean
(with ‘pick’ referring to a pickaxe), as is kyocha ‘X’ (e.g. kyocha sogi ‘X-stance’ and kyocha joomuk
‘X-fist’) which literally means ‘cross’ in English. (Jones & Rhie, 1995, pp. 79, 251, 299)

Purpose of the technique

The next group, purpose of the technique, consists of technique specifications which explain why or
for what purpose the technique is performed. These specifications are mainly used with makgi

6
The Korean language uses two separate numeral systems concurrently: one of native origin, one of Chinese origin (the
Sino-Korean numeral system). The choice of numeral system is dependent on the context and purpose of the numerals.
(Lee & Ramsey, 2000, pp. 94–100)

60
‘block’ and chagi ‘kick’ techniques. Each concept has certain characteristics defined in the
Encyclopedia to explain how it relates to the purpose of the technique. For example, golcho
‘hooking’ is defined as a method of blocking which “requires a minimum amount of effort on the
part of the defender, and allows the opposite hand or foot an immediate response for counter-
attacking”. (Choi, 1999, p. 227)

Figure 25. Concept system: Technique specifications > Purpose of the technique

As is the case with the previous category, there are no clear connections between any of these
concepts. Thus, they are all co-ordinate concepts to each other under the same superordinate
concept. Interestingly, some of these concepts have been included in the names of foot technique
types (see 0). For example, there is no *miro chagi ‘pushing kick’, as this concept is included in the
foot technique type cha milgi ‘pushing kick’. This slight inconsistency does not apply to hand
techniques.

In addition to the technique specifications introduced in the Encyclopedia, the four specifications to
pulgi ‘release’ as introduced by Rhee (2012, p. 84; 2014b) are also included in the concept system.
However, as these terms, bitulmyo ‘twisting’, dangimyo ‘pulling’, and ggok uh ‘breaking’ are not
presented in the Encyclopedia, they are presented in grey font. The fourth specification of pulgi
‘release’ is hechyo ‘wedging’, which is also used in other technique, such as hechyo makgi ‘wedging
block’. (e.g. Choi, 1999, p. 229) Thus, it is presented regularly in the concept system (Figure 25).

Combination specifications

The fifth and final category of technique specifications consists of terminology for different kinds of
combination techniques, i.e. several techniques performed simultaneously or in quick succession.
As mentioned in Section 0, the Encyclopedia presents some of the combination terminology
inconsistently, e.g. treating some types of combinations as a sub-type of chagi ‘kick’ but not all.
(Choi, 1999, p. 254) However, for logical purposes, and to make them applicable to both hand and

61
foot techniques where possible, I have decided to consider them a sub-category of technique
specifications. This idea is supported by the fact that in the technique naming scheme, combination
type is placed as a technique specification attribute.

Despite that, the naming of combination techniques, especially yonsok ‘consecutive’ and honap
‘combination’ techniques, does not always conform to the technique naming scheme, especially
with foot techniques. (Choi, 1999, pp. 284, 307) This is because they consist of multiple techniques
bundled together. The specification itself is not necessarily even mentioned in the full name of the
technique; instead, the techniques are joined with the conjunction wa ‘and’ or –go ‘and’.7 For
example, one form of yonsok chagi ‘consecutive kick’ is twimyo bandal chago yop chagi ‘flying
crescent and side kick’. (Choi, 1999, p. 306)

Figure 26. Concept system: Technique specifications > Combination specifications

The terminology of combinations in ITF Taekwon-Do is divided into four groups (see Figure 26). The
first group consists of two terms: i-jung ‘double’ and samjung ‘triple’. These terms are used to
describe combinations of the same technique being performed with the same tool in the same
relative direction (in relation to the performer’s body; see Section 4.4.1) in quick succession. (Choi,
1999, pp. 179, 251) They may be performed either vertically (targets at different heights) or
horizontally (targets positioned laterally). The verticality or horizontality is defined using the words
soo jik vertical’ and soopyong ‘horizontal’. For example, ‘flying vertical double front punch’ is twimyo
soo jik i-jung ap jirugi. (Choi, 1999, pp. 182–183)

In theory, as the terms i-jung ‘double’ and samjung ‘triple’ consists of the Sino-Korean numbers i
‘two’ and sam ‘three’, regular single techniques could be called il-jung ‘single’ (il ‘one’). However,
this terminology is not used in the Encyclopedia and thus not included in the concept system. I-jung

7
The scope of this thesis does not examine how the conjuction ‘and’ works in the Korean grammar. Wa and –go are
used within ITF Taekwon-Do terminology.

62
‘double’ and samjung ‘triple’ are co-ordinate concepts in the multidimensional concept system (see
Section 2.3.1) under the branch signifying combinations performed using the same technique, and
they both have subtypes soo jik ‘vertical’ and soopyong ‘horizontal’. (see Figure 26).

