Koerner1989 Practicing Linguistic Historiography

PRACTICING LINGUISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY
AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND

HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE
General Editor
E. F. KONRAD KOERNER
(University of Ottawa)
Series III - STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE SCIENCES
Advisory Editorial Board
Ranko Bugarski (Belgrade); Jean-Claude Chevalier (Paris)

H.H. Christmann (Tübingen); Boyd H. Davis (Charlotte, N.C.)
Rudolf Engler (Bern); Hans-Josef Niederehe (Trier)
R.H. Robins (London); Rosane Rocher (Philadelphia)
Vivian Salmon (Oxford); Aldo Scaglione (Chapel Hill)
Volume 50
Konrad Koerner
Practicing Linguistic Historiography

Selected Essays
PRACTICING LINGUISTIC
HISTORIOGRAPHY
SELECTED ESSAYS
KONRAD KOERNER
University of Ottawa
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
1989
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Koerner, E.F.K.
Practicing linguistic historiography : selected essays / Konrad Koerner.
p. cm. -- (Studies in the history of language sciences, ISSN 0304-0720; v. 50)
Articles in English, French, German, and Italian.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Linguistics -- Historiography. 2. Linguistics -- History. I. Title. II. Series: Amsterdam
studies in the theory and history of linguistic sciences ; v. 50.
P62.K6 1989
410'.9--dcl9 88-36613
ISBN 90 272 4533 9 (hb. ; alk. paper) CIP
© Copyright 1989 - John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or
any other means, without written permission from the publisher.
For Karen Lynn and Arno René Dorck
PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present volume brings together a number of previously

published papers written during the past twelve or so years,
but most of them are of a fairly recent vintage. Several
chapters in this selection were first written during the past
five or six years, and a number of them, such as chapters 6, 8,
16, 18, 19, 22, and 24 have been revised and/or enlarged, at
times considerably. My student assistant of the 1986-87
academic year, Karen L. Palmer, put a number of earlier drafts
on disquette with great care and good cheer. Andrew J.
Romain, my part-time assistant during the 1987-88 period,
deserves special thanks for offering me useful criticism of
several of these earlier versions.
In those instances where papers have been reprinted from
their original places of publication, acknowledgements are
made at the bottom of the first page of each item in question,
though a general expression of thanks to the editors of journals
and volumes of collective papers and their respective pub-
lishers for granting the permissions is made here.
Ten years have passed since the publication — as number
19 of the present series -- of my first collection of papers
devoted to the history and historiography of linguistics. As a
result, a comparison between the 1978 Toward a Historiogra-
phy of Linguistics and the new volume offers itself.* I prefer
to leave it to my critics to undertake such a comparison,
however, and simply note that the present volume is double
the size of the earlier one, something that is perhaps not
surprising, given the much longer harvest period.
Those conversant with 20th-century historical scholarship will

have noticed that the title of the present volume was inspired by that of
the distinguished American historian Barbara Wertheim Tuchman,
Practicing History: Selected Essays (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1981).
VIII PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During the past ten years demands on my time both as a

teacher and as editor have significantly increased, giving me
much less opportunity for research than I enjoyed during most
of the 1970s. Looking at the table of contents of the present
volume, developed without actually looking at the 1978 book, I
notice similarities between the organization and content of the
two: Each have three main sections with an equal number of
chapters in each, and each deals with fairly similar subjects,
problems, and issues in the history of 19th and 20th century
Western linguistics. Section One in both volumes addresses
questions of theory and methodology of linguistic historio-
graphy, but with more illustrative material being presented in
the new book. It is possible that I have become less optimistic
about progress in the principled treatment of the history of
linguistics in recent years, marked as it is more by criticism
than by constructive model building, and some may charac-
terize the approach taken here as conservative. Since the 1978
International Conference on the History of the Language
Sciences held in Ottawa, there have been three further
successor conferences as well as a variety of other national and
international colloquia both in Europe and North America,
leading to a considerable increase in the number of partici-
pants in historical research and the theoretical debate. It is
not clear to me that this has produced an exponential increase
in quality in either area, though it may have led to more
caution in the practice of both.
Part Two of the present volume is similar to Section III of
the 1978 book, both containing chapters devoted to the evol-
ution of specific terms and concepts in linguistics, and both
dealing with certain traditions of the field. As a matter of fact,
chapter 10 in the present book constitutes a slightly shortened
Italian version, originally written in German, of the last item
reprinted in the 1978 book. Part Three in this volume comple-
ments the middle section of the earlier one. Appraisals of the
work of F. Schlegel, Bopp, Grimm, Schleicher, Kruszewski,
Meillet, Pedersen, and Bloomfield have now been added to the
earlier ones of Hermann Paul, Baudouin de Courtenay, Saus-
sure, G. von der Gabelentz, and A. Dufriche-Desgenettes (1804-
1878), the creator of the term 'phonème'.
PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IX
In the 1978 volume Saussurean ideas loomed fairly large; in

the present one only a few chapters (i.e., 16, 22, and 24) deal
with particular aspects of the Cours. However, ten such papers
have recently been brought together in a separate volume
under the bilingual title Saussurean Studies I Études saus-
suriennes, and published in the native city of the maître
genevois (Geneva: Slatkine, 1988); only one of these studies
has been reissued here, though in a different context.
Various joint efforts are currently under way to provide a
world-wide history of the language sciences; while developing
the prospectus of such an undertaking, it has become more
obvious and more urgent that a specific frame of reference be
worked out to guide the individual researcher. Indeed, there
are a number of challenges ahead of us, and I hope that we are
sufficiently energetic and well-equipped to meet them.
Ottawa-Hull, 31 October 1988 Konrad Koerner

BY THE SAME AUTHOR
Bibliographia Saussureana 1870-1970: An annotated,

classified bibliography on the background, development, and actual
relevance of Ferdinand de Saussure's general theory of language
(Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, 1972), 406 pp.
Contribution au débat post-saussurien sur le signe linguistique
Introduction générale et bibliographie annotée
(La Haye & Paris: Mouton, 1972), 103 pp.
Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and Development
of His Linguistic Thought in Western Studies of Language
A contribution to the history and theory of linguistics
(Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn [Oxford &
Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press], 1973), xl, 428 pp.
- Translated into Hungarian (Budapest, 1982); Japanese
(Tokyo, 1982), and Spanish (Madrid, 1982) -
The Importance ofTechmer's "Internationale Zeitschrift für Allgemeine
Sprachwissenschaft" in the Development of General Linguistics
(Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1973), vii, 76 pp. in-4Q.
Western Histories of Linguistics, 1822-1976
An annotated, chronological bibliography
(Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1978), ix, 113 pp.
Toward a Historiography of Linguistics
Selected essays. Foreword by R. H. Robins
(Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1978), xx, 222 pp.
(Together with Matsuji Tajima)
Noam Chomsky: A personal bibliography, 1951-1986
(Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1986), xi, 217 pp
Saussurean Studies I Études saussuriennes
Avant-propos de Rudolf Engler
(Genève: Éditions Slatkine, 1988), xxi, 207 pp.
CONTENTS
Preface & Acknowledgements vii
PART I: Methods and Models in Linguistic Historiography

1. On 'Unrewriting the History of Linguistics' 3
2. Das Problem der Metasprache in der Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichts-
schreibung 13
3. On the Problem of 'Influence' in Linguistic Historiography 31
4. Models in Linguistic Historiography 47
5. On Practicing Linguistic Historiography 61
6. Continuities and Discontinuities in the History of Linguistics 69
7. The Neogrammarian Doctrine: Breakthrough or extension of the
Schleicherian paradigm. A problem in linguistic historiography 79
8. The Chomskyan 'Revolution' and Its Historiography: Observations
of a bystander 101
PART II: Tradition and Transmission of Linguistic Notions

