Natural Neogrammarians and poussière linguistique

• Authors: Małgorzata Haładewicz-Grzelak

Title variants

FR

Les néogrammairiens naturels et la « poussière linguistique »

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

There seems to be a rift between historiographic studies on phonology and phonological studies per se as far as paradigm transmission is concerned. In particular, it seems that from a historiographic and historical linguistics perspective, the scholarly merit of Neogrammarians is indisputable and self-evident (cf. e.g. Wilbur 1975; Koerner 1989); however, contemporary phonology has practically managed completely to exorcise even the name Neo-grammarian from its agenda and all the phonological merit of the school has subsequently been denied. The paper aims to counter and reach beyond this widespread criticism of the Neogrammarian school, showing affinities with the European version of structuralism and with Natural Phonology as a Neogrammarian base upon which subsequent schools have constructed their paradigms. The term poussière linguistique serves as a lantern for a guided tour of Neogrammarian achievements. It is used in two ways. The first is as was intended by de Saussure, implying those elements which are no longer active in a given synchronic state, and the other is metaphoric usage, building somewhat on the Saussurean idea, implying a tendency to situate Neogrammarian achievements as inactive and irrelevant for contemporary linguistics. The basis for the discussion includes elaborations by Bynon (1996), Jankowsky (1972), Bouissac (2010), Percival (1981, 2011) and Jakobson and Koerner (1999), via which I point to misapprehensions about Neogrammarian achievements.

FR

Il paraît qu’en ce qui concerne la transmission du paradigme, il y ait une fissure entre les études historiographiques sur la phonologie et les études phonologiques per se. Il semble en particulier que selon la perspective de l’historiographie et de la linguistique historique, le mérite académique des néogrammairiens est indisputable et évident (cf. par exemple, Wilbur 1975 ; Koerner 1989). La phonologie contemporaine a pourtant réussi d’éradiquer même le terme néo-grammairien de son agenda et par la suite, tout le mérite phonologique de l’école a été nié. Le présent article a pour but de contrer et de dépasser le criticisme répandu de l’école néogrammairienne, en montrant ses affinités avec la version européenne du structuralisme et avec la phonologie naturelle vue comme une base néogrammairienne sur laquelle les écoles suivantes ont construit leurs paradigmes. Le terme de la « poussière linguistique » sert de lanterne pour la visite guidée des accomplissements des néogrammairiens. Il est utilisé de deux façons. La première façon est celle qu’a entendue de Saussure, désignant tous les éléments qui ne sont plus actifs dans un certain système synchronique. La seconde, c’est son usage métaphorique, construit en quelque sorte sur l’idée saussurienne, qui implique la tendance de percevoir les accomplissements des néogrammairiens comme inactifs et sans pertinence pour la linguistique contemporaine. La base de cette discussion comporte les travaux de Bynon (1996), Jankowsky (1972), Bouissac (2010), Percival (1981, 2011) et de Jakobson et Koerner (1999), à travers lesquels je montre les malentendus sur les accomplissements des néogrammairiens.

Keywords

EN

Neogrammarians; natural phonology; structuralism; paradigm change; poussière linguistique

FR

néogrammairiens; phonologie naturelle; structuralisme; changement de paradigme; poussière linguistique

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Gdański
• Journal: Beyond Philology: An International Journal of Linguistics, Literary Studies and English Language Teaching
• Year: 2013
• Issue: 10
• Pages: 9-37

