‘표준어’와 ‘문학어’의 경계 : 용어 литературный язык에 대한 소고
Boundary between 'Standard Language' and 'Literary Language': A Review on term literaturnyi yazyk
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Languages across the world have a diverse range of terms corresponding with Korean '표준어(standard language)'. A typical term representing this concept in Russia is литературный язык(ЛЯ). This study, which traced the background of how ЛЯ firmly established itself in the Russian language and compared it with our 'standard language', sought to identify the unique nature of ЛЯ. First of all, if we look at how ЛЯ and 'standard language' emerged, we can find that two terms have different linguistic orientations from the beginning. Concept of Korean term contains orientation towards the linguistic demand of the period (early 20th Century) - in pursuit of normalization and standardization of the language. On the contrary, what played an important role in making ЛЯ accepted as a universal term in Russia was demand for literariness of language and recognition of close correlation between language and literature. ЛЯ, which emerged for the first time in the mid-19th Century, meant 'literary language(language of literature)' from the very beginning and is still maintaining a strong association with 'literary language'. Another difference between ЛЯ and 'standard language' is that while the former is a diachronic concept, the latter is a synchronic one. Korean 'standard language' has not been experiencing a great conceptual change from its initial emergence to date, but ЛЯ was not so. 'Standard language', a concept based on the unity of language, has been deemed from the beginning as a concept opposed to dialects and still people think 'Standard language is equal to language of Seoulites'. On the other hand, ЛЯ is a concept that has been changing across the history. ЛЯ meant 'literary language' in the mid-19th Century when it first emerged and relatively many people still understand 'ЛЯ is equal to literary language'. Compared with old Russian language backdated, ЛЯ is never a term corresponding with Korean 'standard language'. In this period when written language and spoken language were completely divided and Church Slavonic established its strong position as written language, ЛЯ was no more than Church Slavonic as well as written language.
Abstract
Languages across the world have a diverse range of terms corresponding with Korean '표준어(standard language)'. A typical term representing this concept in Russia is литературный язык(ЛЯ). This study, which traced the background of how ЛЯ firmly established itself in the Russian language and compared it with our 'standard language', sought to identify the unique nature of ЛЯ. First of all, if we look at how ЛЯ and 'standard language' emerged, we can find that two terms have different linguistic orientations from the beginning. Concept of Korean term contains orientation towards the linguistic demand of the period (early 20th Century) - in pursuit of normalization and standardization of the language. On the contrary, what played an important role in making ЛЯ accepted as a universal term in Russia was demand for literariness of language and recognition of close correlation between language and literature. ЛЯ, which emerged for the first time in the mid-19th Century, meant 'literary language(language of literature)' from the very beginning and is still maintaining a strong association with 'literary language'. Another difference between ЛЯ and 'standard language' is that while the former is a diachronic concept, the latter is a synchronic one. Korean 'standard language' has not been experiencing a great conceptual change from its initial emergence to date, but ЛЯ was not so. 'Standard language', a concept based on the unity of language, has been deemed from the beginning as a concept opposed to dialects and still people think 'Standard language is equal to language of Seoulites'. On the other hand, ЛЯ is a concept that has been changing across the history. ЛЯ meant 'literary language' in the mid-19th Century when it first emerged and relatively many people still understand 'ЛЯ is equal to literary language'. Compared with old Russian language backdated, ЛЯ is never a term corresponding with Korean 'standard language'. In this period when written language and spoken language were completely divided and Church Slavonic established its strong position as written language, ЛЯ was no more than Church Slavonic as well as written language.