9. Observations on the Sources, Transmission, and Meaning of 'Indo-
European' and Related Terms in the Development of Linguistics 149
10. Sulla origine e storia dell'asterisco nella linguistica storica: Un cenno
storiografico 179
11. August Schleicher and the Tree Idea in Comparative Linguistics 185
12. Positivism in 19th and 20th Century Linguistics 191
XII TABLE OF CONTENTS
13. Schleichers Einfluß auf Haeckel: Schlaglichter auf die wechselseitige

Abhängigkeit zwischen linguistischen und biologischen Theorien im
19. Jahrhundert 211
14. On the Historical Roots of the Philology vs Linguistics Controversy . . . . 233
15. Pilot and Pirate Disciplines in the Development of Linguistic Science . . . 245
16. Sur l'origine du concept et du terme de 'synchronique' en linguistique . . 257
PART III: Schools and Scholars in the History of Linguistics
17. Friedrich Schlegel and the Emergence of Historical-Comparative

Grammar 269
18. Franz Bopp (1791-1867): Biographische Skizze 291
19. Jacob Grimm's Place in the Foundation of Linguistics as a Science . . . . 303
20. August Schleicher and Linguistic Science in the Second Half of the
19th Century 325
21. Mikolaj Kruszewski's Contribution to General Linguistic Theory 377
22. Antoine Meillet, Saussure et la linguistique générale: Une question
d"influence' 401
23. Holger Pedersen (1867-1953): A sketch of his life and work 417
24. Leonard Bloomfield and the Cours de linguistique générale 435
Index of Authors 445
List of illustrations and portraits
One of Schleicher's two family trees of 1853 190, 219
Title page of Schleicher's 'Offenes Sendschreiben an ... Häckel' (1863) .. 210
One of Ernst Haeckel's many genealogical trees of 1866 220
Portrait of Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829) 268
Portrait of Franz Bopp (1791-1867) 298
Portrait of August Schleicher (1821-1868) 324
Portrait of Mikolaj Kruszewski (1851-1887) 376
Portrait of Antoine Meillet (1866-1936) 400
Portrait of Holger Pedersen (1867-1953) 416
Portrait of Leonard Bloomfield (1887-1949) 434
PART I: METHODS AND MODELS
IN LINGUISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY
ON 'UNREWRITING THE HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS'*
0. The problem stated
A few years ago, Oswald Szemerényi, the distinguished Indo-European scholar,

suggested that there were instances in the historiography of linguistics that had only
recently become distorted, and that we might do better to stick to earlier accounts.
Szemerényi cited two examples, one concerning the status of Sir William Jones in the
more recent histories of linguistics, the other dealing with the origin of the well-
known characterization of language as a system 'où tout se tient', often attributed to
Saussure and, it appears, wrongly so. In his paper, Szemerényi makes a forceful
argument in favour of retaining Jones as marking the 'first breakthrough' in the
history of linguistics — an argument which may convince some, but not many, and
certainly not Henry Hoenigswald who comes under severe criticism (Szemerényi
1980:152; cf. now Hoenigswald 1985). What Szemerényi noted about the (possible)
origin of the famous 'Saussurean' phrase has already been corrected by others
(Brogyanyi 1983; Toman 1987). However, instances such as these leave the uneasy
feeling that we are rewriting the history of linguistics in an inaccurate, poorly
researched, and prejudiced manner, a charge that cannot be taken lightly. Perhaps I
should state at the outset that I do not share the belief of certain writers that each
generation will write its own history, as Brekle (1985:3) has recently suggested,
unless pro-domo accounts are meant. I doubt that the result will be history. We may
refer to Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics as a particularly 'successful' example of
this exercise, with Newmeyer's (1980) 'history' of the first 25 years of Transforma
tional-Generative Grammar coming is a close second.
The present paper examines a number of 19th and early 20th century histories of
linguistics, notably those by Theodor Benfey (1869), Berthold Delbrück (1882), and
Holger Pedersen (1931), in an attempt to show some of their shortcomings and
biases. It suggests that while all of these accounts supply us with a wealth of
information about 19th-century historical-comparative linguistics, they are indeed
selective in their treatment, and that we cannot in all respects rely on these books (as
A first version of this chapter was presented at the Fourth International Conference on the History
of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS IV) held at the University of Trier, Germany, on 24-27 August
1987.
4 PRACTICING LINGUISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY
many 20th-century writers of textbooks in the history of linguistics have done) as

giving us a faithful picture of 'wie es eigentlich gewesen' (Ranke).
1.0 Central Parts of the Argument
It was several months after I had formulated the subject of my paper, whose
abstract had been submitted late in 1986, that I discovered that Henry M. Hoenigs-
wald, in his recent paper, "Nineteenth-Century Linguistics on Itself' (Hoenigswald
1986), discussed the work of the three major authors of histories of linguistics that I
had selected myself. This coincidence is probably not surprising as no doubt the
accounts by Benfey, Delbrück, and Pedersen have been the most influential texts
dealing with 19th-century linguistics as well as earlier periods in the development of
the field. Hoenigswald's paper does not render my own superfluous, though its
argument may have led me to a more acute analysis of 19th and early 20th century
history-writing concerning the past century. Hoenigswald (1986:186) points to the
need "to understand why our professional forebears had to see themselves and their
antecedents as they did", an observation which I would rather apply to the historio
graphers than to the linguistic practitioners. Many of our professional forbears did
not concern themselves - quite in agreement with their professional ethos according
to which their positive work had to speak for itself ~ with the history of their
subject. Instead, they kept busy with the immense amount of data at hand and with
questions of their proper analysis and classification, and had little patience with
matters requiring metalinguistic reflection. This attitude was particularly obvious
among the scholars of the Junggrammatiker generation, among whom only Hermann
Paul (1846-1921), with his book of 1880, Principien der Sprachgeschichte (5th ed.,
1920), could be cited as an exception to the rule. But then Paul was, like Delbrück, a
student of Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899) before joining the Leipzig circle, and thus
was influenced by his psychology of language and was certainly also acquainted with
Humboldtian ideas on the subject too. (The other two late 19th-century theorists of
language, Georg von der Gabelentz (1840-1893) and Philipp Wegener (1848-1916),
remained outside of 'mainstream linguistics'.)
The three histories selected for special attention in the present paper will be treated
in the chronological order of their production; their authors belong to three different
generations. Benfey (1809-1881) preceded even the generation of Georg Curtius
(1820-1885) and August Schleicher (1821-1868), the acknowledged teachers of the
Neogrammarians. Delbrück was not a student of either of the two, but it is obvious
that although he never studied in Leipzig, but rather in Berlin and, especially in Halle,
where August Friedrich Pott (1802-1887) held the chair in general linguistics since
1838, he associated himself with the Leipzigers, probably already soon after he had
obtained, in 1870, the chair of Indo-European linguistics at the University of Jena
previously held by Schleicher. Pedersen, finally, was a student of Leskien and
Brugmann at the University of Leipzig during 1892-94, and may be regarded, given
ON UNREWRITING THE HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS 5
his work and outlook on linguistics in general, as a second-generation Junggram

matiker.
1.1 Benfey's Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft (1869)
Since Hoenigswald (1986:176-80) has given us a most insightful analysis of

