Abstract
In his programmatic article of 1938, “The Historiography of Ideas”, Arthur O. Lovejoy (1873–1962) listed a dozen disciplines in which the historical study of ideas has been pursued, among them the histories of philosophy, science, political economy, and sociology as well as comparative literature and the history of art.1 It is regrettable to note that Lovejoy made no mention of linguistics except for a reference to “some parts of the history of language, especially semantics”,2 a statement which would suggest the author’s unfamiliarity with the subject as a whole, an impression which is reinforced by the absence of any further allusion to this area of scholarly activity in the remainder of his argument. While we believe that this omission of the general study of language from the field of research devoted to the development of human thought, culture or socio-political setting within a given period, does not represent an isolated case — on the contrary, it appears that for at least one-hundred -and -fifty years philological studies and those dealing with the investigation of language have tended to diverge from each other to their mutual detriment —, our concern is not with dissecting the various reasons for this neglect but with trying to make our own position clear and to suggest a program which is more satisfactory.
... mehr als die schwierigste Rechnung, die mit Hülfe alter Operationen ausgeführt wird, bedeutet die Ermittlung einer neuen Operationsart.
Hugo Schuchardt in 1905 (ZRPh 29:622)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Footnotes
References are to the volume of collected papers of Arthur Oncken Lovejoy, Essays in the History of Ideas (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1948; 3rd printing, 1961), pp. 1–13.
Op cit.> p. 1.
Cf. loc. cit., 8–11 (passim).
There is no indication that the recently established Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences (Brandon, Vermont, 1965ff.), though perhaps more restricted in scope, has led to closer ties between the various branches of investigation devoted to the history of ideas.
For some very recent suggestions on the subject of a historiography of linguistic science, see now G. L. Bursill-Hall’s review articles on the histories of linguistics of Leroy (1963), Ivić (1965), and Robins (1967) in Glossa 4.2:229–43 (1970[1971]) and, in particular, the opening statements to the same scholar’s review of Mounin (1967) in CJL 15.2:143–50 (1970[1971]).
See Johann Peter Süssmilch, Versuch eines Beweises, dass die erste Sprache ihren Ursprung nicht vom Menschen, sondern allein vom Schöpfer erhalten habe (Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung, 1766), esp. 19–58, and
Johann Gottfried von Herder, Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprache ed. by Hans Dietrich Irmscher (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1966), esp. pp. 31 ff. and 80 ff., and Irmscher’s informative epilogue, 137–75.
For full references to the work of Cuvier, Lyell, and other 19th century scientists we refer to Part II of E. F. K. Koerner, Bibliographia Saussureana, 1870–1970, “Background Sources of F. de Saussure’s Linguistic Theory, 1816–1916”, in particular section 3, pp. 347–51.
See John Peter Maher, “More on the History of the Comparative Method”, AnthrL 8.3:1–12 (1966).
Cf. Scherer’s quite revealing review of W. D. Whitney’s Die Sprachwissenschaft transi, by Julius Jolly (Munich: Ackermann, 1874) in Preussische Jahrbücher 35:106–11 (1875), at p. 107.
That certain traits of Darwinism have recently been revived and critically redefined in some quarters of American linguistic anthropology has been shown in Harry Spitzbardt’s paper, “Neo-Darwinian Tendencies in Modern Linguistics”, A[10]CIL II, 313–9 (1970), in particular pp. 315ff.
Cf. Eduard Spranger, “Wilhelm von Humboldt und Kant”, Kantstudien 13:57ff. (1908);
Wilhelm Streitberg, “Kant und die Sprachwissenschaft”, IF 26:382–422 (1910), and Ernst Cassirer, “Die Kantschen Elemente in Wilhelm von Humboldts Sprachphilosophie”, Festschrift für Paul Hensel (Greiz i. V.: Ohag, 1923), 105–27; for other philosophical influences on Humboldt see
Karl-Heinz Weimann, “Vorstufen der Sprachphilosophie Humboldts bei Bacon und Locke”, ZDPh 84:498–508 (1965).
See Einleitung in das Sprachstudium (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1880), 40–42. A cursory reading of the chapter on Hegel in Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1945), 730–46, in particular pp. 731–3, suggests a striking parallel with Hegel’s concept of the “whole” as a complex system of relations and ideas in which language was regarded as (at times a living) organism, a view which later on gave rise to the idea of language as a system of interdependent elements.
