The linguistic thought of Friedrich August Wolf

2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 35-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dag Haug

Summary This paper examines the linguistic thought of Friedrich August Wolf (1759–1824), the founder of modern classical philology, and tries to show that contrary to what is commonly assumed, grammar played an important role in his research program for a ‘science of antiquity’. Specifically, Wolf encouraged the study of philosophical grammar, which was the leading linguistic paradigm in Germany around 1800, and he developed an original theory of tense within this methodological framework. But philosophical grammar would appear obsolete soon after the establishment of historical-comparative linguistics and this, it is argued, is an important reason for the enmities in the first half of the 19th century between Indo-Europeanists and the Classical scholars who stayed within the old linguistic paradigm.

2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 35-60
Author(s):  
Dag T. Haug

This paper examines the linguistic thought of Friedrich August Wolf (1759–1824), the founder of modern classical philology, and tries to show that contrary to what is commonly assumed, grammar played an important role in his research program for a ‘science of antiquity’. Specifically, Wolf encouraged the study of philosophical grammar, which was the leading linguistic paradigm in Germany around 1800, and he developed an original theory of tense within this methodological framework. But philosophical grammar would appear obsolete soon after the establishment of historical-comparative linguistics and this, it is argued, is an important reason for the enmities in the first half of the 19th century between Indo-Europeanists and the Classical scholars who stayed within the old linguistic paradigm.


1988 ◽  
Vol 15 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 155-185
Author(s):  
Lodewijk van Driel

Summary In this paper an attempt has been made to draw a picture of linguistics in the Netherlands during the 19th century. The aim of this survey is to make clear that the influence of German linguistics on Dutch works of the period is characteristic of the development of Dutch linguistics in that century. Emphasis has been placed on the period 1800–1870; three traditions are distinguished: First of all there is the tradition of prescriptive grammar and language instruction. Next attention is drawn to the tradition of historical-comparative linguistics. Finally, by about the middle of the century, the linguistic views of German representatives of general grammar become prominent in Dutch school grammars. Successively we point to the reception by the schoolmasters of K. F. Becker’s (1775–1849) work; then Taco Roorda (1801–1874) is discussed, and the relationship between L. A. te Winkel (1809–1868) and H. Steinthal (1823–1899) is presented. In conjunction with Roorda’s work on Javanese the analysis of the so-called exotic languages is mentioned, an aspect of Dutch linguistics in the 19th century closely connected with the Dutch East Indies. It is obvious that the German theme is one of the most conspicuous common elements in 19th-century Dutch linguistics, as Dutch intellectuals in many respects took German culture as a model.


Author(s):  
James McElvenny

The German sinologist and general linguist Georg von der Gabelentz (1840–1893) occupies an interesting place at the intersection of several streams of linguistic scholarship at the end of the 19th century. As Professor of East Asian languages at the University of Leipzig from 1878 to 1889 and then Professor for Sinology and General Linguistics at the University of Berlin from 1889 until his death, Gabelentz was present at some of the main centers of linguistics at the time. He was, however, generally critical of mainstream historical-comparative linguistics as propagated by the neogrammarians, and instead emphasized approaches to language inspired by a line of researchers including Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), H. Steinthal (1823–1899), and his own father, Hans Conon von der Gabelentz (1807–1874). Today Gabelentz is chiefly remembered for several theoretical and methodological innovations which continue to play a role in linguistics. Most significant among these are his contributions to cross-linguistic syntactic comparison and typology, grammar-writing, and grammaticalization. His earliest linguistic work emphasized the importance of syntax as a core part of grammar and sought to establish a framework for the cross-linguistic description of word order, as had already been attempted for morphology by other scholars. The importance he attached to syntax was motivated by his engagement with Classical Chinese, a language almost devoid of morphology and highly reliant on syntax. In describing this language in his 1881 Chinesische Grammatik, Gabelentz elaborated and implemented the complementary “analytic” and “synthetic” systems of grammar, an approach to grammar-writing that continues to serve as a point of reference up to the present day. In his summary of contemporary thought on the nature of grammatical change in language, he became one of the first linguists to formulate the principles of grammaticalization in essentially the form that this phenomenon is studied today, although he did not use the current term. One key term of modern linguistics that he did employ, however, is “typology,” a term that he in fact coined. Gabelentz’s typology was a development on various contemporary strands of thought, including his own comparative syntax, and is widely acknowledged as a direct precursor of the present-day field. Gabelentz is a significant transitional figure from the 19th to the 20th century. On the one hand, his work seems very modern. Beyond his contributions to grammaticalization avant la lettre and his christening of typology, his conception of language prefigures the structuralist revolution of the early 20th century in important respects. On the other hand, he continues to entertain several preoccupations of the 19th century—in particular the judgment of the relative value of different languages—which were progressively banished from linguistics in the first decades of the 20th century.