The second type of combinations is yonsok ‘consecutive’. This specification refers to techniques
where “two or more [techniques] are executed in succession by the same hand [or foot] in different
directions or with different attacking tools”. (Choi, 1999, pp. 179, 251) The first example of this in
the patterns of ITF Taekwon-Do is in the 2nd Degree black belt pattern Juche, where twimyo yonsok
jirugi ‘flying consecutive punch’ consisting of ap joomuk kaunde jirugi ‘forefist middle punch’ and
ap joomuk dwijibo jirugi ‘forefist upset punch’ is performed. (Choi, 1999, p. 569)

One sub-type presented for yonsok ‘consecutive’ in the foot technique section is rasonsik ‘spiral’,
where the second kick is performed while rolling in the air. This term is only applicable to foot
techniques performed while jumping. The Encyclopedia only names two possible kick combinations
for twimyo rasonsik chagi ‘flying spiral kick’: side kick and side kick, or side kick and back kick. (Choi,
1999, p. 306)

The third group consists of the concept of honap ‘combination’, which is defined as a technique
where “both hands [or feet] are used to deliver two or more attacks in succession”. It is further
specified that the term honap ‘combination’ only applies to techniques performed while the body
is in the air, i.e. jumping or flying. (Choi, 1999, pp. 179, 251) This clarification is likely written to
distinguish it from the ways of bundling together techniques while standing, referred to in this thesis
as movement rhythm. As the concepts of movement rhythm are used differently from the
combination specifications, they will be examined separately in Section 4.5.4.

In addition to any imaginable honap ‘combination’ series of techniques, there are three specifically
defined sub-types: sambang ‘three-direction’, sabang ‘four-direction’, and chagi wa jirugi ‘kick and
punch’. However, the first two of these subtypes are only applicable to foot techniques, whereas
the third one consists of a kicking technique combined with a punching technique, similar to jirumyo
chagi ‘punch kick’ (see Section 4.3.3) but performed in succession instead of simultaneous
techniques. (Choi, 1999, p. 307)

It is noteworthy, that sangbang ‘two-direction’ is not presented as a type of honap ‘combination’,

as sangbang chagi ‘two-direction kick’ consists of two simultaneous kicks, not two kicks performed
in succession. (Choi, 1999, p. 283) This difference is reflected in the Korean terminology, but not in

63
their English form. While sambang ‘three-direction’ and sabang ‘four-direction’ use a number-based
naming, the term sang ‘double’ is used in sangbang ‘two-direction’ instead of the number i ‘two’.
The Encyclopedia does not introduce any two-direction kicks performed in succession. In theory,
such kicks could be named i-bang chagi ‘two-direction kick’ instead of sangbang chagi ‘two-
direction kick’ to conform with the number-based terminology of sambang ‘three-direction’ and
sabang ‘four-direction’.

The fourth type consists of techniques performed simultaneously using two hands or feet. The
aforementioned sangbang ‘two-direction’ belongs to this group, along with sagak ‘square’ and
jaegak ‘trapezoid’, which are combinations of several hand and foot techniques simultaneously.
(Choi, 1999, pp. 301, 303) As the concepts mention here are just the ones with special terminology,
an empty node is used in the concept system to signify other possibilities using derivative
terminology.

4.5 Other attributes

In this section of the analysis, I will briefly examine the other attributes of the technique naming
scheme and present their concept systems. As mentioned above, most of these remaining attributes
have a very limited number of options and, thus, terminology, making their concept systems more
straightforward.

In addition to the attributes of the technique naming scheme, this section also includes a brief
analysis of different movement rhythms presented in the Encyclopedia. While there is no data of
the movement rhythm being used in the names of techniques, the rhythm affects how the technique
is performed. The Korean terminology for these rhythms was left unfinished before the passing of
Choi, and according to Rhee (e.g. 2014b), Choi tasked his senior students to complete it. Thus, the
Korean terminology for the different movement rhythms is based on the works by Rhee instead of
the Encyclopedia. The full concept systems for each attribute is included in Appendix 5.

64
 Directions, sides and orientations

In this section, I will explain the analysis of four distinct attributes in the technique naming scene:
#1 (direction of stance), #2 (left / right stance), #4 (direction of technique), and #8 (obverse / reverse).
The terminology for attributes #1 and #4 is identical, and thus, they will share a concept system and
be examined as one, whereas attributes #2 and #8 have very concise concept systems, as there are
only two options for each.

The direction of stance and the direction of technique are based on the bang hyang pyo ‘direction
diagram’. (Choi, 1999, p. 414) Each pattern has a direction diagram, which details the starting
position of the performer and designates letters for each direction. (Choi, 1999, p. 524) For example,
below (Figure 27) is a direction diagram for the pattern Juche. The starting position of the performer
is marked with an X. (Choi, 1999, p. 566)

Figure 27. Direction diagram: Juche Tul ‘Pattern Juche’ (Choi, 1999, p. 566)

The terminology used to describe both the direction of stance as well as the direction of technique
on the diagram is a combination of the letter and the word bang ‘toward’ (lit. ‘direction’). For
example, when a stance points toward the letter D, the attribute #1 is D-bang ‘toward D’. (Choi,
1999, p. 414) As the technique may point to a direction different from that of the stance, they have
separate attributes in the technique naming scheme. For example, the stance may be F-bang
‘toward F’, while the technique is performed B-bang ‘toward B’, as is the case in the movement #6
of the pattern Juche: F-bang orun kyocha so B-bang dung joomuk naeryo taerigi ‘right X-stance
toward F with back fist downward strike toward B’.8 The diagonals are represented by combining

8
Due to the word order in English, it is more natural to place the direction at the end of the noun group it refers to.
Thus, as mentioned in Section 4, the word order in the technique naming scheme only refers to the Korean terminology.