Contributors

author

Małgorzata Haładewicz-Grzelak

• Politechnika Opolska, Poland

References

• Adamska-Sałaciak, Arleta (1995). “Paradigms and Linguistic Historiography”. In: Edmund Gussmann (ed.). Licensing in Syntax and Phonology. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Folium, 239–248.
• Amsterdamska, Olga (1985). “Institutions and schools of thought: The Neogrammarians”. American Journal of Sociology 91/2: 332-358.
• Bonfante, Giuliano (1947). “The neolinguistic position (a reply to Hall’s criticism of Neolinguists)” . Language 23: 344-375.
• Bouissac, Paul (2010). De Saussure: a Guide for the perplexed. London: Continuum Int. Publishing Group.
• Bouquet, Simon, Rudolf Engler, Simone Weil (2002). (eds.) Ferdinand de Saussure: Writings in General Linguistics [Écrits de linguistique générale]. Oxford: OUP.
• Bouquet, Simona – Rudolf Engler – Simone Weil (2004 [2002]). (eds.) Ferdinand de Saussure: Szkice z językoznawstwa ogólnego [Écrits de linguistique generale]. Transl. Magda-lena Danielewiczowa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie DIALOG.
• Bynon, Theodora (1996 [1977]). Historical linguistics. Cam-bridge: CUP.
• Christy, T. Craig (1983). Uniformitarianism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Donegan, Patricia J., David Stampe (1979). “The study of Natural Phonology”. In: Daniel A. Dinnsen (ed.). Current Approaches to Phonological Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 126-173.
• Donegan, Patricia, David Stampe (2009). “Hypotheses of Natural Phonology”. PSiCL 45/1: 1-32.
• Dressler, Wolfgang Urlich (1999). “What is natural in Natural Morphology (NM)?” Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 3: 135-144.
• Dressler, Wolfgang Urlich (2006). “Introduction: Natural Morphology”. Folia Linguistica 40: 1-6.
• Dressler, Wolfgang U., Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Linda Pestal (2010). “Change and variation in morphonotactics”. Folia Linguistica 31: 51-67.
• Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna (2001-2002). “Challenges for Natural Linguistics in the twenty first century”. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in Linguistics 23: 15-39.
• Goldsmith, John (1995). Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Hale, Mark (2007). Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Haładewicz-Grzelak, Małgorzata (forth. 2014) Sustainable Neogrammarians and the rheology of language. In: Perspectives on Contemporary Language Studies. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Haładewicz-Grzelak, Małgorzata [submitted]. Neogrammarian Ferdinand: A Natural hermeneutics of Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes.
• Jankowsky, Kurt (1972). The Neogrammarians. A re-evaluation of their place in the development of linguistic science. The Hague: Mouton.
• Jakobson. Roman (1971). “The Kazan school of Polish lin-guistics and its place in the international development of phonology”. In: Roman Jakobson. Selected writings. Vol. II: World and language. The Hague: Mouton, 394- 428.
• Jakobson, Roman (1973). Essais de linguistique générale. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
• Kaupuż, Anna (1989). “Z archwaliów dotyczących życia Jana Baudouina de Courtenay w latach 1870-1871” . In: Janusz Rieger (ed.). Jan Niecisław Baudouin de Courtenay a lingwistyka światowa. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 591-596.
• Kemmer, Suzanne (2009). “Biographical sketch of Karl Brugmann”. Ling 403. Available at <http://www.ruf.rice. edu/~kemmer/Found/brugmannbio.html)>. Accessed: 10. 09.2012.
• Kemmer, Suzanne (2009). “Observations on the ‘Neogram-marian Manifesto’”. Ling 403. Available at
• Kiklewicz, Aleksander (2007). Zrozumieć język: Szkice z filozofii języka, semantyki, lingwistyki komunikacyjnej. Łask: Oficyna Wydawnicza LEKSEM.
• Kiparsky, Paul (1995). “The phonological basis of sound change”. In: John Goldsmith. Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Koerner, E.F. Konrad (1973). Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and Development of His Linguistic Thought in Western Studies of Language. Braunscheig: Vieweg & Sohn.
• Koerner, E.F. Konrad (1989). Practicing Linguistic Historiography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
• Koerner, E.F. Konrad (1999). Linguistic Historiography: Projects and Prospects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
• Kořenský, Jan (1991). “K vzájemným vztahům a vývоji základních pоjmů pražské školy”. Slovo a Slovesnost 52/3: 206-212.
• Leroux, Jean (2007). “An epistemological assessment of the Neogrammarian movement”. In: Douglas Kibbee (ed.). History of Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 262-273.
