scholarly journals Fennougristiikan historiaa Virittäjän valossa

Virittäjä ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 125 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jussi Ylikoski
Keyword(s):  
Historical Linguistics ◽  
Hard Core ◽  
First Century ◽  
Comparative Linguistics ◽  
Historical Phonology ◽  
Language Endangerment ◽  
Linguistic Rights ◽  
History Of ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
The 19Th Century

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.

The History of General and Comparative Linguistics in 19th Century Russia

1979 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. M. Berezin
Keyword(s):  
19Th Century ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Comparative Linguistics ◽  
Russian Scientific ◽  
Social Nature ◽  
Systematic Character ◽  
History Of ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
The 19Th Century

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.

The Linguistic Thought of Friedrich August Wolf: A reconsideration of the relationship between classical philology and linguistics in the 19th century

2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 35-60
Author(s):  
Dag T. Haug
Keyword(s):  
19Th Century ◽  
Research Program ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Comparative Linguistics ◽  
Classical Philology ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
And Linguistics ◽  
Philosophical Grammar

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.

Prosody and Meter: Early Modern to 19th Century

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meredith Martin
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Historical Linguistics ◽  
English Literature ◽  
Literary Study ◽  
Historical Discourse ◽  
Irish Studies ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Terminological Confusion

Both of the terms prosody and meter have shifting and contested definitions in the history of English literature. Historically, prosody was a grammatical term adopted from early translations of Greek and then Latin grammatical models, forming part of an overarching structure: orthometry, etymology, syntax, prosody. In this structure, meter was not always named, but versification covered “the measure of language” and was a subsection of prosody, after “pronunciation, utterance, figures, versification” (or some variation on these) in most 19th-century grammar books. Therefore, prosody contains within it changing approaches to the study of pronunciation and versification. In the 20th century, prosody has become synonymous in linguistics with pronunciation, and in literary study with versification. Scholars of the history of versification are legion. The versification manual or poetic forms handbook is a genre unto itself. The beginning of these books usually accounts for inadequate predecessors; consequently, many manuals are also bibliographies. Historical discourse about versification is not limited to the manual or handbook, however, and is found in studies of poetry, school textbooks, grammar books, introductions to collected works by individual poets, addendums to dictionaries, articles and reviews of poetry in periodicals and newspapers, pronunciation guides, histories of language, and studies of translation. Because the history of the study of pronunciation in English and Irish studies is so vast, this bibliography will only consider a few key texts that consider pronunciation and versification together as prosody. The development of historical linguistics in the 19th century is concurrent with the largest proliferation of studies of prosody-as-versification, and therefore is an important context for the narrative of prosody’s dual fate in the 20th century, hovering between literary study and the science of linguistics. To provide a history of even the ways that these terms themselves have shifted is outside the scope of this bibliography. As T. V. F. Brogan rightly claimed in 1981, “In studies of the structure of verse the use of terms such as poetry, verse, accent, quantity, Numbers, Measure, rhythm, meter, prosody, versification, onomatopoeia, and rhyme/rime/ryme historically and consistently has been nothing short of Pandemonium.” (Brogan 1981, p. ix, cited under Histories of Prosodic Criticism) Indeed, any modern attempt to define prosody must wrestle with the terminological confusion that Brogan narrates. Following Brogan, this bibliography will highlight the confusion without attempting to correct it. Here, I consider both prosody and versification in their widest sense to mean “verse-theory” and not solely “linguistic prosody,” and will discuss texts that have been considered “canonical” as well as texts that consider prosody in all of its historical and cultural valences.

John Wallis (1616–1703)

1974 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilinca Constantinescu
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Strong Influence ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Comparative Linguistics ◽  
Articulatory Phonetics ◽  
History Of ◽  
Special Mention ◽  
John Wallis ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Better Than

Summary Three centuries after its publication, John Wallis’ Grammatica Linguae An-glicanae (1653) is still worth the attention of the readers interested in the study of English. Considered within the context of its day, it appears as a significant contribution to the field, and indeed a work which constitutes a landmark in the history of the study of English. Its author, a remarkable mathematician looked upon as one of the most important precursors of Newton, succeeded in handling facts of the English language (both phonetics and grammar) better than any of his predecessors. His work, which illustrates the empirical approach, is important through the degree of independence attained in it from the Latin model which, at that time, still exerted a strong influence on attempts at describing the European vernaculars. In the advent of comparative linguistics in the 19th century Wallis’ grammar fell into disgrace. Even in our time scholars often repeat, with little justification, earlier criticisms of Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae – thus suggesting that Wallis’ contribution to the study of English has not always been examined in terms of the advances it represented when it was first published more than three centuries ago. When mapping out the development of linguistics in a historiography of our discipline there are two aspects in which Wallis’ grammar of English deserves special mention: when tracing the evolution of articulatory phonetics and when examining the roots of modern structural descriptivism.