65
the letters on each side. For example, a technique can be performed AE-bang ‘toward AE’. (Choi,
1999, p. 566)

As the full terminology is so reliant on the direction diagram for each pattern and exercise, a concept
system covering all letters and diagonal letter combinations in all of them would be pointless. For
example, the diagram for the pattern Se-Jong consists of letters from A to H, and several possible
diagonals. (Choi, 1999, p. 593) However, as the basic terminology of bang ‘toward’ is the same for
all of them, the concept system consists of X-bang ‘toward X’, Y-bang, and their common
subordinate XY-bang ‘toward XY’, where X and Y symbolize all the possible letters on direction
diagrams, and XY their diagonals. (Figure 28)

Figure 28. Concept system: Direction diagram

The other two attributes, left / right stance and obverse / reverse each only have the two options
mentioned in their name. A stance can be either a left stance or a right stance, and the technique
performed can be on either the obverse side or the reverse side. In Korean terms, ‘left’ is wen and
‘right’ is orun, and as shown by the technique naming scheme, it is positioned right before the name
of the stance. For example, a ‘left walking stance’ is wen gunnun sogi. (Choi, 1999, p. 67) Similarly,
‘obverse’ is baro and ‘reverse’ is bandae, and those terms are placed in the attribute slot #8. For
example, if a punch is performed using the obverse hand, it is a baro jirugi ‘obverse punch’. (Choi,
1999, p. 125)

Both attributes are related to the three-way division of stances (not counting the additional branch
for non-stances) introduced in Section 4.1. These three types of stances are symmetrical stances
(group 1), asymmetrical stances with even weight distribution (group 2) and asymmetrical stances

66
with uneven weight distribution (group 3). The use of the two attributes in question is dependent
on the properties of the stance performed and which group it belongs to.

With stances belonging to group 1, neither of these attributes are used, as they cannot be divided
into left or right stance, and neither side is obverse nor reverse. (Choi, 1999, pp. 65–66, 72) Thus,
these attributes should be omitted when a technique is performed using any of the symmetrical
stances. In group 2, the stance is a left stance when the left foot is advanced to the front, and a right
stance when the right foot is advanced to the front. (Choi, 1999, pp. 67, 71, 74, 78) In group 3, the
foot with more weight on it determines whether the stance is a left stance or a right stance. For
example, in niunja sogi ‘L-stance’, the rear foot carries approximately 70 % of the body weight. Thus,
if the rear foot is the left foot, the stance is wen niunja sogi ‘left L-stance’, and vice versa. (Choi,
1999, pp. 69, 74–77) The concept system for these terms consists simply of the two terms as co-
ordinates to each other (Figure 29).

Figure 29. Concept system: Left / right stance

The use of the terms baro ‘obverse’ and bandae ‘reverse’, which are used to specify whether the
front hand or the rear hand is used to perform the technique, mirrors that of the wen ‘left’ and orun
‘right’ in groups 2 and 3. As mentioned above, the symmetrical stances in group 1 do not have baro
‘obverse’ or bandae ‘reverse’ sides. In group 2, the hand on the front foot side is baro ‘obverse’,
making the hand on the rear foot side bandae ‘reverse’. (Choi, 1999, p. 125) In group 3, the foot
carrying more body weight is the baro ‘obverse’ side, whereas the foot carrying less body weight is
the bandae ‘reverse’ side. (Choi, 1999, pp. 126–127)

Based on this, gunnun so kaunde baro jirugi ‘walking stance middle obverse punch’ is performed
with the front hand, as gunnun sogi ‘walking stance’ is a group 2 stance, whereas niunja so kaunde
baro jirugi ‘L-stance middle obverse punch’ is performed using the rear hand, as niunja sogi ‘L-
stance’ belongs to the group 3. (Choi, 1999, p. 125–127) Similarly to the concept system for left and
right, the concept system for obverse and reverse only consists of these two terms co-ordinate to
each other (Figure 30).

67
 Figure 30. Concept system: Obverse / reverse side

Additionally, as touched upon in Section 4.2.1, orun ‘right’ and wen ‘left’ are sometimes used as
modifiers for attacking and blocking tools, when the technique is performed in a stance belonging
to group 1 (symmetrical stances). As symmetrical stances do not have baro ‘obverse’ or bandae
‘reverse’ sides, nor can they be classified as being orun ‘right’ or wen ‘left’ stances, the hand with
which the technique is performed can be defined in the attribute for the attacking tool. The
terminology for this is identical with the terminology for left and right stances, as presented in this
section and in Figure 29.

Height

The height of a Taekwon-Do technique can be defined in two ways: in relation to the performer’s
body or in relation to the opponent’s body. (Choi, 1999, pp. 106–107, 120–123) For practice
purposes, as the height of the opponent may vary, the heights of the fundamental techniques are
practiced named in relation to the performer’s body. While a (performer’s) shoulder-height punch
may hit a taller opponent in the solar plexus, the exact same technique could hit a shorter opponent
in the face. (Choi, 1999, pp. 120–123)

The Encyclopedia divides the human body height-wise into three sections: najun bubun ‘low
section’, kaunde bubun ‘middle section’, and nopun bubun ‘high section’. This terminology is used
in the book when describing the target section relation to the opponent. (Choi, 1999, pp. 106–107)
The terms for technique heights, as performed alone, are introduced along with each technique
type. For example, a ‘high block’ is introduced as nopunde makgi. (Choi, 1999, pp. 192–196) The

68
word stem for each height is the same, albeit omitting the word bubun ‘section’ and adding the
inflection –de. 9

Figure 31. Concept system: Height

For the concept system (Figure 31), the sections of the body in relation to the opponent are set
subordinate to the terms describing the height of the technique. The reasoning for this is two-fold
and is more linguistic than related to the martial art: First, there is a clear morphological connection
between the two sets of terms. Secondly, the bubun ‘section’ terms are clearly derivatives of the –
de-terms, making the former subordinate to the latter. Although the bubun ‘section’ terminology is
not used in the technique naming scheme, their inclusion in the concept system is important to clear
any possible confusion between the terms.