Benfey's achievement as a historiographer, little else needs to be done here than
adding a few touches to the picture he has drawn. Unlike most 20th-century
historians of linguistics, Benfey's contribution was original, innovative, and, within
its chosen framework, exhaustive. Indeed, it would not be difficult to show that
many later treatments of 19th-century linguistics, including those by Delbrück and
Pedersen, have relied, at times rather heavily, on Benfey's Geschichte der Sprach
wissenschaft — in part because it conveniently supplies many of the most salient
quotations from the works of those who have been regarded as the giants of the field,
beginning with Sir William Jones and passing to the 1860s: Bopp, Rask, Grimm,
Curtius, Schleicher, and others.
A few points not noted by Hoenigswald could be added here as they might
explain some of the peculiarities of Benfey's choices. Benfey, who was close to the
generation of August Friedrich Pott (1802-1887) and, like Pott, a former student of
Bopp's, was a Sanskrit scholar, and not an Indo-Europeanist in the regular sense.
Unlike Pott, however, he was not a generalist and interested in making statements of
linguistic theory or method (unless it touched upon an issue in his scholarly practice).
As a matter of fact, Benfey did not belong to the camp of those comparativists like
Curtius, Schleicher, Wilhelm Corssen (1820-1875), and others, who 'have taken as
their principle strict adherence to sound laws', as Schleicher noted in the second
edition of his Compendium (Schleicher 1866:15). It should also be remembered that
Benfey was 60 years old, approaching retirement, when his book appeared, and that
he was never at the forefront of comparative-historical linguistics. These factors,
together with his particular interest in Oriental, especially Indic studies (compare the
full title of his Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft!.), naturally had a noticeable
influence on the structure and contents of the book. His Geschichte also included a
long chapter on the Semitic and Hamitic language family (1868:683-734), and smaller
ones on many other non-Indo-European languages and language groups, e.g., Uralic
and Altaic (741-754), Dravidian (757-760), and various East Asian ones, and even
brief sections on Malayo-Polynesian, Australian, and American Indian languages
(776-785).
In the account by Delbrück we find nothing on non-Indo-European languages,
and Pedersen's book contains only one chapter on "The study of non-Indo-European
families of languages" (1931:99-140), i.e., 11% of the total number of pages.
Pedersen's decision to include research on non-Indo-European languages in his
coverage might well have been motivated not so much by his idea of completeness
but by his own interest in the Nostratic theory ~ it was he who introduced the term in
1903. There were a number of other considerations, including the geographical
closeness of the Finno-Ugric languages (on which his compatriot Vilhelm Thomsen
had done distinguished work), the fact that various Scandinavian scholars were
working on those 'exotic' languages, including his compatriot and personal hero
Rasmus Rask (cf. Pedersen 1931:106, 118 note, 136).
We will have to consider matters such as the age, formative background,
personal interests, and the like of a writer of a history of linguistics in the assessment
of the accounts by these above-mentioned authors (as well as of any other writer), if
we want to make use of these earlier treatments as I think we should - especially in
the case of Benfey's Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft which contains a tremen
dous body of original research that would be hard, if not impossible, to duplicate
nowadays. We should, however, remain critical readers of Benfey's work and be
aware of how much his views have become canonical to the extent of being taken for
objective truth.
1.2 Delbrück's Einleitung in das Sprachstudium (1880)
In contrast to Benfey's 837-page history of linguistics, Berthold Delbrück's

(1842-1922) Einleitung in das Sprachstudium, first published in 1880, was a short
book on the development of linguistic science starting from Bopp's Conjuga-
tionssystem of 1816 and going up to the work done by scholars of his own
generation. It was intended to acquaint the student of historical-comparative philology
with the evolution of the research methodology of the field and with the advances
made during the 1870s, in particular the approach taken by the Junggrammatiker.
When the book first appeared, Delbrück was 38 years old (the same age as Noam
Chomsky, when he published his Cartesian Linguistics in 1966), and, although a
professor of Indo-European linguistics since 1870, he still had not yet produced any
of the works in Indo-European syntax for which he is rightly famous. Many years
ago, I cited Delbrück's Einleitung, of which an English translation appeared in 1882,
as a typical example of what I termed Whig history, i.e., a propaganda piece for the
'new' linguistics (cf. Koerner 1978[1973]:56-59 passim), though not so a blatent one
as we have witnessed in Frederick J. Newmeyer's Linguistics in America published
exactly 100 years later (cf. Koerner 1983 for a critique). But the parallel between
Delbrück and Newmeyer does not end there; like Newmeyer, who was not a student
of either Chomsky or Morris Halle at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Delbrück was not a student of either Schleicher or Curtius, the acknowledged fathers
of the Junggrammatiker, but a former student of Heymann Steinthal in Berlin and of
August Friedrich Pott in Halle, thus in effect more of an outsider who obviously
wished to be associated with the recent developments in the field and their advocates.
Interestingly enough, like Newmeyer, Delbrück was mainly interested in syntax, not
phonology, the area in which the Neogrammarians (like the Bloomfieldians several
generations later) had been making their most important advances.
It is worthwhile noting that Delbrück had received, in 1870, the chair of Indo-
European at the University of Jena that August Schleicher had occupied until his
sudden death in December 1868. Schleicher had never been promoted to the rank of
'Ordinarius', as he had aroused the ire of his colleagues in the faculty by emphasizing
time and again the epistemological and methodological differences between linguis
tics, a natural science, and philology, a historical science. By contrast, Delbrück had
managed to move up to this rank within three years of his appointment. Once we
realize these facts, we can explain why Schleicher is depicted by Delbrück (who had
never met Schleicher in person) mainly as the 'mopper-upper' of the framework
established by Bopp (whom Delbrück knew from his student days) than as someone
whose work was leading to a considerable revision, if not redefinition, of the goals
and methods of comparative-historical research. It is only if we recognize the poUtics
of linguistics at the time and Delbrück's role in it that we can understand why
Schleicher is depicted, contrary to his own Selbstverständnis, as "in the essence of
his being ... a philologist", and that the work of the next generation of scholars are
treated under the heading of 'New Endeavours' (Delbrück 1882:55).
Another interesting feature of Delbrück's Einleitung is his treatment of, or rather,
his omission of the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt from his account. What he has
to say about him (Delbrück 1882:27-28) refers to Humboldt, the man, 'his noble
humanity' and 'lofty and disinterested love for truth', and not to Humboldt, the
student of language. Delbrück, probably rightly, sees little influence of Humboldt on
Bopp, but he wrongly overlooks his importance for Pott's approach to language
(p.27) and fails to mention Steinthal in this connection (who is otherwise only
referred to as a reviewer of certain books; cf. pp. 63 and 75).
This attitude toward Humboldt changed in the fourth edition of the Einleitung.
Delbrück had added several new chapters, one outlining grammatical ideas held by
the Greeks, mainly exemplified in the works of Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius
Dyscolus (1904:1-21), another surveying the tradition from the Romans to the turn of
the 19th century (22-35), and a third one devoted to analogical formations in language
(161-168), a subject previously treated together with the sound-law hypothesis (cf.
Delbrück 1882:107-113). In this edition, which the author rightfully regards as a
new book (see "Vorrede", p.v), the treatment of Humboldt is remarkable. He now
devotes almost as much space to Humboldt's linguistic thought (Delbrück 1904:41-
55) as to Bopp's contribution to comparative grammar (55-74; cf. Delbrück 1882:3-
26).
Again the sixth and last edition of Delbrück's Einleitung (1919) constitutes a new
book, with 75 pages of text having been added. We mentioned already that in the
fourth edition Delbrück had devoted space to the field of syntax. But only in this last
edition did he talk about his own (in fact immense) work on Indo-European syntax
(cf. Delbrück 1919:134-139, 218-220, and elsewhere), and this as a result of gentle
pressures from his friends, as Eduard Hermann reported in his obituary of Delbrück
(Hermann 1966[1920]:494). Interestingly, perhaps as a result of his having taken
notice of Saussure's Cours (cf. Delbrück 1919:114), Delbrück gives due attention to
the contribution to syntax of the Grammaire générale et raisonnée of Port-Royal
(pp.29-30). Three new chapters were added; one devoted to lexical change (191-
210), another to grammatical categories (211-32), and one to questions of syntax
(233-246). It is true that these additions constitute a departure from previous

accounts, including similar works by Thomsen (1927[1902]) and by Pedersen
(1983[1916]). What is interesting in the context of the present discussion is that, in
the account of Schleicher's contribution to the study of language (Delbrück 1919:97-
104) and frequent references to his work,1 the characterization of Schleicher as a
philologist (rather than a linguist), maintained in the first three editions of Delbriick's
Einleitung, has been deleted. But Delbriick's ambiguity toward Schleicher's work
remains: While in chapter 4 ("Von Bopp bis Schleicher und Curtius", 91-107)
Schleicher is depicted as essentially developing Bopp's ideas further and formulating
basic tenets much more clearly than his predecessor, chapter 5 ("Von Schleicher und
Curtius bis zur Gegenwart", 108-155) includes him and Georg Curtius (1820-1885)
in the next phase of historical-comparative Indo-European grammar.2 In short, even
in his later accounts, Delbriick's depiction of Schleicher (and probably of other
scholars of his generation) would have to be read with critical attention as to the
personal and historical biases of the author.
1.3 Pedersen's Sprogvidenskaben i det nittende Aarhundrede (1924)
As I have given a fairly detailed account of Holger Pedersen's life and work
elsewhere (Koerner 1985), I can be reasonably brief here, while focussing in the
main on his historiographical writings. His 1924 book, whose 1931 translation into
English become very influential - it was the main source of Waterman's 1963
textbook for example - was not Pedersens first attempt at history-writing. In fact, it
was preceded by 64-page monograph published in 1899, which was followed, in
1916, by a slightly longer survey of 19th-century linguistics (see Pedersen 1983 for
an English translation). However, while the 1916 depiction of Schleicher, at least
with regard to his morphology, remains quite in line with what appears to have been
the standard account since the advent of the Junggrammatiker (as evident in Del
briick's Einleitung as indicated in section 1.2 above), Pedersen has praise for Schlei
cher's achievement in his Compendium, especially with regard to his efforts in
reconstruction and the delineation of phonetic developments. Pedersen concludes:
This entire method and likewise most of the factual material contained in Schleicher's
phonology, which makes up the first volume of his Compendium, impress us as
being extremely modern. It is only sightly marred by the fact that the philosophy
1
Cf. the "Namenverzeichnis", p.xv, for details, but also pp.158 and 162 (the latter probably in lieu
of the erroneous reference to p.163), not mentioned there.
2
Comparing Brugmann's Grundriss with Schleicher's Compendium (Delbrück 1919:147-149) and
referring to Brugmann's explanation of Latin perfect forms as representing relicts of an Indo-
European aorist, Delbrück (p.149) notes: "Bei einer solchen Auffassung, [...], tritt die Kontinuität
des Indogermanischen viel deutlicher zutage, und in dieser Beziehung gleicht der Grundriß mehr
Bopps Vergleichender Grammatik als Schleichers Kompendium."
with which Schleicher more than any other of the more significant linguists was
preoccupied can betray him in places. (Pedersen 1983 [1916]:64-65)
In Pedersen's 1924 history, Schleicher's work in Balto-Slavic (pp.51-52, 65) re

ceives high praise, but in the chapter on "The Methods of Comparative Linguistics"
(240-310) Schleicher's Compendium is regarded as "the final step in the development
of this period [i.e., the first step being Bopp's comparative grammar]" (p.242).
Further, the year 1876 is cited (pp. 273, 277) as marking the 'new period' of com
parative linguistics, as has become the standard opinion in historiographic scholarship
since the advent of the Neogrammarian school (cf. Koerner 1981). Elsewhere in the
chapter Schleicher's Compendium is lauded for its conciseness. In fact we find an
echo to his earlier assessment when he states (p.266), with reference to Schleicher's
phonology, that the "volume seems rather modern, for, [...], it treats only of the
phenomena which Schleicher felt able to arrange under rules." Although Schleicher
is criticized for inconsistencies in his morphological analyses, Pedersen
acknowledges (p.267) his important contribution to "the progress of method by his
precise reconstructions." It seems that Pedersen's ambiguity toward Schleicher
remained unresolved; Schleicher receives praise for having "created a clear and
precise method of expression for phonology in his reconstructed forms" and for
having "set forth his ideas on the relationships of the Indo-European languages
clearly by drawing up a genealogical tree" (p.272), but he is criticized for his
conservativism with regard to the status he assigned to Old Indic and for errors of
interpretation, which Pedersen regards significant enough to relegate Schleicher to the
'older period' in historical-comparative linguistics.
There are a number of other things to be said about Pedersen's Sprogvidenskaben
i det nittende Aarhundrede that have to do with his philosophy of science which is
strongly inclined toward a positivistic stand on matters of linguistic research. This
philosophical viewpoint is particularly evident in Pedersen's attitude toward
reconstruction, namely, that the reconstructed forms of Indo-European are to be
regarded "as nothing more than formulas, a sort of common denomitor for all the
varying forms of the separate languages" (Pedersen 1931[ 1924]:269). Pedersen no
doubt shared this position with many other second-generation Neogrammarians,
including F. de Saussure's former student in Paris, Antoine Meillet (1866-1936).
More important, however, are the omissions in Pedersen's history of 19th-century
linguistics. Thus it is curious to note that he does not refer to either Benfey's 1869
Geschichte der Sprachwissernschaft or Delbrück's 1880 Einleitung (or any of its five
subsequent editions), and even much more astonishing (though it is quite in line with
Pedersen's positivist stance) is the exclusion of any general linguistic work from his
survey.
As one might expect, Pedersen leaves out what may be called the 'Humboldtian
trend' in linguistics. Humboldt himself is briefly mentioned with regard to his work
on Basque (p.124) and Kawi (p. 130), but no reference is made to his linguistic
theory. Steinthal is not mentioned once, nor is Georg von der Gabelentz (1840-
1893), whose book Sprachwissenschaft of 1891 represents perhaps best the late
19th-century post-Humboldtian position.3 Likewise, Franz Nikolaus Finck (1867-

1910), born in the same year as Pedersen and who had done fieldwork on Irish on
the Aran Islands west of Galway before him (cf. Koerner 1985:238), is mentioned in
passing for having investigated Gypsy dialects (p.17) and with reference to his 1909
overview of the languages of the world (p. 101), but his typological studies which
follow the Humboldtian tradition are ignored.
There is another interesting omission in Pedersen's 1924 work in that although
the Cours de linguistique générale had appeared in 1922 in a second edition, and
although Pedersen mentions Saussure on various occasions, for instance concerning
his work on Lithuanian (pp. 66, 311), etymology (p.215), the 'law of palatals'
(p.280), and especially the Mémoire (288-289, but also pp. 278, 285), nevertheless
Saussure's general linguistic ideas pass unmentioned. Similarly, Hermann Paul's
Principien der Sprachgeschichte, which Delbrück (1919:150) had characterized as
'eine Bibel für den Sprachforscher', was not mentioned once in Pedersen's 360-page
book, although it had had its fifth edition in 1920. Paul is mentioned only briefly
with reference to his work on German (pp.42, 43). In short, Pedersen excluded
almost anything that smacked of theory; his own scholarship, which was immense,
bears this out (cf. Koerner 1985:247-52). Even a 3-page contribution to a festschrift
published as late as 1949, which seems to announce an interest in general linguistics,
turns out to be an argument in favour of the study of phonology and morphology (to
the exclusion of syntax) as the proper empirical bases of linguistics, a position that
harks back to Schleicher one hundred years earlier (cf. Koerner 1985:239-241, for
details).
2.0 Concluding Remarks
From this brief investigation of the three most influential accounts of the
development of Western linguistics published within the 55-year span between 1869
and 1924, it becomes obvious that, while they all provide us with a considerable
amount of valuable information on 19th-century research method and practice, we
will have to use them with caution. All three authors exhibit a certain amount of
personal bias and selectivity, which does not allow us to assume that their histories
always present us with a factual account of linguistic scholarship. The books by
Benfey, Delbrück, and Pedersen must themselves be viewed in their historical
situation, with each of them representing particular views characteristic of the pre-
neogrammarian (Benfey 1869), neogrammarian (Delbrück 1880; 61919), and post-
neogrammarian (Pedersen 1983[1916], 1931[1924]) periods in the evolution of
3
The list of exclusions could be extended considerably; one other such omission is Philipp
Wegener's (1848-1916) Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens (Halle/S.: M.
Niemeyer, 1885), of which a new edition, together with an introductory article by Clemens
Knobloch, has recently been prepared (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1989).
linguistic science. In final analysis, we need not be willing accomplices in a total

rewriting of the history as presented in these (and many other books), as Szemerényi
(1980) feared. We may in fact find much in them that can stand the test of time,
though perhaps not because we are concerned that the wheel might otherwise be 'too
oft re-invented' (Troike 1976).
REFERENCES
Benfey, Theodor. 1869. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen

Philologie in Deutschland, seit dem Anfange des 19. Jahrhunderts mit einem
Rückblick auffrühere Zeiten.. München: J. G. Cotta. (Repr., New York: Johnson,
1965.)
Brekle, Herbert Ernst. 1985. Einführung in die Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Brogyanyi, Bela. 1983. "A Few Remarks on the Origin of the Phrase 'où tout se
tient'". Historiographia Linguistica 10.143-147.
Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist
thought. New York 7 London: Harper & Row.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1880. Einleitung in das Sprachstudium: Ein Beitrag zur
Methodik der verglei-chenden Sprachforschung. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. (2nd
ed., 1884; 3rd ed., 1893.)
----------- 1882. Introduction to the Study of Language: A critical survey of the
history and methods of comparative philology of Indo-European languages. Transl.
into English by Eva Channing. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. (New ed., with a
foreword by E.F.K. Koerner, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1974; 2nd printing,
1989.)
---------- 1904. Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen: Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte und Methode der vergleichenden Sprachforschung. Ibid.
(5th ed., 1908; 6th revised and substantially enlarged ed., 1919; repr., Hildesheim:
G. Olms, 1976.)
Finck, Franz Nikolaus. 1909. Die Sprachstämme des Erdkreises. Leipzig: B. G.
Teubner.
Gabelentz, Georg von der. 1891. Die Sprachwissenschaft; ihre Aufgaben, Methoden
und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel. (2nd ed., extended and ed. by
Albrecht Conon Graf von der Schulenburg, Leipzig: C.H. Tauchnitz, 1901.)
Hermann, Eduard. 1922. "Berthold Delbrück". Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 8.259-
266. (Repr. in Portraits of Linguists ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.1, 489-496.
Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1966.)
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1985. "Sir William Jones and Historiography". For Gordon
H. Fairbanks ed. by Vehecta Z. Acson & Richard L. Leed, 64-66. Honololu: Univ.
of Hawaii Press.
---------. 1986. "Nineteenth-Century Linguistics on Itself". Studies in the History of

Western Linguistics: In honour of R.H. Robins ed. by Theodora ynon & F[rank]
R[obert] Palmer, 172-188. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Koerner, E. F. Konrad. 1973. Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and development of his
linguistic thought in western studies of language. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg.
-------- 1978. Toward a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected essays. Foreword
by R. H. Robins. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
-------- 1981. "The Neogrammarian Doctrine: Breakthrough or extension of the
Schleicherian Paradigm. A problem in linguistic historiography". Folia Linguistica
Historica 2.157-178. (Repr. a chap.7 in this volume.)
--------. 1983. "The Chomskyan 'Revolution' and Its Historiography: A few critical
remarks". Language & Communication 3.147-169. (A rev. and extended version
appears as chap.8 in this volume.)
--------- 1985. "Holger Pedersen: A sketch of his life and work". Critica Storica
22.236-252. (Repr. as chap.23 in this volume.)
Newmeyer, Frederick J[aret]. 1980. Linguistics in America: The first quarter-century
of transformational-generative grammar. New York: Academic Press. (2nd rev.
ed., 1986.)
Pedersen, Holger. 1924. Sprogvidenskaben i det nittende Aarhundrede: Metoder og
resultater. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. (Repr., Århus: Akona, 1978.)
--------- 1931. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century. Transl. into English
by John Webster Spargo. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. (Repr., with
the new title The Discovery of Language', Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press,
1962.)
1983[1916]. A Glance at the History of Linguistics, with particular regard
to the historical study of phonology. Transl. from the Danish by Caroline 
Henriksen, ed. with an introd. by Konrad Koerner. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J.
Benjamins.
Schleicher, August. 1866. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indoger
manischen Sprachen. Vol.I, 2nd rev. ed. Weimar: H. Böhlau. (First ed., 1861.)
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1980. "About Unrewriting the History of Linguistics". Wege
zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag
von Hansjakob Seiler ed. by Gunter Brettschneider & Christian Lehmann, 151-
162. Tübingen: G. Narr.
Toman, Jindrich. 1987. "Not from 1903, not from Meillet: A final (?) remark on 'où
tout se tient". Historiographia Linguistica 14:3.403-405.
Thomsen, Vilhelm. 1927 [1902]. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bis zum Aus
gang des 19. Jahrhunderts: Kurzgefasste Darstellung der Hauptpunkte. Transl.
from the Danish by Hans Pollak. Halle/S.: M. Niemeyer.
Troike, Rudolph  1976. "Lest the Wheel Be Too Oft Re-Invented: Towards a reas
sessment of the intellectual history of linguistics". Linguistic and Literary Studies in
Honor of Archibald A. Hill ed. by Mohammed Ali Jazayeri et al., vol.1: General
and TheoreticalLinguistics,297-303. Lisse/Holland: P. de Ridder.
Waterman, John Thomas. 1963. Perspectives in Linguistics: An account of the
background of modern linguistics. Chicago & London: Univ. of Chicago Press.
(2nd enl. ed., 1970.)
DAS PROBLEM DER METASPRACHE IN DER
SPRACHWISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTSSCHREIBUNG*
[. . .] toute langue est une méthode

analytique, et toute méthode
analytique est une langue.
Condillac *
0. Einleitende Beobachtungen
Das seit dem Erscheinen von Chomskys Cartesian Linguistics wiedererwachte

Interesse an der Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Sprachforschung hat in den letz
ten Jahren zu einer breiteren Diskussion vor allem methodologischer und epi-
stemologischer Fragen geführt. So erschienen zum Beispiel in Deutschland
allein zwei Bücher in einem Jahr (Grotsch 1982, Schmitter 1982), die solchen
Fragen gewidmet sind.
Diese Entwicklung innerhalb der Linguistik hat verschiedene Gründe; die
Vermutung liegt nahe, daß der Versuch unternommen wird, die Geschichts
schreibung der Sprachwissenschaft genauso 'szientifischen' Ansprüchen anzu
passen wie es der modernen Sprachforschung gelungen ist, innerhalb der Hu
man- und Sozialwissenschaften eine führende Disziplin zu werden. Dies ist ein
hohes Ziel, vor allem, wenn man bedenkt, daß die Historie einer Wissenschaft
weit über den Rahmen der Disziplin selbst hinausgreifen muß, um ihr Arbeitsge
biet einigermaßen adäquat darstellen zu können. Ich meine nämlich, daß die
Wissenschaftsgeschichte nicht ohne einen allgemeinen Kontext, ohne Berück
sichtigung des Zeitgeistes und oftmals auch nicht ohne Berücksichtigung politi-
* Dieses Kapitel stellt einen Wiederabdruck des gleichnamigen Beitrags dar, der zuerst im
Sammelband Zur Theorie und Methode der Geschichtsschreibung der Linguistik, hrgg. von Peter
Schmitter (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1987), S.63-88, erschienen war. Er erfolgt mit Erlaubnis
der Verlegers, Dr Gunter Narr.- Das Thema wurde zum ersten Mal anläßlich der International
Conference on Medieval Grammar behandelt, die am 19. u. 20. Februar 1976 an der University
of California, Davis, stattfand, und zwar unter dem Vortragstitel "The Question of Metalanguage
in Linguistic Historiography, with particular reference to medieval linguistic doctrines", was die
Verwendung von etlichen Beispielen aus der Mittelalterliteratur im vorliegenden Text erklärt.
scher und ökonomischer Gesichtspunkte auskommen kann. Im Gegenteil, der