1979 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. M. Berezin

Summary The article attempts to demonstrate how problems in general and historical-comparative linguistics were worked out and developed during the 19th century in Russia. Largely following the tradition established by 18th-century Russian scholars, especially M. V. Lomonosov (1711–65), who is regarded as the founder of Russian linguistics, 19th-century linguists displayed a lively interest in investigating the social nature of language. Other key interests of these scholars were the study of the systematic character of language, the development of the phonemic principle (including the distinctive feature concept), the typological study of related and unrelated languages, etc. It is shown that their work generally mirrored the intellectual trends of their period, with biologistic views giving way to sociological and psychological ones, as is evident in the work of N. I. Greč, A. X. Vostokov, A. A. Potebnja, J. Baudouin de Courtenay, F. F. Fortuna-tov, and many others. The intellectual climate of 19th-century Europe allowed for a free exchange of scientific information; thus, in its earlier stages, the Russian scientific scene was sometimes influenced by ideas from the West, whereas it can be said that Russian scholars working in linguistics paid back toward the end of the 19th and in the earlier 20th centuries by furthering research leading to a structural concept of language, the study of morphophonology, typology and language universals as is evident in the theories advanced by members of the Prague and Copenhagen schools.


1997 ◽  
Vol 24 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 115-138
Author(s):  
Marina Maquieira

Summary This paper examines a treatise on Spanish grammar, i.e., a particular grammar which follows the tradition of French philosophical grammar. Bachiller D. Antonio Martínez de Noboa’s work, published in 1839, appears in a century when the Spanish grammatical tradition is at its best. Texts like Vicente Salvá’s (1786–1849) and of course Andrés Bello’s (1781–1865) have in recent years attracted the attention of researchers. However, Martínez de Noboa’s work is much less known, although Gómez Asencio (1981, 1985) did highlight its importance in his two indispensable studies of the period between 1771 and 1847. The Nueva Gramática de la lengua Castellana is indebted to the framework set by José Gómez de Hermosilla (1835) and Jacobo Saqueniza (1828), although it does include some original observations. This paper examines the structure of the work in question and aims to show how it is in global terms a unified text combining different aspects, of which the most striking is without doubt the syntactic one. With this aim in mind certain specific examples of the analogy pertaining to syntax have been studied. First those he himself highlighted, e.g., the article/pronoun and verb and then those comments on syntax which are logically pertinent, e.g., conjunctions. Noboa himself was cited as was Saqueniza as having been responsible for the introduction of distinction between coordinate and subordinate conjunctions in Spanish grammar, along with the distinction between simple and complex clauses. On the purely syntactic level, it was also Noboa who refined the whole notion of verbal government. Finally, there is a brief summary of the section dedicated to pronunciation and spelling which are also considered by the author to be in some way related to the other parts of the grammar. In sum, what makes this work particularly interesting is undoubtedly the emphasis on syntax as more studies had been carried out on morphology than in any other area up until the 19th century and continued after Noboa to monopolise questions concerning grammar throughout this century.


1988 ◽  
Vol 15 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 207-238
Author(s):  
Jan Noordegraaf

Summary In the last two decades of the 19th century the Dutch linguist Jan Marius Hoogvliet (1860–1924) developed an individual approach to non-historical linguistics, in which he sought to take expressly into account data from non-Indo- European languages. His linguistic views prompted him to attack the ideas of the proponents of the ‘world language’ Volapük, which was popular in the Netherlands in the 1880s. In 1903 his major work, Lingua, appeared. This book can aptly be characterized as a specimen of a universal grammar with psychological underpinnings; it was intended as a grammar for all languages in the world. Hoogvliet’s main opponent, Jacobus van Ginneken (1877–1945) considered Lingua ‘a good book’, but he found various serious shortcomings in it. First, he thought the empirical bases too narrow; second, whereas Hoogvliet had based his thinking on rational psychology, van Ginneken preferred pathological psychology as put forward by Pierre Janet (1859–1947) in his L’automatisme psychologique (1889). Van Ginneken’s Principes de linguistique psychologique (1907) can be regarded as an elaboration on his Lingua review from 1903. However, the works of Hoogvliet and van Ginneken do have several points in common: both start from the psyche of the speaking individual and both take into account data from non-Indo-European languages. The controversy that arose between them can be traced back to their different views of language. Hoogvliet considered an unconscious and invariable ‘Normallogik’ to be the kernel of language, whereas van Ginneken regarded feeling as the innermost essence of language. While van Ginneken still tried to incorporate the results of German historical comparative grammar into a grand, historically coloured synthesis, Hoogvliet’s writings were characterized by very sharp anti-German tones. The universal, logical classification of the parts of speech expounded in Lingua must be regarded as a direct reaction to Hermann Paul’s (1846–1921) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (1880). Moreover, Hoogvliet defended the scientific character of a non-historical approach of language against Paul. With that he is the most remarkable Dutch synchronic linguist of the last quarter of the 19th century. Hoogvliet’s theory, however, was highly idiosyncratic and many a reader was also repelled by his new and unconventional terminology. Only few linguists, among whom the Dutch structuralist Hendrik J. Pos (1898–1955), have studied Hoogvliet’s views thoroughly later on.


