Book Review. On Language. On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species Wilhelm von Humboldt

2001 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 344-344
2001 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 598
Author(s):  
Brigitte Nerlich ◽  
Wilhelm von Humboldt ◽  
Michael Losonsky ◽  
Peter Heath

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.


Author(s):  
Derek Bickerton

This chapter discusses the singularity of human language. Although evolution is normally conceived of as a gradual process, it can produce an appearance of catastrophism where functions change or where gradual changes in two or more components impinge on one another. The fossil and archaeological records argue strongly for some such development in the case of human language. The discussion argues that language as people know it requires the conjunction of three things: an event structure derived from reciprocal altruism; the capacity to use unstructured symbolic units (protolanguage); and sufficient ‘spare’ neurones to maintain the coherence of internally generated messages in brains designed by evolution to attend primarily to the environment. These developments co-occurred only in the human species, accounting for the uniqueness of human language.


2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 145-163
Author(s):  
Jan Noordegraaf

SUMMARY The impact Ferdinand de Saussure’sCours de linguistique générale(1916) had on Dutch linguistics in the 1930s and 1940s has not yet become the object of a thorough investigation. It can be pointed out, however, that in the interwar period Dutch reactions to theCourswere of a mixed character. When one finds Saussure’s book referred to by leading Dutch linguists such as Etsko Kruisinga (1875–1944), H. J. Pos (1898–1955) and A. W. de Groot (1892–1963), the question should be asked to what extent theCourswas seen as a new and important specimen of linguistic theorizing. Moreover, it can be argued that several Dutch linguists felt themselves to be in a different linguistic tradition. Such is definitely the case with Jac. van Ginneken (1877–1945). He took part in the organization of the first international congress of linguists (1928) and the first international phonetic congress (1932). Although critical of theCours, he sympathized with the Prague approach to phonology, of which he was one of the early propagandists in Western Europe. However, he did not become a confirmed structuralist. Practising a holistic approach to language and culture he felt more affinity with the ‘Neolinguists’, and tended to revert to 19th-century thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), as some of his papers clearly show. In an intriguing posthumous essay,Het mysterie der menschelijke taal(‘The mystery of human language’, 1946), Van Ginneken acknowledged that over the years language had become a mystery to him.RÉSUMÉ La réception duCours de linguistique générale(1916) de Ferdinand de Saussure parmi les linguistes néerlandais de l’entre deux-guerres n’a toujours pas fait l’objet d’une étude approfondie. Afin de remédier à cet état de choses, nous présentons dans cet article un premier aperçu des réactions fort diverses de quelques linguistes néerlandais, nous limitant à leurs publications des années trente et quarante du siècle dernier. Afin d’expliquer cet accueil réservé auCours de linguistique généralenous montrons que plusieurs de ces linguistes ont bien plus d’affinités avec la tradition humboldtienne qu’avec le structuralisme saussurien. Ainsi, lisant les oeuvres des chefs de file comme Etsko Kruisinga (1875–1944), H. J. Pos (1898–1955) et A. W. de Groot (1892–1963), on peut se demander dans quelle mesure ces linguistes considèrent leCourscomme une oeuvre innovatrice et importante en matière de theorie linguistique. Cela vaut aussi pour Jac. van Ginneken (1877–1945), qui faisait partie du comité organisateur du Premier congrès international de linguistes (1928) ainsi que du Premier congrès international de phonétique (1932). Van Ginneken reconnaît l’importance de la phonologie de l’Ecole de Prague, et est certes parmi les premiers à la faire connaître en Europe occidentale, sans jamais pour autant devenir un structuraliste convaincu. Son approche holiste du langage et de la culture s’apparente plutôt à la tradition des ‘néolinguistes’ Dans certaines publications il tend manifestement à reprendre les idées des penseurs du XIXe siècle comme Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835). A cet égard, dans “Het mysterie der menschelijke taal” (‘Le Mystère du langage humain’), une étonnante étude posthume, Van Ginneken reconnaît qu’avec le temps le langage était devenu pour lui un mystère.ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Der Einfluß von Ferdinand de SaussuresCours de linguistique générale(1916) auf die niederländische Sprachwissenschaft in den dreißiger und vierziger Jahren wurde bisher noch nicht gründlich erforscht. Es gibt allerdings Anhaltspunkte dafür, daß die niederländischen Reaktionen auf denCoursin der Zeit zwischen den beiden Weltkriegen unterschiedlichen Charakters waren. Wenn führende niederländische Sprachwissenschaftler wie Etsko Kruisinga (1875–1944), H. J. Pos (1898–1955) und A. W. de Groot (1892–1963) auf de Saussures’ Buch verweisen, sollte man sich fragen, inwiefern derCoursals neues und wichtiges Beispiel sprachwissenschaftlichen Theoretisierens betrachtet wurde. Dem gegenüber könnte man sogar vorbringen, daß mehrere niederländische Sprachwissenschaftler in einer anderen sprachwissenschaftlichen Tradition standen. Dies ist zweifellos der Fall bei Jac. van Ginneken (1877–1945). Er beteiligte sich an der Organisation des ersten internationalen Linguistenkongresses (1928) und des ersten internationalen Phonetikkongresses (1932). Obwohl er demCourskritisch begegnete, sympathisierte er mit der Prager Phonologie, zu deren frühen Verfechtern in Westeuropa er gehörte. Zu einem überzeugten Strukturalisten wurde er allerdings nicht. Aus einem holistischen Ansatz Sprache und Kultur gegenüber fühlte er sich mehr den ‘Neolinguisten’ verwandt und neigte dazu, zu Denkern des 19. Jhs. wie Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) zurückzukehren, wie einige seiner Artikel deutlich machen. In einem faszinierenden postumen Aufsatz, “Het mysterie der menschelijke taal” (‘Das Mysterium der menschlichen Sprache’), gesteht van Ginneken ein, daß Sprache ihm im Laufe der Zeit die Sprache zu einem Mysterium geworden sei.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document