Wissenschaftsgeschichtsschreiber muß den Versuch unternehmen, den 'context
of situation' (Firth) zu rekonstruieren, in dem eine bestimmte Anschauung der
Dinge oder eine bestimmte Entwicklung möglich war.
Über letzteres Thema habe ich jedoch schon an anderer Stelle verschiedent
lich gehandelt (vgl. Koerner 1975, 1976), und ich beabsichtige hier nicht, noch
mals auf diese prinzipiellen Überlegungen einzugehen. Stattdessen möchte ich
ein Thema aufgreifen, das m.W. zwar in der Sprachwissenschaft (e.g. Hsieh
1980) und in der Sprachphilosophie (e.g. Harweg 1981) oftmals behandelt wor
den ist, jedoch, wie ich sehe, nicht von der Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichts
schreibung: Ich meine das Problem der Metasprache.
Dieses Problem erwächst vielleicht weniger aus der Praxis der wissenschaftli
chen Forschung, wo jeder ein bestimmtes Gebiet oder eine bestimmte Epoche ab
steckt welche einer sorgfältigen Analyse unterzogen werden. Viel eher tritt diese
Frage dann auf, wenn innerhalb eines sprachwissenschaftlichen Curriculums, in
dem die Studenten mit den jüngsten Methoden sprachwissenschaftlichen Den
kens und Arbeitens vertraut gemacht werden, die Geschichte der Linguistik
sinnvoll integriert werden und vielleicht gar ein besonderes Interesse an diesem
Gebiet geweckt werden soll, und dies ohne Geschichtsklitterung à la Chomsky
zu betreiben!
Mit anderen Worten, der Unterrichtende einer Lehrveranstaltung zur Ge
schichte der Sprachwissenschaft befindet sich leicht in einer Zwickmühle: Ver
sucht er beispielsweise die Tradition der Grammaire générale et raisonnéehisto
risch getreu innerhalb ihrer geistesgeschichtlichen Situation und in der ihr eige
nen Terminologie darzustellen, wird er kaum einen seiner Studenten für diese
Sprachlehrmethode und diese Sprachphilosophie erwärmen und wohl auch
nicht für die Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft im allgemeinen; sollte er hinge
gen ahistorisch vorgehen, mithilfe von Konzepten und Termini der heutigen
Sprachtheorie solche früheren Beschäftigungen mit Sprache darstellen, dann
wird er diesen Epochen nicht gerecht und muß sich von seinen Kollegen scharf
kritisieren lassen. (Ich selbst würde dies gegenüber Salus' (1969) Charakterisie
rung der Modistae als "pre-pre-Cartesians" im Sinne Chomskys und Tanners
(1970) Interpretation von Aristoteles als Strukturalisten tun.)
Ich möchte aber im folgenden nicht von den Nöten des Universitätslehrers
berichten - in der mündlichen Darstellung kann man ja leicht ein paar erklären
de Worte einschieben, in denen man das soeben Gesagte modifiziert und auf die
Gefahr von 'presentism' (s. Stocking 1965) oder einer 'Whig history' (Butterfield
1931) hinweist - , sondern auf die Wahl der metasprachlichen Mittel und deren
mögliche Konsequenzen in der wissenschaftlichen Darstellung älterer Sprach
ideen. Das Problem der Metasprache ist natürlich kein der Wissenschaftshistorie
der Linguistik spezifisches; nicht umsonst gibt es, vor allem seit Ende der sech
ziger Jahre eine Fülle von Nachschlagewerken linguistischer Termini. Die ersten
Gelehrten, die diese Frage im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Sprachwis-
DAS PROBLEM DER METASPRACHE 15
senschaft aufgeworfen haben, scheinen Hartmut Scharfe (1961:25) und Fritz
Staal (1961:123) gewesen sein, und zwar unabhängig voneinander, wenngleich
- und das wird kein Zufall sein - bei der Beschäftigung mit der Logik der anti
ken Sanskrit-Grammatiker. (Scharfe veröffentliche später — 1971 —eine Mono
graphie über Pä ini's Metalanguage, und Staal widmete dem Konzept der Meta
sprache einen längeren Aufsatz; vgl. Staal 1975.) In den beiden eingangs erwähn
ten Büchern von Grotsch und Schmitter wird jedoch, soweit ich sehe, auf dieses
Thema nicht eingegangen.
Bevor ich jedoch im folgenden das Problem der Metasprache in der Sprach
wissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung an ein paar Beispielen klarzumachen ver
suche, möchte ich noch ein paar Worte zum Terminus selbst sagen.
Der Ausdruck metaj zik wurde erstmalig von dem polnischen Logiker Alfred
Tarski (1902-1984) im Jahre 1931 eingeführt und ist seit der Veröffentlichung
seines Vortrags in deutscher Sprache (Tarski 1935) in der Philosophie geläufig
geworden. Jedoch ist dieser Aufsatz nicht speziell dem Thema der Metasprache
gewidmet, sondern dem 'Wahrheitsbegriff in formalisierten Sprachen', und
Tarski weist nicht darauf hin, daß er einen neuen Terminus einführt.1 Mehr als
einen generellen Hinweis auf die Wichtigkeit dieses Begriffs finden wir daher
dort auch nicht, ich zitiere hier die englische Übersetzung, da die deutsche Fas
sung mir nicht zugänglich war :
[. . .] we must always distinguish clearly between the language about
which we speak and the language in which we speak, as well as between
the science which is the object of our investigation and the science in
which the investigation is carried out. (Tarski 1956:167)
Ohne Zweifel ist Tarski die Quelle von Rudolf Carnaps (1891-1970) Unter
scheidung zwischen 'Beobachtungssprache' und 'theoretischer Sprache' (Carnap
1958) und der wohl schon früher gebrauchten Unterscheidung zwischen 'Ob
jektsprache'und 'Metasprache', die Wolfgang Stegmüller wie folgt definiert:
Eine Sprache, welche den Gegenstand einer Untersuchung ausmacht, heißt
Objektsprache. Jene Sprache, die man gebraucht, um über die Objekt
sprache Aussagen zu machen, heißt Metasprache. (Stegmüller 1969:32)
Stegmüller fügt gleich noch erläuternd hinzu, daß bei 'empirischen sprachwis
senschaftlichen Untersuchungen' beide Sprache häufig dieselben seien, etwa
dann, wenn man ein Werk über die französische Grammatik in französischer
Sprache abfaßt. In solchen Fällen müsse, "wo die Gefahr einer Verwechslung
von Gebrauch und Erwähnung von Ausdrücken auftritt, das Verfahren der An
führung benützt werden". Daraus wäre wohl zu schließen, daß eine Diskussion
über eine schon entwickelte Sprachtheorie, sagen wir die Saussures, auf einer
Metametaebene stattfindet (vgl. hierzu auch Kubczak 1975); aber dies würde
uns hier zu weit führen. (Bei logischen Untersuchungen ist die Sachlage natür
lich eine andere, da diese 'restricted language', wie Hjelmslev sie nannte, ja erst
noch geschaffen werden müsse, im Gegensatz zu 'pass-key languages', d. h., was
wir meist 'natürliche Sprachen' nennen, die schon vorhanden sind.)
Für die folgende Diskussion scheint es mir auszureichen, wenn wir unter
Metasprache' das meinen, was Josette Rey-Debove mit 'langage scientifique"
bezeichnet.2 Ich denke hier vor allem an den Gebrauch sprachwissenschaftlicher
Terminologie bei der Beschreibung von theoretischen Äußerungen früherer
Autoren oder Quellen. Und dabei meine ich nicht Werke zu kritisieren wie etwa
Chomskys Cartesianische Linguistik, wo die 'Modernisierung', um nicht zu sa
gen: Verdrehung, der Sprachideen früherer Epochen durchaus bewußt betrieben
wird, so als hätte z.B. 'to generate' in der Transformationstheorie irgend etwas
zu tun mit Humboldts Begriff des 'Erzeugens'.
1. Beispiele für die Mißachtung von metasprachlichen Aspekten
Schon vor 30 Jahren, als die Beschäftigung mit der Geschichte der Sprachwissen
schaft noch kein breites Interesse gefunden hatte, bemerkte Georges Mounin:
Il est difficile en effet, quand on relit aujourd'hui la linguistique du passé,
d'échapper à l'éclairage que les connaissances actuelles projettent à renvers
sur les formulations d'autrefois; difficile de résister à cette impression
saisissante des vieux textes apparaissent comme ''prémonitoires", difficile
de combattre le sentiment qu'on aperçoit partout des précurseurs. (Mou
nin 1959:8)
Wir alle sind Zeuge geworden, daß in den letzten 15 Jahren etliche Linguisten
dieser Gefahr erlegen sind und das praktizierten, was Morton Bloomfield voreini
gen Jahren als "precursorism" 3 bezeichnete und andere (z.B. Gardner 1973:5)
als legitime 'Ahnenforschung' ausmachen.
Im folgenden werden ein paar Beispiele zitiert, die nicht mit dem von Choms
ky inspirierten 'ancestor hunt' zu tun haben, sondern etwas entlegeneren Gebie
ten, vor allem dem späteren Mittelalter, entstammen, das in den letzten Jahren
ein verhältnismäßig breites Interesse unter Linguisten gefunden hat, z.T. wie
derum aufgrund einer Fehlinterpretation der Modistae als 'protogenerative '
Semantiker.
1.1. Die Verwendung saussurischer Begriffe in einer Studie über mittelalterli