The linguistic thought of Friedrich August Wolf

2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 35-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dag Haug
Keyword(s):  
19Th Century ◽  
Research Program ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Comparative Linguistics ◽  
Original Theory ◽  
Classical Philology ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Philosophical Grammar

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.

scholarly journals Synchrony, diachrony and Greenberg's state-process model: From the viewpoint of typological characterization

2008 ◽  
pp. 109-122
Author(s):  
Lásló Desző
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Comparative Linguistics ◽  
State Process ◽  
History Of ◽  
Historical Comparative

After a brief survey of the history of diachronic typology, the author focuses his attention on the typological methods applied to historical comparative linguistics. Then some basic issues of Greenberg's state-process model are examined as a possible model for diachronic typology. Morphological and word-order typology are used for the illustration of the author's statements and comments.

The monolingual approach in American linguistic fieldwork

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Thomas
Keyword(s):  
21St Century ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Direct Interaction ◽  
First Century ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Language Endangerment ◽  
Field Worker ◽  
Language Data ◽  
History Of

SummaryIn the first decades of the 20th century, fieldwork — collection of language data through direct interaction with a native speaker — was foundational to American linguistics. After a mid-century period of neglect, fieldwork has recently been revived as a means to address the increasing rate of language endangerment worldwide. Twenty-first century American fieldwork inherits some, but not all, of the traits of earlier fieldwork. This article examines the history of one controversial issue, whether a field worker should adopt a monolingual approach, learning and using the target language as a medium of exchange with native speakers, as opposed to relying on interpreters or a lingua franca. Although the monolingual approach is not widely practiced, modern proponents argue strongly for its value. The method has been popularized though ‘monolingual demonstrations’ to audiences of linguists, which, curiously, are not wholly consistent with the character of 21st-century fieldwork.

19th-century linguistics

1988 ◽  
Vol 15 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 155-185
Author(s):  
Lodewijk van Driel
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Language Instruction ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Comparative Linguistics ◽  
East Indies ◽  
Prescriptive Grammar ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
The Relationship

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.

An American at the origins of European Sprachwissenschaft and Italian historiographical thought

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-324
Author(s):  
Francesca M. Dovetto
Keyword(s):  
Historical Linguistics ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Italian Studies ◽  
Social Nature ◽  
History Of Linguistics ◽  
History Of ◽  
Unique Approach ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
Natural Fact ◽  
Important Stimulus

Summary This contribution is dedicated to William Dwight Whitney (1827–1897), a scholar who generally has a modest space dedicated to him in the historiography of linguistics, despite his name and works having had considerable circulation among his contemporaries. His originality and method are outlined with particular attention being given to his reception in Europe and in the setting of Italian studies of theoretical and empirical linguistics. Whitney was among the first to contest Schleicher’s concept of language as a natural fact, claiming, instead, that it has social nature, as an ‘institution’ created by man; he was a forerunner in recognizing the relevance of signs and their value, and of language acquisition. In his demonstrations and in his methods he proposes a science of historical linguistics but at the same time it is open to 20th century linguistics and the concept of language as a complex system ordered and crossed by relationships. Both his unique approach to the study of Sanskrit, which emphasised the study of its use and its variants, and his interest for modern languages, makes him a particularly interesting scholar, as he and his reception testify the rise, in Europe and especially in Italy, of a new approach to linguistic issues, no longer exclusively historical-comparative, but also theoretical and general. Nonetheless, Whitney ought to occupy a prominent place in the history of linguistics, because he was also the author of one of the first introductory texts of the discipline, which was published in 1875; in that same year a French translation came out, which was soon followed by an Italian, and a German translation (both 1876).The number of almost contemporaneous translations gives an idea of the gap which a general and introductory work like Whitney’s filled and illustrates that there was a clear need for it. In several works, including recent ones, De Mauro identified the specific characteristics of Italian linguistic studies: we can find a good many of these traits in Whitney as well. Although the fruitful contribution of Whitney’s ideas in an environment which is ‘naturally’ inclined towards the themes and methods the American linguist dealt with, i.e., the ‘Italian linguistic school’, has not been fully recognised until now, it is undeniable that his ideas provided an important stimulus for new interpretations and new models.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document