New ed., Hamburg: F. Meiner, 1966–67, 2 vols.
La logique de Hegel, 2 vols. (Paris: Ladrange, 1859); the translator, Augusto Véra (1813–85), had earlier published an Introduction à la philosophie de Hegel (Paris: A. Franck, 1855) of more than 300 pp.
Encyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse (Heidelberg: A. Osswald, 1817); 6th ed., prepared by Friedhelm Nicolai and Otto Pöggeler (Hamburg: F. Meiner, 1959).
Cf. W. D. Whitney’s closing remarks on German linguistic scholarship in his Life and Growth of Language (New York: Appleton; London: King, 1875), 318–9, and also A. Meillet’s article of 1923, “Ce que la linguistique doit aux savants allemands”, repr. in LHLG II, 152–9, esp. pp. 156ff.
See his paper, “Fallacies in the History of Linguistics: Notes on the Appraisal of the Nineteenth Century”, to appear in Studies in the History of Linguistics ed. by Dell Hymes (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1971).
Benfey, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philologie in Deutschland, seit dem Anfange des 19. Jahrhunderts mit einem Rückblick auf die früheren Zeiten (Munich: J. G. Cotta, 1869; repr. New York: Johnson, 1965), x + 837 pp.
Delbrück, Einleitung in das Sprachstudium: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Methodik der vergleichenden Sprachforschung (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1880); 2nd ed., 1884; 3rd ed. 1893; 4th, much revised and enl. ed. under the title Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen (Ibid., 1904); 5th ed., 1908; 6th ed., 1919. The 1st ed. was translated into It. (1881) and E. (1882).
Thorns en, E sprogvidenskàbens historié (Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad, 1902); transl. into G. (1927), Russ. (1938), and Span. (1945).
Pedersen, Sprogvidenskaben i det nittende Aarhundrede: Metoder og Resultater (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1924); for E. transl. see Pedersen, 1962. This study was preceded by another account by
Pedersen, Et Blik paa Sprogvidenskdbens Historie (Copenhagen: Universitetsbogtrykkeriet, 1916).
For two particularly striking examples of the excessive reliance on secondary and tertiary sources and an almost total lack of acquaintance with the primary literature, see the studies of Waterman (1970) and Leroy (1963; 2nd rev. ed., 1971), and our forthcoming reviews of these in GL.
We base our account on a pre-final draft of Hoenigwald’s paper, a copy of which we received through the kind offices of the author.
Bach, “Structural Linguistics and the Philosophy of Science”, Diogenes 51:111–28 (1965), esp. pp. 122ff.
Chomsky, “De quelques constantes de la théorie linguistique”, Problèmes du langage (Paris: Gallimard, 1966), 14–21.
Chomsky, 1966; cf. the reviews of this book by Herbert E. Brekle in Ling. Berichte 1:52–66 (1969);
Karl E. Zimmer in IJAL 34:290–303 (1968);
Vivian G. Salmon in JL 5:165–87 (1969) and also
Hans Aarsleff’s violent attack, “The History of Linguistics and Professor Chomsky”, Language 46:570–85 (1970), and
Reginald Lee Hannaford’s paper, “Animadversions on Some Recent Speculations Concerning the Contemporary Significance of ‘Cartesian Linguistics’”, A[10]CIL II, 247–51 (1970).
It is true, however, that there are always students with a preference for general linguistic theory alongside with other, no less ardent students who favour the analysis of a specific language or group of languages, but we are safe in saying that one category of researchers is frequently ignored at times when the work of the other is prevailing.
Verburg, “The Background for the Linguistic Conceptions of Franz Bopp”, Lingua 2:438–68 (1950); repr.in Portraits of Linguists I, 221–50 at p. 225. For similar and somewhat more positive statements to this effect cf. those by Ullmann in 1958 (quoted as motto to 2.2.2), Lévi-Strauss of 1963, and Lepschy in 1965 (both listed in note 3 of section 2.0).
See Thomas Albert Sebeok’s foreword” to Godei’s Geneva School Reader of 1969, p. vii.