chen Sprachgebrauch
Das erste Beispiel betrifft nicht direkt die Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Sprach
forschung; aber es ist insofern interessant, als es moderne, metasprachliche Aus
drücke verwendet, die das Forschungsresultat beeinträchtigen. Ich meine hier
Hans-Georg Kolls Studie über Die französischen Wörter "langue" und "langage"
im Mittelalter (Koll 1958), in der das semantische Feld dieser Termini im Mit
telfranzösischen und Lateinischen untersucht wird. Ein Rezensent notierte zu
dieser Arbeit, daß es vielleicht "unwise" gewesen sei, "to use these Saussurean
distinctions of reference for earlier usage in some points [. . . ] , since Saussure
was formulating a theory of language rather than observing French usage"
(Spence 1959:159).
In der Tat scheint der Autor der Versuchung erlegen zu sein, Objektsprache
und Metasprache zu vermengen und sich von Saussures Konzept einer langue',
einem in der Tat theoretischem Konstrukt, bei der Bestimmung des Gebrauchs
von Lateinisch lingua beeinflussen zu lassen. Ähnlich bringt Koll Ausdrücke wie
sermo und teilweise sogar Vokabeln wie locutio und oratio in die Nähe von
Saussure's 'parole'. Koll weiß um die Gefahr, die eine Parallelisierung von saus-
sureschen Konzepten und lateinischen Ausdrücken (die in seinen Texten nie
mals als termini technici auftreten!) mit sich bringen kann, indem er darauf ver
weist: "Die langue' ist für De Saussure in erster Linie (wenn auch nicht nur)
das grammatikalische System, das notwendigerweise vollständig und in sich
geschlossen ist" (Koll 1958:22). Jedoch zeigt es sich an verschiedenen Stellen,
daß er sich nicht ganz darüber im klaren war, welch ein Verfahren er eigentlich
anwendet, wenn er an einer Stelle (S. 23, Anm. 28) vermerkt, daß sermo näher
an 'parole' herantrete, und an anderer (S. 31), daß dieser Ausdruck näher an
'langue' sich anschlösse. Diese Vermengung wird dann auch deutlich in Kolls
Schlußbemerkungen zum allgemeinen Gebrauch von lingua und sermo im La
teinischen:
Nun sehen wir, daß diese Verwirrung [des tatsächlichen Gebrauchs dieser
Wörter] sich auch auf die durch die betreffenden Wörter ausgedrückten
Vorstellungen erstreckt wenigstens, wenn man den Maßstab [sic] der mo
dernen Sprachwissenschaft anlegt: einerseits unterscheiden die Franzosen
des 12. und 13. Jh. noch nicht die Begriffe "langue" und "langage" im
saussureschen Sinne ("sprechbares Material" - "das Sprechen selbst"),
während das Lateinische eine ähnliche Unterscheidung macht, wenn auch
lingua und sermo sich nicht genau mit langue und langage (im saussure
schen Sinne) decken. (Koll 1958:112)
Ganz abgesehen davon, daß der Autor Saussures Termini fehlinterpretiert, wird
das Ergebnis seiner Untersuchung dadurch verfälscht, daß hier nicht zwischen
natürlichem Sprachgebrauch und sprachtheoretischer Terminologie unterschie
den wird: Saussure hat ja nicht, wie manchmal angenommen wird, in der fran
zösischen Sprache angelegte Unterscheidungen verwendet, sondern bewußt
vorhandene Lexeme mit neuem Inhalt gefüllt, der durch keine historisch-philo
logische Untersuchung begründet werden kann. Die Anwendung von solchen
terminologischen Inhalten auf tatsächliche semantische Sprachverhältnisse (und
nicht nur auf die früheren Epochen) ist daher unstatthaft, und Kolls sonst sorg
fältige Arbeit ist hierdurch im Wert beeinträchtigt.
1.2. Mittelalterliche und moderne Auffassungen von 'Etymologie'
Das zweite Beispiel betrifft eine andere Art terminologischen Mißverständnisses,

nämlich das Hineinlegen von Bedeutungen in gleichlautende Termini auf der
Basis unseres heutigen Verständnisses eines bestimmten Wortes. Ich meine hier
den Begriff der Etymologie in der Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft.
Uns allen ist das Voltaire zugeschriebene Bonmot bekannt, demnach die
Etymologie eine Wissenschaft sei, "où les voyelles ne font rien et les consonnes
fort peu de c h o s e s " 4 , und wir sehen es als die Errungenschaft des 19. Jahr
hunderts an, die wirklichen Grundlagen einer wissenschaftlichen Etymologie
geschaffen zu haben, etwa so, wie wir sie im Vorwort von Friedrich Diez' Ety
mologischem Wörterbuch der romanischen Sprachen charakterisiert finden :
Die aufgabe der etymologie ist es, ein gegebenes wort auf seinen ursprung
zurückzuführen. Die zur lösung dieser aufgabe angewandte methode ist
aber nicht überall dieselbe: leicht läßt sich eine kritische und eine unkriti
sche wahrnehmen. Die unkritische nimmt ihre deutung auf gut glück aus
einer äußeren ähnlichkeit der form, oder erzwingt sie bei geringerer ähn-
lichkeit. [. . .] Im gegensatz zur unkritischen methode unterwirft sich die
kritische schlechthin der von der lautlehre aufgefundenen principien und
regeln, ohne einen fußbreit davon abzugehen, sofern nicht klare thatsäch-
liche ausnahmen dazu nöthigen. (Diez 1869:vii)
Das war im Jahre 1869 geschrieben worden, kurz nach dem Tode von August
Schleicher, der in seinem Handexemplar von seinem Buche Die Deutsche Spra
che noch vermerkt hatte: "Ein derbes Wort über Etymologie hier einzuschalten.
Kartenschlägerei und Astrologie" (Schleicher 1869:128, Anm.). Mit andern
Worten, die historisch-komparative Sprachwissenschaft, bemüht einen Standard
von Wissenschaftlichkeit zu etablieren, der von dem naturwissenschaftlichen und
positivistischen Denken des vergangenen Jahrhunderts inspiriert war, mußte
den Spekulationen früherer Epochen mißtrauisch, wenn nicht gar feindselig
gegenüber stehen. Diese Haltung findet sich im wesentlichen schon bei Bopp,
dem Begründer der neuen Sprachwissenschaft, wenn er im Vorwort zu seiner
Vergleichenden Grammatik feststellt:
Ich beabsichtige in diesem Buche eine vergleichende, alles Verwandte zu
sammenfassende Beschreibung des Organismus der auf dem Titel genann
ten Sprachen, eine Erforschung ihrer physischen und mechanischen Ge
setze und des Ursprungs der die grammatischen Verhältnisse bezeichnen
den Formen. Nur das Geheimnis der Wurzeln oder der Benennungsgründe
der Urbegriffe lassen wir unangetastet ; wir untersuchen nicht, warum z.B.
die Wurzel I gehen und nicht stehen, oder warum die Laut-Gruppe STHA
oder STA stehen und nicht gehen bedeutet. (Bopp 1833:iii; meine Kur-
sivierung:KK;vgl. Vallini 1980:213ff.)
Daß Bopp mit seiner Auffassung der Etymologie vergangener Epochen zum Teil
noch verhaftet blieb, zeigt dieses Zitat deutlich. Die spätestens mit seinem
Schüler August Friedrich Pott einsetzende neuere Etymologieforschung be
gnügte sich mit der Zusammenstellung der indogermanischen Wurzeln und der
durch Sprachvergleich ermittelten allgemeinen Bedeutungen und enthielt sich