Type of movement

This section of the analysis consists of the final three attributes in the technique naming scheme,
which are all related to each other. These attributes are #6 (spot), #11 (forward / backward
movement), and #12 (type of movement). As mentioned in Section 0, the different types of pihagi
‘dodging’ are analyzed in this section, as they take the attribute slot #12 in the scheme. However,
as the Encyclopedia introduces these as separate techniques, a type of movement and the following
technique could also be considered separate techniques. The aim of this section is not only to

9
Grand Master Rhee Ki Ha has revised the Korean term for ‘middle section’ into kaun bubun, conforming to the format
of the other two sections. (Rhee, 2012, p. 161) However, the Encyclopedia uses the term kaunde bubun, as does this
analysis.

69
analyze the terminology and concepts in the data, but also present clearer instructions on how to
name techniques with a specific type of movement specified.

The types of movement introduced under pihagi ‘dodging’ can indeed be used for dodging, but
more importantly they can be used for advancing as well, and they can be used in conjunction with
almost any technique. The Encyclopedia divides pihagi ‘dodging’ into nine sub-types: jajun bal ‘foot
shifting’, omgyo didigi ‘stepping’, jajunbal omgyo didigi ‘shift-stepping’, omgyo didimyo jajunbal
‘step-shifting’, mikulgi ‘sliding’, dolgi ‘turning’, omgyo didimyo dolgi ‘step-turning’, twigi ‘jumping’,
mom nachugi ‘body dropping’, and bal dulgi ‘foot lifting’. (Choi, 1999, p. 316) Of these nine sub-
types, the last three have been analyzed as a part of defensive foot technique types in Section 0, as
they are not types of movement as per the definition of this section. Instead, they more closely
resemble separate technique types.

As is obvious from the names of the types of movement, many of the concepts are related to each
other in some way or the other. In addition, some of them can be further divided into several
subtypes, e.g. sambo omgyo didigi ‘treble stepping’. (Choi, 1999, p. 338) To analyze the concept
relations of these movement types, it is necessary to first identify which of them are the primary
concepts.

As the terminology suggests, jajunbal omgyo didigi ‘shift-stepping’, omgyo didimyo jajunbal ‘step-
shifting, and omgyo didimyo dolgi ‘step-turning’ are clearly combinations of other concepts. (Choi,
1999, pp. 341, 344, 355) These concepts consist terminologically of two parts, each defining a part
of the movement in the order of performance. As the Encyclopedia states that the different types
of movement may be combined in several ways, I have decided to have only the individual
movement types in the concept system. The different numbers of steps are presented as
subordinates to omgyo didigi ‘stepping’ and gujari dolgi ‘spot turning’ as a subordinate to dolgi
‘turning’.

The term gujari ‘spot’, describing the techniques performed on the spot or stepping back to the
starting spot between repetitions, may be placed before the name of the technique, as attribute #6
in the technique naming scheme. However, it is also present in the term gujari dolgi ‘spot-turning’,
and the two should not be confused. For example, gunnun so gujari baro jirugi ‘walking stance spot
obverse punch’ is described in the Encyclopedia. (Choi, 1999, p. 418)

70
 Figure 32. Concept system: Types of movement

The terminology for forward and backward movement, however, is presented rather inconsistently
in the Encyclopedia. As forward movement is a pre-assumption, it is generally not mentioned in the
book. However, on some occasions the term nagagi ‘forward-stepping’ (lit. ‘advancing’) is used, for
example in jirumyo nagagi ‘forward-stepping punch’. (e.g. Choi, 1999, p. 419) Backward movement
is marked by different terms in different contexts. For example, dwiro ‘backward’ is used in dwiro
omgyo didimyo dolgi ‘backward step-turning’, whereas duruogi ‘backward-stepping’ is used
similarly to nagagi ‘forward-stepping’ in magumyo duruogi ‘backward-stepping block. (Choi, 1999,
p. 421)

To resolve this inconsistency while adhering to the technique naming scheme, the term apuro
‘forward’ (see Section 4.4.2) may be introduced as an antonym for dwiro ‘backward’, to be used in
the same context, whereas duruogi ‘backward-stepping’ and nagagi ‘forward-stepping’ are used
antonymously in their context. However, apuro ‘forward’ and nagagi ‘forward-stepping’ are not
based on the same word stem, like dwiro ‘backward’ and duruogi ‘backward-stepping’ are. The
literal translation for apuro is ‘forward’, whereas the literal translation for nagagi is ‘advancing’.

Figure 33. Concept system: Forward / backward movement

The difference in context between these two sets of terms is the placement in the technique naming
scheme. As discussed in the beginning of Section 4, the term-variant ending in the syllable –gi is
used whenever it is the final word in the name of the technique. Thus, if the name of the technique
ends with the attribute #12, forward / backward movement, nagagi ‘forward-stepping’ and duruogi
‘backward-stepping’ are used. On the other hand, if the attribute #13, type of movement, is

71
presented, apuro ‘forward’ and dwiro ‘backward’ may be used to describe the direction of the
movement in the attribute slot #11.

