S-Space College of Humanities (인문대학) Institute for Russian, East European & Eurasian Studies (러시아문화권연구소) 러시아연구 (Russian Studies) 러시아연구 Volume 13 Number 1/2 (2003)
고대 러시아 문학의 규범성과 반성과 지향(1): 보리스와 글렙의 생애전 연작에 나타난 "수난자 공후"의 형상을 중심으로
Норwативность древнерусской литературы и рефлексия и установка(l) Об образе 'князя-страстотерпца' в борисоглебскоw цикле
- Issue Date
- 서울대학교 러시아연구소
- 러시아연구, Vol.13 No.1, pp. 41-70
- In this work, I survey mam trends of the modem linguistics in Russia with a distinction of three periods: Marrism, structuralism, and post-structuralism. With this periodic distinction, I try to expose the pistemic presupposition of each period and to reexamine the oppositions of different theoretical orientations. Also I try to explain the underlying reason why Soviet linguistics, in contrast with mathematics and physics, was easily dominated by the ideologico-theoretical tendencies. During the period of Marrism, the debates set forward by E. D. Polivanov and the group "Jazykfront" could not be rightly estimated partly for lack of an objective evaluating system within the Soviet linguistics itself and partly because of the ideologico-theoretical arbitrariness of the Stalinism. Under the "arakceevsCina", however, the rich traditions of Russian linguistics, established by the beginning of the 20th century, could be continued except the historical and compartive discipline, the theoretical foundation of which is immediately in contradiction with the Marrism. After the Marrism was rejected through the "Pravda debate" in 1950,the Soviet linguistics was reorganized under the direction of V. V.Vinogradov. This period could be characterized by its strong interest instructuralism. But it was splitted into two tendencies: formalistic approaches and unctionalistic approaches. The 1960s was a renaissance of the formalistic tendency, although some neo-Marrists, among the functionalists, tried to criticize it. After the death of V. V. Vinogradov in 1969, however, the neo-Marrists took the direction of the Soviet linguistics, and they reattacked the formalistic approaches in the 1970s. Nevertheless, the configuration of the Soviet linguistics of the 1970s provides theoretically a good perspective for its further development into the post-structuralist period. The period of post-structuralism, as enlargement of the structuralist paradigm, presents fol1owing historical changes: dissolution of the opposition between formalism and functionalism with the obsolescence of the neo-Marrism, diversification of the functionalist tendency, developments in semantics and pragmatics, rehabilitation of the <> model of 1. A. Mel’'cuk, etc. And such a diversity haracterizing the period of post-structuralism will provide a new horizon to the contemporary theoretical linguistics if this revivification of the rich traditions of functionalism and formalism in Russia lead to a systematic and appropriate synthesis.