Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Neogrammarians
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

On The Disappearance Of August Schleicher In The Writings Of The Neogrammarians

100%
Koerner E. F. K.
Lingua Posnaniensis
|
2008
|
vol. 50
143-162
EN
Historians of linguistics have long since learned that a certain distrust of what authors say in their programmatic statements is a healthy attitude. This applies in particular to statements made by those who have obvious agenda. Let us assume that not unlike Chomsky in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Indo-Europeanists of the circle around August Leskien (1840–1916), notably Karl Brugmann (1849–1919), saw themselves as ushering in a revolution of their field of study. Much has been said about the ‘Chomskyan Revolution’ and how it was brought about. Hereby the manner played a not insignificant role in which the linguistic community was treated. In his plenary address at the Eleventh Congress of Linguists held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in August 1962 and his subsequent elaborations in his book Cartesian Linguistics of 1966, Noam Chomsky made every attempt to dissociate himself from his immediate predecessors, notably those whose ideas he had inherited, and tried to make the world believe that his sources of linguistic inspiration hark back to much earlier periods, from the authors of the Grammaire générale et raisonnée of 1660 to Hermann Paul’s Principien of 1880 (cf. KOERNER 2002: 151–209 and references therein). In Chomsky’s narrative an important place was assigned to Wilhelm von Humboldt’s linguistic work, in particular his famous phrase “Die Sprache muss unendlichen Gebrauch von endlichen Mitteln machen” [Language must make unlimited use of limited means], since this was supposed to show Humboldt as a generativist avant la lettre. The Leipzig Junggrammatiker of the mid-1870s saw themselves in a comparable situation of revolutionizing their discipline. As a result, scant or no reference was made to the preceding generation of historical linguists, except for citation of passages that they would find fault with. On the other hand, authors who were not their teachers and whose work was less than central to their own pursuits could be referred to as leading to their program. In the present paper, I have chosen the concept of ‘analogy’ which, next to the neogrammarian insistence on the rigorous application of ‘Lautgesetze’ (“sound laws”), was one of the two main pillars of their argument in matters of linguistic change. It is shown that while Wilhelm Scherer (1841–1886) book Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache (Berlin, 1868) was selected for special praise in Osthoff and Brugmann’s ‘manifesto’ of 1878, in particular for his use of ‘false analogy’ in the explanation forms that did not follow the run of regular phonetic change, the Neogrammarians were entirely silent on the contribution of August Schleicher (1821–1868), in whose Die Deutsche Sprache (Stuttgart, 1860) and subsequent editions of 1869 and 1874 they could have found much more explicit statements concerning the workings of the analogy principle in language history. The attempt is made to set the record straight.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Dissidents of Indo-Europeanism: Hugo Schuchardt and Niko Marr

88%
Aroshidze M., Gotsiridze D., Aroshidze N.
Heteroglossia - studia kulturoznawczo-filologiczne
|
2021
|
issue 11
227-244
EN
The globalization of knowledge which has affected all scientific fields, including Humanities, stimulated research into the exchange of knowledge in the field of German, Russian, Caucasian linguistics. One of the most interesting and important pages of Kartvelology is the scientific dialogue of Hugo Schuhardt, a famous Austrian philologist, with scientists, writers and public figures of Georgia on the issues of the Georgian language and culture at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. It was a difficult period for linguistics when the comparative historical scientific paradigm exhausted its possibilities, and numerous discussions with the neogrammatic hypothesis prevailing at that time were looking for new ways of scientific development that could meet the challenges of the time. Intensive exchange of ideas and scientific controversy contributed to the exchange of knowledge. The article considers the linguistic concepts of the Austrian scientist Hugo Schuhardt and the Caucasian scientist Niko Marr (Georgia, Russia) who entered the history of linguistics as ‘dissidents of Indo-Europeanism.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

NEOGRAMMARIAN FERDINAND: A NATURAL HERMENEUTICS OF MÉMOIRE SUR LE SYSTÈME PRIMITIF DES VOYELLES DANS LES LANGUES INDO-EUROPÉENNES

88%
Haładewicz-Grzelak M.
Acta Neophilologica
|
2014
|
vol. XVI/1
27-40
EN
While “de Saussure” is in fact THE name that has always been automatically brought up at any mention of “linguistics” and “semiotics”, that scholar might be nevertheless the most enigmatic and tantalizing persona in the history of linguistics. In retrospective, whenever there was a question of criticizing de Saussure, he was referred to as a Neogrammarian, and whenever the aim was to praise him – as a structuralist [Jankowsky 1972: 185]. Following e.g. Percival [1981], Jakobson [1973] or Koerner [e.g. 1989], this paper challenges the usually taken for granted view that it was de Saussure who founded modern linguistics and takes an alternative look on de Saussure’s oeuvre from the point of view of the Neogrammarian school. Through a personal hermeneutic reading of the only book that de Saussure published and approved for publication (Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes, 1879), I will argue that de Saussure’s monograph, within the ambit of epistemological premises, is a mutiny on many levels against the phonological world of his times. In this way, the discussion contributes to a larger project pointing to misapprehensions in Neogrammarian achievements, which are assumed to ensue from the contemporary emphasis on the revolutionary aspects of linguistic paradigms over their evolutionary development [cf. also Pociechina 2009; Kiklewicz 2007, 2014].
4

Natural Neogrammarians and poussière linguistique

63%
Haładewicz-Grzelak M.
Beyond Philology: An International Journal of Linguistics, Literary Studies and English Language Teaching
|
2013
|
issue 10
9-37
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.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.