Considering the two interpretations of the types of movement – them either being separate
techniques or a part of the technique naming scheme – there are two ways to name a technique.
For example, a gunnun so kaunde baro jirugi ‘walking stance middle obverse punch’ performed with
three steps could be called either sambo omgyo didigi + gunnun so kaunde baro jirugi ‘triple
stepping + walking stance middle obverse punch’ or gunnun so kaunde baro jirumyo sambo omgyo
didigi ‘triple-stepping walking stance middle obverse punch’.

There is evidence pointing to both interpretations in the Encyclopedia. However, in the patterns
section of the book, the types of movement are not considered separate techniques. (e.g. Choi,
1999, p. 549) This would point to the latter option of the two above, the type of movement being a
part of the technique and not a separate one.

Movement rhythm

Although movement rhythm, or dongjak ‘motion’, is not a part of the technique naming scheme, it
is important in general to how the techniques described in the Encyclopedia are performed. Five
different types of movement rhythm are named, some of them used for singular techniques, while
others combine two or more techniques into one movement. These five types are ‘normal motion’,
‘slow motion’, ‘fast motion’, ‘continuous motion’, and ‘connecting motion’. (Choi, 1999, pp. 533,
535, 539, 541) In addition, at least one ITF style federation has introduced ‘natural motion’ as the
sixth rhythm, a sub-type to normal motion. It covers specific “soft techniques”, which are performed
at a normal speed but without the sharp acceleration typically used in ‘normal motion’. (Bos,
Marano & Trajtenberg, 2015, p. 22–24) However, as this is not a universally accepted classification
in the field of ITF Taekwon-Do, it is included in the concept system in grey font.

Additionally, Rhee (2012, p. 104) uses the term goorugi dongjak ‘stamping motion’ to describe the
techniques performed at the normal speed with the stamp of the advancing feet. While the term
‘stamping motion’ is used in the Encyclopedia and materials by different ITF federations, as well as
unofficial sources, such as clubs and schools, the term goorugi dongjak does generally not appear
72
alongside it. The term bapgi is sometimes used to describe a stamp. However, this term is likely
derived from the technique type cha bapgi ‘stamping kick’, which is not precisely the same as a hand
technique performed with a stamping motion. Similarly to natural motion, stamping motion is also
included in the concept system as a sub-type of normal motion in grey font, as although the motion
is practiced under all ITF federations, its Korean terminology is not presented in the Encyclopedia.

The Encyclopedia presents these concepts without further explanation or Korean terminology. (Bos
et al., 2015, p. 22) As explained by Rhee on several occasions, although Choi considered a clear and
concise terminology a necessity for a modern martial art, he did not have time to develop all the
terminology before his passing. (Rhee, 2014b) Being tasked with filling the terminological gaps
together with other Grand Masters, Rhee has developed the corresponding Korean terminology for
these movement rhythms. (Rhee, 2012, pp. 90, 92, 96, 102) However, he does not give a Korean
term for ‘normal motion’, and thus, it is presented only in English in the concept system.

Figure 34. Concept system: Movement rhythm

The five movement rhythms accepted by all major ITF federations are presented on the first level of
the concept system. However, there is a two-way multidimensional split in the concept system. The
left branch consists of the movement rhythms in which only one technique is performed in either
‘normal motion’ or neurin dongjak ‘slow motion’, while the right branch of the concept system
houses the rhythms where several techniques are performed in succession in different rhythms.
(Rhee, 2012, pp. 90, 92, 96, 102) ‘Natural motion’ and goorugi dongjak ‘stamping motion’ are
presented as subordinates to ‘normal motion’ in grey font.

Yonsok dongjak ‘continuous motion’ consists of two or more techniques performed in succession,
each with the full three-phase sine-wave (down-up-down). (Rhee, 2012, p. 90; Bos et al., 2015, p.
23) When two or more techniques are performed quickly and aggressively, with the latter ones
having only two thirds (up-down) of the sine-wave, the rhythm is barun dongjak ‘fast motion’. (Rhee,

73
2012, p. 92; Bos et al., 2015, p. 23) Finally, when two techniques are performed within one full three-
phase sine-wave (down-up-down), the rhythm is called euijin dongjak ‘connecting motion’. (Rhee,
2012, p. 96; Bos et al., 2015, p. 24)

In his supplemental video material for the book This is Taekwon-Do (Rhee, 2012, DVD), Rhee places
the name of the movement rhythm at the end of the technique name. When there are multiple
techniques performed in succession, the –go-ending is used to mark the conjunction and (see 4.4.5).
For example, the movements #13 and #14 of the pattern Dan-Gun, which are performed in a
continuous motion, are named gunnun so bakat palmok najunde makgo gunnun so bakat palmok
chookyo makgi, yonsok dongjak ‘walking stance outer forearm low block and walking stance outer
forearm rising block, continuous motion’. (e.g. Rhee, 2012, DVD: “Dan Gun Tul”)

74
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The primary goal of this study was to analyze the technical terminology in the martial art ITF
Taekwon-Do. The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (Choi, 1985), which is the primary authority to the
art, introduces hundreds of terms and concepts related to the technical contents of the art in both
English and Korean. My analysis is based on these examples presented in the Encyclopedia. In some
instances, external unofficial sources have been used to complement the Encyclopedia, as there are
gaps in some notable gaps in the original terminology.

