Innere Sprachform

Author(s):  
Clemens Knobloch
Keyword(s):  

Zusammenfassung Der von Wilhelm von Humboldt geprägte und von Heymann Steinthal Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts propagierte Begriff der Inneren Sprachform hat eine bewegte und von Diskontinuitäten geprägte Geschichte und eine äußerst vage und plastische Bedeutung. Der Text rekonstruiert einige Stationen dieser Begriffsgeschichte, mit Blick auf deren Brüche und Richtungswechsel. Besonderes Augenmerk gilt der Rezeption und der heuristischen Weiterentwicklung des Begriffs in den USA. Kontrastiert wird die US-Rezeption (in Sprachpsychologie, Spracherwerbsforschung und Ethnolinguistik) mit der zeitgleichen ideologischen Verwendung des Ausdrucks in der sprachnationalistischen deutschen Tradition.

1979 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-595
Author(s):  
Peter Hanns Reill
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-345
Author(s):  
Hubert Markl

The reason why I wavered a bit with this topic is that, after all, it has to do with Darwin, after a great Darwin year, as seen by a German scientist. Not that Darwin was very adept in German: Gregor Mendel’s ‘Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden’ (Experiments on Plant Hybrids) was said to have stayed uncut and probably unread on his shelf, which is why he never got it right with heredity in his life – only Gregory Bateson, Ronald A. Fisher, and JBS Haldane, together with Sewall Wright merged evolution with genetics. But Darwin taught us, nevertheless, in essence why the single human species shows such tremendous ethnic diversity, which impresses us above all through a diversity of languages – up to 7000 altogether – and among them, as a consequence, also German, my mother tongue, and English. It would thus have been a truly Darwinian message, if I had written this article in German. I would have called that the discommunication function of the many different languages in humans, which would have been a most significant message of cultural evolution, indeed. I finally decided to overcome the desire to demonstrate so bluntly what cultural evolution is all about, or rather to show that nowadays, with global cultural progress, ‘the world is flat’ indeed – even linguistically. The real sign of its ‘flatness’ is that English is used everywhere, even if Thomas L. Friedman may not have noticed this sign. But I will also come back to that later, when I hope to show how Darwinian principles connect both natural and cultural evolution, and how they first have been widely misunderstood as to their true meaning, and then have been terribly misused – although more so by culturalists, or some self-proclaimed ‘humanists’, rather than by biologists – or at least most of them. Let me, however, quickly add a remark on human languages. That languages even influence our brains and our thinking, that is: how we see the world, has first been remarked upon by Wilhelm von Humboldt and later, more extensively so, by Benjamin Whorf. It has recently been shown by neural imaging – for instance by Angela Friederici – that one’s native language, first as learned from one’s mother and from those around us when we are babies, later from one’s community of speakers, can deeply impinge on a baby’s brain development and stay imprinted in it throughout life, even if language is, of course, learned and not fully genetically preformed. This shows once more how deep the biological roots are that ground our cultures, according to truly Darwinian principles, even if these cultures are completely learned.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-109
Author(s):  
Reinhold Münster
Keyword(s):  

boundary 2 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-34
Author(s):  
David Golumbia

The history of philology provides an exceptionally rich vein for locating what Derrida came to call deconstructions: nodes or pseudo-events in the development of discourse where it appears that foundations collapse, only to be rebuilt in forms that may or may not have changed. The history of philology engages language, the sciences (especially evolutionary biology), and race, all of which are evidenced in the work of the German philologist Wilhelm von Humboldt. The relationships among these discourses have been repeatedly subject to deconstruction, sometimes so as to enhance appreciation of human diversity, and at other times against it. Understanding the history of philology is critical to understanding our present, but there remains significant work to do to reconstruct its liberatory aspects in the service of a more egalitarian future.


1990 ◽  
Vol 17 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 111-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. F. Konrad Koerner

Summary Noam Chomsky’s frequent references to the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt during the 1960s produced a considerable revival of interest in this 19th-century scholar in North America. This paper demonstrates that there has been a long-standing influence of Humboldt’s ideas on American linguistics and that no ‘rediscovery’ was required. Although Humboldt’s first contacts with North-American scholars goes back to 1803, the present paper is confined to the posthumous phase of his influence which begins with the work of Heymann Steinthal (1823–1899) from about 1850 onwards. This was also a time when many young Americans went to Germany to complete their education; for instance William Dwight Whitney (1827–1894) spent several years at the universities of Tübingen and Berlin (1850–1854), and in his writings on general linguistics one can trace Humboldtian ideas. In 1885 Daniel G. Brinton (1837–1899) published an English translation of a manuscript by Humboldt on the structure of the verb in Amerindian languages. A year later Franz Boas (1858–1942) arrived from Berlin soon to establish himself as the foremost anthropologist with a strong interest in native language and culture. From then on we encounter Humboldtian ideas in the work of a number of North American anthropological linguists, most notably in the work of Edward Sapir (1884–1939). This is not only true with regard to matters of language classification and typology but also with regard to the philosophy of language, specifically, the relationship between a particular language structure and the kind of thinking it reflects or determines on the part of its speakers. Humboldtian ideas of ‘linguistic relativity’, enunciated in the writings of Whitney, Brinton, Boas, and others, were subsequently developed further by Sapir’s student Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–1941). The transmission of the so-called Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis – which still today is attracting interest among cultural anthropologists and social psychologists, not only in North America – is the focus of the remainder of the paper. A general Humboldtian approach to language and culture, it is argued, is still present in the work of Dell Hymes and several of his students.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Alves
Keyword(s):  

El objetivo de este texto derivado de una investigación en curso es proponer una reflexión sobre el futuro de la universidad, a partir de la problematización del impacto de la racionalidad neoliberal en las formas de producción del conocimiento y de organización de la vida académica. Para desarrollar este análisis, se reconstruyen brevemente las principales transformaciones de la universidad moderna desde su advenimiento con la fundación de la Universidad de Berlín por Wilhelm von Humboldt, en 1810, quien creó el modelo de la universidad de investigación, hasta la emergencia del modelo de la universidad neoliberal. El propósito del artículo es destacar las racionalidades que orientan la transformación de la universidad a lo largo del tiempo. Con ese análisis histórico se intenta demostrar que ningún modelo puede ser considerado natural, absoluto, inevitable, innegociable y que la universidad como institución está habitada por una mezcla de racionalidades contradictorias. Para concluir, se usa un ensayo de Derrida (2001) para mostrar que la adopción no contestada del modelo neoliberal puede destruir la autonomía en la investigación y enseñanza que hasta hoy caracterizó a la universidad moderna, y compromete su misión en el futuro.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document