참고문헌 (41)
- 강덕수, "18세기 러시아 문학어 발달 유형에 관한 고찰", 슬라브학보, 1(1), pp.1~25 (1986)
- 김용화, "러시아어 발전사에서 표준어의 규범화: 변이형의 평가, 선택, 고착", 러시아어문학연구논집, (50), pp.261~287 (2015), 한국러시아문학회[DOI]
- 김진규, "고대러시아 문학어의 어휘 연구와 пчела", 러시아어문학연구논집, 7(1), pp.290~308 (2000)
- 문혜윤, "1930년대 어휘의 장과 문학어의 계발 - 어문운동의 맥락과 『문장강화』의 지향", 상허학보, 17, pp.201~234 (2006), 상허학회
- 박영희, "朝鮮語와 朝鮮文學", 한글, 3(2), pp.195~198 (1935)
- 박춘은, "현대 러시아어의 존재형태", 슬라브학보, 13(2), pp.291~310 (1998)
- 여태천, "1930년대 어문운동과 조선문학의 가능성", 어문논집, 0(56), pp.263~296 (2007), 민족어문학회
- 이태준, "新春創作界槪觀 간단한 讀後感", 조선중앙일보, ~ (1936)
- 정승철, "일제강점기의 언어 정책 - ‘언문철자법’을 중심으로 -", 진단학보, (100), pp.221~262 (2005), 진단학회
- 조태린, "‘국어’라는 용어에 대한 비판적 고찰", 國語學, (48), pp.363~394 (2006), 국어학회
- 최경봉, "일제강점기 조선어학회 활동의 역사적 의미", 민족문학사연구, (31), pp.408~434 (2006), 민족문학사연구소
- 한결, "조선말과 글에 바루 잡을 것", 동광, 5, pp.45~55 (1926)
- "한글 맞춤법 통일안 全文", 한글, 10, pp.578~579 (1934)
- 홍효민, "朝鮮語文運動과 朝鮮文學: ‘査定한 朝鮮語 標準말 모음’을 보고", 한글, 5(2), pp.16~19 (1937)
- Белинский В.Г., "Собрание сочинений в трех томах" (1948), ОГИЗГослитиздат
- Биржакова Е.Э., "Очерки по историческойлексикологии русского языка ХVIII века" (1972), Наука
- Брозович Д., "Славянские стандартные языки и сравнительный метод", Вопросы языкознания, (1), pp.3~33 (1967)
- Будагов Р.А., "Что такое развитие и совершенствование языка? 2-е изд. доп" (2004), Добросвет
- Виноградов В.В., "Славянскиелитературные языки в донациональный период" (1969), Наука
- Горшков А.И., "История русского литературного языка. 3-е изд" (1965), Высшая школа
- Горшков А.И., "Литературный язык и литература (статьи по истории итеории литературного языка)" (2007), Издательство Литературногоинститута им. А. М. Горького
- Грот Я.К., "Карамзин в истории русского литературного языка" (1867), печ. В. Головина
- Давыдов И.И., "ИзвестияИмператорской Академии Наук по Отделению русского языка исловесности. Вып.5", pp.207~233 (1852)
- Даль В.И., "Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. 2-ое изд. Т.2" (1881), Издание книгопродавца-типографа М.О.Вольфа
- Исаченко А.В., "Вопросы теории и истории языка: сборник статей, посвящ. памятиБ. А. Ларина", pp.149~158 (1963), Изд-во ЛГУ
- Карамзин Н.М., "Избранные сочинения в двух томах. Т.2", pp.183~187 (1964), Художественнаялитература
- Лазуткина Е.М., (2013), Вест-Консалтинг
- Лотман Ю.М., "История и типология русскойкультуры", pp.446~538 (2002), Искусство-СПБ
- Макаров П.И., "Критика на книгу под названием «Рассуждение о старом и новом слоге российского языка», напечатанную вПетербурге 1803 года", Московский Меркурий, 4 (1803)
- Панов М.В., "О литературном языке", Русский язык в национальнойшколе, (1), pp.9~19 (1972)
- Поливанов Е.Д., "Родной язык в школе. Кн. 1", pp.225~235 (1927)
- "Словарь церковно-славянскаго и русскаго языка. Т.2" (1847), Императорская Академия Наук
- Соболевский А.И., "История русского литературного языка" (1980), Наука
- Толстой Н.И., "Развитиестилистических систем литературных языков народов СССР", pp.124~134 (1968), Ылым
- Томашевский Б.В., "Вопросы литературоведенияв свете трудов И. В. Сталина по языкознанию" (1951), Изд. АН СССР
- Филин Ф.П., "О структуре современного русского литературного языка", Вопросы языкознания, (2), pp.3~12 (1973)
- Черных П.Я., "Историко-этимологический словарь современного русскогоязыка" (1999), Русский язык
- Шишков А.С., "Рассуждение о старом и новом слоге российскогоязыка" (1813), В медицинской типографии
- Шишков А.С., "Собрание сочинений и переводов адмирала Шишкова. Ч.2", pp.432~435 (1824), Типография Императорской Российской Академии
- Anderson B., "민족주의의 기원과 전파" (1991), 나남
- Koester-Thoma S., "Standard, Substandard, Nonstandard", Русистика, (2), pp.15~31 (1993)