• Martinet, André (1974 [1964]). Economía de los cambios fonéticos:tratado de fonología diacrónica. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
• Murray, Robert (2010). “Language and space: The Neogrammarian tradition”. In Peter Auer, Jürgen Erich Schmidt (eds.) Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation: Theories and Methods. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 70-86.
• Nikolaev, G. A. (1995). "Pis’ma Boduena de Kurtene v Kazanskij Universitet”. In: G. A. Nikolaev (ed.). Boduen de Kurtene: Teoretičeskoe nasledie i sovremennost’: Materials from the conference held on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Baudouin’s birth. (Učenye zapiski 131). Kazan: Izdatel’stvo Kazanskogo Universiteta, 90-102.
• Lehmann, Winfred (1967). A Reader in Nineteenth Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Osthoff, Hermann, Carl Brugmann (1878). Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen sprache. Vol. 1. Leipzig.
• Osthoff, Hermann, Carl Brugmann (1967 [1978]). “Preface to Morphological Investigations in the Sphere of the Indo-European Languages”. Trans. Winfred Lehmann. In: Winfred Lehmann. A Reader in Nineteenth Century Historical Indo- European Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 197-209.
• Paul, Hermann (1886 [1920]). Prinzipen der Sprachgeschichte. 5th edition, Halle: Max Niemeyer.
• Paul, Herman (1970 [1920]) Priznipien der Spachgeschichte. Trans. H. A. Strong. Tübingen: Newmeyer.
• Percival, Keith (1981). “The Saussurean paradigm: Fact or fantasy?”. Semiotica 36/1-2: 33-49.
• Percival, Keith (2011). “Roman Jakobson and the birth of linguistic structuralism”. Sign System Studies 39(1): 236-262.
• Pochiechina, Helena (2009). Γpaмммaтичeская ваpиантив-ность в славянских языках: Моpфонологичeский аспект [gramaticheskaya varyantivnost’ v slavyanskich yazykach: morfonologicheskiy aspekt]. Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego.
• Pomorska, Krystyna, Stephen Rudy (eds.) (1985). Roman Jakobson: Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Radwańska-Williams, Joanna (1991). “Baudouin de Courtenay and his place in the history of linguistics”. Historiographia Linguistica XIII/2-3: 349-367.
• Radwańska-Williams. Joanna (1993). A Paradigm Lost: The Linguistic Theory of Mikołaj Kruszewski. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
• Radwańska-Williams, Joanna (2006). “Examining our patrimony: The case of the Kazan School”. Historiographia Linguistica XXXIII/3: 357-390.
• Radimský, Jan (2010). “Centre – périphérie dans le système linguistique”. Écho des etudes romaines VI/1-2): 7-10. Available at <www.eer.cz/files/01-Radimsky-E9.pdf>. Accessed: April 2013.
• Rieger, Janusz (1989) (ed.). Jan Niecisław Baudouin de Courtenay a lingwistyka światowa. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
• Scheer, Tobias (2006). “How non-phonological information is processed in phonology”. Handout for the Summer School of Generative Grammar EGG 2006. Available at: <http:// www.unice.fr/dsl/tobias.htm>.
• Schneider, Gisela (1973). Zum Begriff des Lautgesetzes in der Sprachwissenschaft seit den Junggrammatikern. Tübingen: Fotodruck Präzis.
• Silverman, Daniel (2012). “Mikołaj Kruszewski: Theory and Vision. Part One”. Language and Linguistics Compass 6/6: 330-342.
• Stampe, David (1979). A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. New York: Garland.
• Sweet, Henry (1888). A History of English Sounds from the Earliest Period. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Vachek, Josef (1964). A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Vachek, Josef (1972). “The linguistic theory of the Prague School”. In Villem Fried (ed.). The Prague School of Linguistics and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 11-28.
• Vachek, Josef (1976). Selected Writings in English and General Linguistics. Prague: Mouton.
• Vennemann, Theo, Terrence Wilbur (1972). Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the Transformational Theory of Phonological Change. Frankfurt: Athenāum.
• Wilbur, Terrence (1975). “Zum Begriff des Lautgesetzes in der Sprachwissenschaft seit den Junggrammatikern. By Gisela Schneider”. Historigrafia Linguistica 2/1: 110-124.
• Wilbur, Terence H. (1977). (ed. & introd.). The Lautgesetz-Controversy: A Documentation. [Texts by Georg Curtius (1820–1885), Berthold Delbrück (1842–1922), Karl Brug-mann (1849–1919), Hugo Schu­chardt (1842–1927), Herman Collitz (1855–1935), Hermann Osthoff (1847–1909), Otto Jespersen (1860–1943).] Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Identifiers

ISSN

1732-1220