Virittäjä ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 125 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jussi Ylikoski

Artikkeli tarkastelee yhtäältä 125 vuotta täyttävän aikakauslehti Virittäjän historiaa fennougristiikan valossa, toisaalta fennougristiikan historiaa Virittäjän valossa. Päähuomio on erityisesti suomen etäsukukielten tutkimuksessa. Virittäjässäkin fennougristiikkaa ovat tyypillisimmin edustaneet konkreettiset pyrkimykset suomen ja sen sukukielten menneisyyden valaisemiseksi: keskiössä ovat olleet toisiinsa kietoutuneet etymologia ja äännehistoria sekä niiden kehyksiksi hahmotellut kantakielet eri vaiheineen ja kontaktikielineen. Tämän fennougristiikan kovan ytimen lisäksi Virittäjässä ovat kuitenkin aina olleet näkyvissä myös tieteenalan suuremmat kehykset: yhtäältä pohdinnat siitä, miksi ja miten tällaista tutkimusta harjoitetaan, toisaalta halu kertoa fennougristisen tutkimuksen tuloksista myös suurelle yleisölle. Erityisesti Suomi ja täällä etenkin Virittäjä ovat ympäristöjä, joissa suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten tutkijat ovat kerta toisensa jälkeen eksplisiittisesti pohtineet olemassaolonsa tarkoitusta. Vaikka ala mielletään usein kielihistorian tutkimukseksi, fennougristit ovat aina harjoittaneet myös synkronista kielentutkimusta; myös suomen sukukielten uhan­alaisuuteen ja vähemmistökielten puhujien oikeuksiin on kiinnitetty huomiota jo 1800-luvulta lähtien. Artikkeli keskittyy lähinnä Virittäjän ensimmäiselle vuosisadalle, mutta 2020-luvulle tultaessa fennougristiikka ja sen ilmenemismuodot Virittäjässä ovat muuttuneet lehden yleisilmeeseen verrattuna suhteellisen vähän. On the history of Uralic linguistics in Virittäjä The article provides an account of Virittäjä, the major journal of Finnish linguistics established in 1897, and its relation to the study of Uralic languages during the first 125 years of the journal’s history. At its most typical, the study of Uralic languages has been a branch of historical-comparative linguistics aiming to pursue the distant past of Finnish and other Uralic languages: etymology, historical phonology, questions of proto-languages and their chronology and geography as well as language contacts. Beyond this hard core of Uralic linguistics, Virittäjä has continuously provided a forum for discussing the larger frameworks of the discipline: questions of why and how Uralic linguistics is conducted in the first place. Virittäjä has also provided a forum for Uralicists to communicate the results of their research to scholars of Finnish and the wider general public. Moreover, Finland in general and Virittäjä in particular have traditionally been places where Uralicists have pondered and discussed the purpose of their own existence. In addition to historical linguistics, Uralicists have also engaged in synchronic linguistics, and from as early as the 19th century they have also paid attention to language endangerment and the linguistic rights of minorities. This article focuses mainly on the first century of Virittäjä’s history, though by the 2020s Uralistics and the manifestations of the discipline in the pages of Virittäjä have remained largely unchanged.


2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 133-152
Author(s):  
James McElvenny

Summary Towards the end of his career, August Schleicher (1821–1868), the great consolidator of Indo-European historical-comparative linguistics in the mid-19th century, famously drew explicit parallels between linguistics and the new evolutionary theory of Darwinism. Based on this, it has become customary in linguistic historiography to refer to Schleicher’s ‘Darwinian’ theory of language, even though it has long been established that Schleicher’s views have other origins that pre-date his contact with Darwinism. For his contemporary critics in Germany, however, Schleicher’s thinking was an example not of Darwinism but of ‘materialism’. This article examines what ‘materialism’ meant in 19th-century Germany – its philosophical as well as its political dimensions – and looks at why Schleicher’s critics applied this label to him. It analyses the relevant aspects of Schleicher’s linguistics and philosophy of science and the criticisms directed against them by H. Steinthal (1823–1899). It then discusses the contemporary movement of scientific materialism and shows how Schleicher’s political views, social background and personal experiences bound him to this movement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document