The secondary goal was to create a comprehensive and adaptive technique naming scheme based
on the data to guide in naming each fundamental technique distinctively. The scheme was first
introduced in Section 4, based on the previous schemes developed by Rhee (2012) and Banicevich
(n.d.). The final technique naming scheme used in this thesis consists of 12 attributes which may be
used in the name of a technique. The primary analysis is based on the categorization of these 12
attributes, as each attribute constitutes a different set of terminology.

The aim of this study was not to create new terminology – with the exception of fulfilling some of
the gaps – but to describe what kind of terminology is presently used in Taekwon-Do and in what
ways. However, in some situations, to avoid confusion and ambiguity, I have given some suggestions
on how to differentiate terms and how similar concepts differ from each other. For example, in
Section 4.2.1, a distinction is made between the concepts doo ‘double’ and sang ‘twin’, which have
a very similar meaning in English. However, by closely analyzing the use of this terms in the data, it
is possible to deduce that sang ‘twin’ refers to two separate techniques being performed, whereas
doo ‘double’ is used when one technique is performed using two hands.

The method of analysis is concept analysis, a method of terminological research. Concept analysis
focuses on the relations between the concepts presented, building upon the idea of concept triangle
by Richards and Ogden (185, pp. 8–12; see Figure 1 on page 9). This idea defines term as a mediator
between a mental image (concept) and the actual referent, as the relationship between the concept
and the referent only exists through the term. By defining the common and distinctive
characteristics of each concept, it is possible to deduce which of the concepts is superordinate,
which are subordinates, and which concepts are on the same level, making them co-ordinate
concepts with each other.

75
According to the step-by-step process of concept analysis introduced in Section 2.3.2, the analysis
is divided into seven steps. With steps 1–2 covered in the description of the research data (Section
3) and step 3 in the beginning of the analysis (Section 4), the main analysis constituted the steps 4–
6, which focus on the classification of concepts and defining of their characteristics. Finally, this
section is the step 7 of concept analysis, summarizing the study and reflecting on it.

My analysis of the technical concepts, based on the division into the 12 attributes in the technique
naming scheme, resulted in a concept system for each attribute. These concept systems are
included in the Appendices. In theory, one should be able to name any technique by selecting one
concept/term for each attribute and binding them together in the correct order. However, as there
are certain limitations presented in the Encyclopedia, in practice this is not possible. For example,
as mentioned in Section 3.3, it is not possible to perform jirugi ‘punch’ using sonkut ‘fingertips’ as a
tool, nor is it possible to perform a technique in gunnun sogi ‘walking stance’ with mikulgi ‘slide’ as
the type of movement.

Concept analysis is used as a method for both terminology science as well as practical terminology
work. While this study is conducted with a scientific focus, it is also closely related to the practical
terminology work. The reason for this is the fact that these results, especially the technique naming
scheme, directly benefit the terminological cohesion of the ITF Taekwon-Do community. As pointed
out in Section 4, the word order for the names of each technique is not consistent between different
clubs in Finland. For example, the two largest clubs (based on the number of licensed members in
2018), Tampereen Taekwon-Do seura in Tampere and Taekwon-Do Akatemia in Oulu and Northern
Finland, use different word orders in their study materials. The results of this study and especially
the technique naming scheme could be used to harmonize the naming convention, not only within
the Taekwon-Do clubs in Finland, but also internationally.

The technique naming scheme introduced in this study is based on the one by Banicevich (n.d.),
although some alterations were necessary based on the data, as Banicevich’s scheme did not comply
to all the data in the Encyclopedia. While the 12-attribute scheme presented in this thesis is, to my
knowledge, as comprehensive as possible, there are still some further questions of research related
to it both terminology-wise and on the technical side. For example, the type of movement (see
Section 4.5.3) is used inconsistently in the data. In some sections of the Encyclopedia the different
types of movement are presented as separate types of techniques, while in others they are shown
as being parts of the actual techniques they are performed with.
76
While this decision of classifying them as separate techniques is not a question of terminology, and
thus the decision should be done not by a terminologist but by a technical authority of the martial
art, it has an impact on the technique naming scheme. If the type of movement and the following
technique are considered separate techniques, they should not be inserted into the technique
naming scheme as one. Instead, both techniques should be presented separately. On the other
hand, if they are considered a singular technique, they fit in the technique naming scheme together.

Another point of discussion which has been only slightly touched upon in this study are the foot
techniques. The technique naming scheme is mostly built around the naming of hand techniques,
and even though it is applicable to foot techniques as well, further research focusing primarily on
the terminology of foot techniques could benefit the understanding of how the concepts relate to
each other. Foot techniques typically require significantly less attributes to distinctively name them
than hand techniques, as foot techniques are not performed in any particular stance, for example.
To illustrate this, a hand technique and a foot technique from the pattern Choong-Moo are named
as comprehensively as possible in Table 4.