Schuchardt, another scholar who cannot be said to be an adherent of the neogrammarian doctrine, affirmed much the same in his 1917 review of CLG (cf. Hugo Schuohardt-Brevier, 330) as did Meillet (cf. LHLG I, 48), and others. Cf. also Eugen Lerch’s revealing article, “Die neue Sprachwissenschaft: Sprachgeschichte und Nationenkunde”, NSpr 42:375ff. (1934). It is of historical interest to note that Whitney affirmed, as early as 1875: “As linguistics is a historical science, so its evidences are historical, and its methods of proof of the same character.” (s. LGL, at page 312). This affirmation, we believe, would underscore Whitney’s impact on the linguistics of his time, in particular the neogrammarians, contrary to Leroy’s (1967:29) contention that Whitney’s work “had no immediate repercussions”.
Cf. Iordan’s early article, “Der heutige Stand der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft”, Festsehr. Streitberg, 585–621 (1924), esp. pp. 608–13, 620–21.
Cf. the “Vorwort” by Friedrich Sander and Hans Volkelt to their collection of papers, Ganzheitspsychologie (Munich: A.Beck, 1962), where they state: “Es scheint beinahe die Regel zu sein, dass fruchtbare Forschungsansätze ausserhalb und auch innerhalb ihres Ursprungslandes erst eine Generation später zur Wirkung kommen.” (p. ixf.).
We are not sufficiently familiar with the reception of FdS’s doctrine in Japan following the Jap. transl. of the CLG in 1928 to be able to comment for this country. According to Hisanosuke Izui, FdS’s influence in Japan was “immense” (cf. his paper, “Recent Trends in Japanese Linguistics”, Trends II, 38–55 [1963], esp. pp. 54–5), and if the fact that there has been a 23rd printing of this transl. in 1970 is an adequate criterion, Izui’s claim may well be justified.
Cf., apart from Bach’s article (referred to in note 24), R. B. Lees’ review of Chomsky (1957) in Language 33:375–407 (1957), E. M. Uhlenbeck’s “An Appraisal of Transformation Theory”, Lingua 12:1–18 (1963) or M. Bierwisch’s affirmation that with Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures “war eine neue Entwicklungsstufe der strukturellen Sprachwissenschaft markiert” (1966:104).
Helbig (1970:265–324) treats these three phases extensively.
Cf. Chomsky, 1964:10f., 21, 23, 26, 67, 68, 108, 111, n.; 1965:4, 8, 47–8; 1966:17, 19, in which Chomsky makes explicit references to Saussure. Unacknowledged passages which depict Saussurean influence could be easily traced; cf. Chomsky’s definition of language and his apparent difficulty in separating language study from psychology (s. Chomsky, 1968:24).
Initially (cf. the summary of our dissertation in progress in Ling. Berichte 9:52–4 [1970], at pp. 53–4), we intended to give, in the second part of the dissertation, a description of the various ‘schools’ which have developed during the past fifty years following the publication of the Cours. We later abandoned this idea for several reasons: 1) a description of the various linguistic schools, e.g. those of Prague, Copenhagen, Geneva, etc., has been done in the literature quite frequently, and our own endeavours would not have amounted to much more than a rehash of the information provided there; 2) these ‘schools’ have taken certain aspects from the Cours and developed them further, often disregarding the original context, into theories far removed from what Saussure had had in mind; 3) a re-assessment of Saussure’s original intentions with the help of the recently published documentation provided by R. Godei and R. Engler is urgently needed. Even the most recent “histories” of (modern) linguistics either ignore the existence of Godei’s Sources manuscrites and Engler’s critical edition of the Cours (e.g. Waterman, 1970) or shy away from such an undertaking (cf. Helbig, 1970:33; Lepschy, 1970:43–4); M. Leroy has at least made use of the critical edition (cf. Leroy, 1971: 62ff.) and explicitly drawn attention to these two works (1971:77–8), but he did not feel the necessity for changing his previous position regarding the interpretation of the Cours in any notable sense.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1973 Friedr. Vieweg + Sohn GmbH, Braunschweig
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koerner, E.F.K. (1973). Introduction: Outline of the Goal of the Investigation. In: Ferdinand de Saussure. Schriften zur Linguistik, vol 7. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-85606-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-85606-7_1
Publisher Name: Vieweg+Teubner Verlag
Print ISBN: 978-3-528-03706-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-322-85606-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive