17세기 러시아어와 유럽어의 교차점: Grammatica Russica(1696)에 대한 대조언어학적 분석

Abstract

This study explores the linguistic intersections between Russian and European languages in the late 17th century through an analysis of the dialogue texts in Heinrich Wilhelm Ludolf’s Grammatica Russica (1696). The research illuminates the processes of cultural communication and the formation of mutual perceptions between Russia and Europe during the early modern transition period. The tripartite juxtaposition of Russian, Latin, and German in Grammatica Russica reflects the complex linguistic landscape of late 17th century Europe. Each language serves a distinct function: Russian as the target language reflecting contemporary spoken language, Latin as a meta-language providing a systematic framework for explanation and serving as a universal scholarly medium, and German as a bridge for learners less proficient in Latin. This linguistic structure offers valuable insights into the language policies and knowledge dissemination mechanisms of the period. Analysis of the dialogue texts demonstrates Ludolf’s integration of the traditional colloquia approach with contemporary linguistic and cultural demands. His method includes a systematic presentation of Russian structural characteristics, particularly the prepositional system, and comprehensive coverage of daily life aspects, aiming for integrated language and culture learning. Ludolf’s translation strategies, primarily based on cultural correspondence but also employing direct equivalence and explanatory approaches, reflect an awareness of the complexities in interlingual communication. However, they also reveal the limitations of a central European perspective in understanding peripheral European languages, particularly evident in the translation of proper nouns, everyday vocabulary, and idiomatic expressions, where cultural nuances are often lost or oversimplified. Grammatica Russica transcends its role as a mere language textbook, functioning as a medium for intercultural communication. It provides a case study of ‘cultural translation’ between Russia and Europe, offering valuable insights into the mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and cultural exchange of the period. This suggests that language education can aim beyond mere communication skills to promote deeper cultural understanding. In conclusion, this analysis illuminates the intricate interplay between central and peripheral European languages, reflecting cultural power relations and knowledge transmission mechanisms. It demonstrates how language serves as a medium for the formation, transmission, and transformation of cultural identity. This study deepens our understanding of linguistic contact and cultural exchange in the early modern period, offering reflections pertinent to contemporary language education and intercultural communication.