Table 4. An example of the technique naming for a hand technique and a foot technique.
(applied from Choi, 1999, p. 547)
TECHNIQUE NAMING SCHEME Hand technique (Choong-Moo, #2) Foot technique (Choong-Moo, 14#)
1) Direction of stance B-bang ‘towards B’
2) Left/right stance orun ‘right’
3) Stance/flying/ground gunnun so ‘walking stance’
4) Direction of technique B-bang ‘towards B’ DF-bang ‘towards DF’
5) Attacking or blocking tool sonkal ‘knife-hand’ orun apkumchi
‘right ball of the foot’
6) Spot
7) Height nopunde ‘high’ nopunde ‘high’
8) Obverse/reverse side baro ‘obverse’
9) Technique specification ap ‘front’ dollyo ‘turning’
10) Technique type taerimyo ‘strike’ chagi ‘kick’
11) Forward/backward movement apuro ‘forward’
12) Type of movement ilbo omgyo didigi ‘single-stepping’

As is obvious from the example, hand techniques may be defined using several more attributes than
foot techniques. In addition, the convention of naming the attacking or blocking tool in foot

77
techniques is only loosely established in the Encyclopedia, as mentioned in Section 0. By developing
the terminology and technique naming scheme further for foot techniques based on this study, the
naming for them could be harmonized better.

The third possibility for further research on the terminology of Taekwon-Do could be related more
closely to the practical terminology work. Based on this study, a dictionary could be compiled
according to the concept systems presented here, with clear and unambiguous definitions given for
each concept and term. Additionally, this project could also take into account the idea presented by
Banicevich (n.d.) related to the romanization of terms in the Encyclopedia. As mentioned in Section
3.2, the Encyclopedia is inconsistent in the romanization of the Korean terms, and the spelling of
the terms even change within the book. As Banicevich mentioned, it could be interesting to
romanize these terms properly according to one of the standards commonly used for the Korean
language. These romanizations could be presented alongside the terminology, although I would
suggest not to replace the current terminology with the proper romanizations, as that would require
a major terminological upheaval within the Taekwon-Do community.

Although my original idea for this study was to analyze the translation choices done by Finnish
Taekwon-Do clubs in their study materials, it quickly developed into a broader analysis of technical
terminology. While analysis of the Finnish translations could have been beneficial for the Taekwon-
Do community in Finland, this broader, language-independent topic has a larger reach, as these
results are directly applicable wherever ITF Taekwon-Do is practiced.

As Rhee (2012, p. 83) says, the sheer amount of terminology may be daunting for beginners.
Although the purpose of this study was not necessarily to create new information but to describe
more thoroughly what already exist within the martial art, I believe that my analysis of technique
naming and the technical concepts may help practitioners of ITF Taekwon-Do to understand the
logic behind the technical terminology and thus contribute to the process of learning it.

78
REFERENCES

Alberts, M. (2001). Lexicography versus terminography. In Lexikos, 11, 71–84. Retrieved from
http://lexikos.journals.ac.za/pub/article/download/840/378
Allinniemi, M. (2016). C-tason valmentajakoulutus [Level C coaching course]. Tampere: Suomen
ITF Taekwon-Do
Banicevich, M. (1995). Translation of the Chang Hon pattern set into Taekwon-Do terminology in
Korean. Retrieved from http://members.itkd.co.nz/reference/essays/6-korean-dictionary.php
Bos, W., Marano, H. & Trajtenberg, P. (2015). The art of Taekwon-Do ITF (3rd ed.). San Jose: Morris
Martial Arts.
Cabré, M. T. & Sager, J. C. (1999). Terminology: Theory, methods, and applications. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chapyglin, S. A. & Lotte, D. S. (1937). Terminologiya svarki metallov [Terminology of welding
metals]. Moscow: USSR Publ.
Choi, H. H. (1985). Encyclopedia of Taekwon-Do (Vols. 1–15). Vienna: International Taekwon-Do
Federation.
Choi, H. H. (1991). Taekwon-Do: The Korean art of self-defence (2nd ed.). Vienna: International
Taekwon-Do Federation.
Choi, H. H. (1999). Taekwon-Do: The Korean art of self-defence (5th ed.). Vienna: International
Taekwon-Do Federation.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Drodz, L. (1981). Science terminologique: objet et méthode [Terminology science: object and
method]. In G. Rondeau & H. Felber (Ed.), Textes choisis de terminologie: I Fondements
théoretiques de la terminologie [Select texts on terminology: Theoretical foundations of
terminology] (pp. 31–115). Quebec: Girsterm.
FreeMind Wiki. (2016). FreeMind. Retrieved from
http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Gillis, A. (2016). A killing art: The untold history of Tae Kwon Do, updated and revised. Montreal:
ECW Press.
Grygiel, L. (2016). The path to black belt: Colour belt patterns, theory and fundamental tehcniques.
Czestochowa: Black Belt Publishing.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and
meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
International Taekwon-Do Federation. (n.d.). Our history. Retrieved from
http://www.taekwondoitf.org/our-history/

79
Jones, B. J. & Rhie, G. S. (1995). NTC’s compact Korean and English dictionary. Linconlwood, IL:
National Textbook Company.
Kärki, A., Sarkkinen, A. & Heloterä, J. (Eds.). (2018). Tampereen Taekwon-Do seura: Pruju [Tampere
Taekwon-Do Club: Study material]. Tampere: Tampereen Taekwon-Do seura ry.
Lee, I. & Ramsey, S. R. (2000). The Korean language. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Meyour, T. (2014). Taekwon-Do from White Belt to Black Belt. Tampere: Black Eagle Taekwon-Do.
Nuopponen, A. (1999). Mihin terminologian teoriaa ja menetelmiä voidaan hyödyntää [How the
theory and methodology of terminology can be applied?]. In K. Kuhmonen (Ed.), Toimikunnista
termitalkoisiin: 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantutemusta (pp. 91–98). Helsinki: Tekniikan
Sanastokeskus.
Nuopponen, A. (2003). Käsiteanalyysi asiantuntijan työvälineenä [Concept analysis as a tool for a
professional]. In M. Koskela & N. Pilke (Eds.), Kieli ja asiantuntijuus. AFinLA-vuosikirja. (pp. 13–
24). Jyväskylä: Suomen soveltavan kielitieteen yhdistys.
Nuopponen, A. (2004). Teetä ja terminologiaa [Tea and terminology]. In M. Koskela & N. Pilke
(Eds.), Erikoiskielet ja käännösteoria. VAKKI-symposiumi XXIV. (pp. 222–232). Vaasa: Vaasan
yliopisto.
Nuopponen, A. (2010). Methods of concept analysis – towards systematic concept analysis (Part 2
of 3). LSP Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2 (pp. 5–14). Retrieved from
https://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/lspcog/article/view/3092/3275
Nuopponen, A., & Pilke, N. (2010). Ordning och reda: terminologilära i teori och praktik
[Terminology science in theory and practice]. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Nykänen, O. (1999a). Kuinka piirrän käsitejärjestelmän? [How to draw concept systems?]. In K.
Kuhmonen (Ed.), Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin: 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta (pp.
16-28). Helsinki: Tekniikan Sanastokeskus.
Nykänen, O. (1999b). Sanastoprojektin vaiheet [The phases of a terminology project]. In K.
Kuhmonen (Ed.), Toimikunnista termitalkoisiin: 25 vuotta sanastotyön asiantuntemusta (pp.
62–71). Helsinki: Tekniikan sanastokeskus.
Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1985). The meaning of meaning. London: Ark Paperbacks.
Oprea, I. (2014). Animal science lexicon structure. In Scientific papers: series D, animal science - the
international session of scientific communications of the faculty of animal science, 42 (pp.
204–207). Retrieved from http://animalsciencejournal.usamv.ro/
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Puttonen, E. (2000). Terminology in the pensions field: a translation-oriented terminological study
of Finnish and UK pension terms. Helsinki: The Central pension security institute.
Puusa, A. (2008). Käsiteanalyysi tutkimusmenetelmänä [Concept analysis as a research method].
Premissi, 4 (pp. 36–43). Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/3310906/Kasiteanalyysi_tutkimusmenetelmana
Rhee, K. H. (2012). This is Taekwon-Do. [Book and DVD] (n.p.): Media Insight.

80
Rhee, K. H. [This Is Taekwon-Do]. (2013, November 30). FGMR FRIDAY ANSWER! FGMR FRIDAY
ANSWER! [Facebook status update]. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/ThisIsTKD/photos/a.361103687271937.75947.350924624956510
/603243196391317/?type=3
Rhee, K. H. [This Is Taekwon-Do]. (2014a, August 30). FGMR FRIDAY ANSWER! FGMR FRIDAY
ANSWER! [Facebook status update]. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/ThisIsTKD/photos/a.361103687271937.75947.350924624956510
/746220032093632/?type=3
Rhee, K. H. [This Is Taekwon-Do]. (2014b, October 11). FGMR FRIDAY ANSWER! FGMR FRIDAY
ANSWER! [Facebook status update]. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/ThisIsTKD/photos/a.361103687271937.75947.350924624956510
/767089236673378/?type=3
Rizzo, C. & Perez A. (2010). Building new meanings in technical English from the perspective of the
lexical constellation model. In Iberica, 20, 107–125. Retrieved from
http://www.aelfe.org/?s=revista&veure=20
Sanastokeskus TSK ry. (2006). Terminologian sanasto [Terminology of terminology]. Helsinki:
Sanastokeskus TSK ry.
Taekwon-Do Akatemia. (n.d.). Teoriapankki [Theory database]. Retrieved from http://www.tkd-
akatemia.fi/ladattavat-tiedostot/
Tekniikan sanastokeskus r.y. (1988). Sanastotyön käsikirja: Soveltavan terminologian periaatteet ja
työmenetelmät [Handbook of dictionary work: The principles and methods of applied
terminology]. Helsinki: Suomen Standardisoimisliitto SFS r.y.
Wilson, J. (1969). Thinking with concepts (Repr. ed.). Cambridge: Univ. Press.
World Taekwondo. (2017). WTF rebrands to World Taekwondo. Retrieved from
http://www.worldtaekwondo.org/wtf-rebrands-to-world-taekwondo/
Wüster, E. (1931). Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik, besonders in der Elektrotechnik
[International language norms in technology, specifically in electrical technology]. Berlin:
VDI-Verl.

81
APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Concept system: Stances.

82
Appendix 2. Concept system: Attacking and blocking tools.

(1/3) Hand parts

83
(2/3) Foot parts

84
(3/3) Miscellaneous parts

85
Appendix 3. Concept system: Technique types.

86
Appendix 4. Concept system: Technique specifications.

(1/5) Relative position of the tool

(2/5) Relative direction of the movement

87
(3/5) Shape or orientation of the tool

(4/5) Purpose of the technique

88
89
(5/5) Combination specifications

90
Appendix 5. Concept systems for other attributes.

(1/7) Direction diagram

(2/7) Left/right stance

91
(3/7) Obverse/reverse side

(4/7) Height

(5/7) Type of movement

92
(6/7) Forward / backward movement

(7/7) Movement rhythm

93