jeglicher Spekulation über die Urbedeutungen der morphologischen Einheiten
und die Benennungsgründe. Dieses neuere Verständnis sprachwissenschaftlicher
Forschung im allgemeinen und der Etymologie im besonderen ist es wohl auch,
was Ernst Robert Curtius veranlaßte zu bemerken, daß die mittelalterliche (wie
auch z.T. die antike) Art, Etymologie zu betreiben, "mehr oder minder genieß
bare Spielerei" zu sein scheine.5 Aber der Verdacht liegt ebenfalls nahe, daß
hier der mittelalterliche Begriff der et(h)imologia vom modernen Standpunkt
der Etymologie beurteilt wird.
Wenn man jedoch die Texte des Mittelalters zu diesem Thema untersucht
(vgl. Klinck 1970) und deren klassische Tradition kennt, ist es klar, daß die
frühere(n) Auffassung(en) nicht mit der modernen Praxis der Etymologie identi
fiziert und aus der Gleichlautung der Begriffe keine Identität deduziert werden
darf.
Vor ein paar Jahren hat Clemens-Peter Herbeimann in einem Aufsatz sorg
fältig die Unterschiede zwischen moderner und antiker Etymologie herausge
arbeitet. Ich möchte hier nicht auf die neuere Diskussion eingehen, ob Etymo
logie die 'diachrone Disziplin' par excellence darstellt, wie etwa Yakov Malkiel
meint, oder aber einen TeÜ der synchronen Linguistik, wie u.a. Jürgen Unter
mann (1975) argumentiert hat. Klar ist von Herbermanns Ausführungen (1981:
33ff.), daß die antike Etymologie im wesentlichen andere Ziele verfolgte und,
der ursprünglichen Bedeutung von 'Etymologie' folgend, die 'wahren' Zusam
menhänge zwischen Wortform und -bedeutung, die Gründe der Benennungen
aufzudecken sich bemühte. 6 Diese Bemühungen sind etwa in Platons Kratylos
entwickelt (vgl. Pisani 1975:14—23), wo aber auch schon der Gedanke der
Konventionalität sprachlicher Benennungen anklingt, der sich in späteren Jahr
hunderten als θ έ σ Ε ι-Standpunkt gegenüber dem  ú σ ε ι -Standpunkt heraus-
büdete und zu einem lange anhaltenden Gelehrtenstreit führte. Es sollte viel
leicht angemerkt werden, daß sich bei dem im 1. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert
lebenden Marcus Terentius Varro, der sich aus diesem Streit herausgehalten hat,
eine Reihe von etymologischen Beobachtungen (und Resultaten) findet, die
auch vom heutigen Standpunkt aus im wesentlichen richtig sind (vgl. Pfaffel
1981).
Im folgenden möchte ich mich ein paar mittelalterlichen Autoren zuwenden,
nicht zuletzt deshalb, weil man ihnen in den letzten zehn und mehr Jahren ein
erneutes Interesse entgegengebracht hat.
Es findet sich zum Beispiel im lexikographischen Werk von Uguccione da
Pisa (gest. 1210), Magnae derivationes (MS in Madrid), folgende Erklärung des
Etymologiebegriffs, die, wie Klaus Rießner (1965:44) gezeigt hat, auf Peter
Helias' Priscian-Kommentar zurückgeht und in der Erklärungsweise der Wort
bedeutungen auf weit früheren Werken fußt:
[. . .] ethimologia est expositio vocabuli unius per aliud vocabulum, unum
sive plura magis nota in eadem lingua vel diversis secundum rerum pro-
prietatem et litterarum similitudinem, ut lapis ledens pedem, piger pedibus
eger. (Zitiert nach Rießner 1965:43)
Es läßt sich natürlich leicht zeigen, daß lapis nicht von ledens pedem oder piger
von pedibus eger herzuleiten ist, wenn wir an sprachwissenschaftliche Erklärun
gen denken. Aber Uguccione spricht in diesem Zusammenhang auch von Prinzi
pien der 'proprietas rerum' und der 'similitudo litterarum', die seine Analyse
leiten, also von ganz anderen Leitsätzen. Auch sollte man sich fragen, ob die
'etimología' eine so große Rolle wie die der 'derivatio'in den Werken des Mittel
alters spielt, wenn man sieht, daß Uguccione seine Schrift Magnae derivationes
und nicht etwa Magnae etimologiae betitelte. So finden wir denn auch in einem
einflußreichen Werke des späteren Mittelalters — drei Generationen nach Uguc
cione - , ich meine Johannes von Balbis (gest. 1286) Summa grammaticalis valde
notabilis, quae Catholicon nominatur folgende Bemerkungen bezüglich einer
Unterscheidung dieser beiden Termini :
Quero etiam an etymologia sit species deriuationis, vt cadauer quasi caro
data vermibus; videtur quod non, quia si hoc esset, tunc omnis dictio
potest dici deriuatiua qum omnis dictio etymologizari possit dummodo
velit aliquis meditari. Ad hoc dico quod etymologia non est species deri
uationis, sed quasi species. Alludit enim significationi trahendo argumen
tum per litteras vel syllabas aliunde, vt bos quasi bonus operator soli, et
mons quasi moles opposita nascenti soli, et taurus quasi tuens agmina
vacarum robore virium suarum, et deus quasi dans eternam vitam suis et
roma quasi radix omnium malomm auaricia et homo quasi habens omnia
manu omnipotentis, quia omnipotens omnia propter hominem creauit, et
sinceris quasi sine carie et sic de similibus. Non est tarnen dicendum quod
ab illis deriuantur vel componantur per que etymologizantur. (Zitiert
nach Niederehe 1975:174;cf. Niederehe 1983:79-80) 8
Aus diesem Zitat wird deutlich, daß 'etymologia' eine besondere Art von Be
deutungserklärung von Wörtern darstellt, die deutlich von einem Verfahren un
terschieden ist, das man 'derivatio' nannte. Bei der letzteren handelt es sich um
einen Teil der Grammatik, nämlich dem, der sich mit der Erklärung der Lexeme
beschäftigt, wobei zwischen 'primitiva', d.h. ursprünglichen Wörtern, die die
Grundformen der Sprache bezeichnen, und 'derivativa', d.h. den morphologisch
abgeleiteten Wörtern, unterschieden wird. 'Etymologia' hingegen ist — zumin
dest in vielen Traktaten des Mittelalters, die sich mit Sprache beschäftigen
- eher eine Art intellektuellen Spiels mit Wortbedeutungen (allusio), welches
den Sinn der Wörter nach den Regeln der 'rerum proprietas' und der litterarum
similitudo' nachzuzeichnen suchte. Diese Verfahrensmöglichkeiten waren schon
im Platonischen Kratylos angelegt, hatten bei Varro (vgl. Schröter 1960) die
Bezeichnungen 'demptio', 'ad-ditio', 'traiectio' und 'commutatio' erhalten, die
bei Donat und in der Folgezeit durch 'detractio', 'adiectio', 'transmutatio'
und 'immutatio' ersetzt wurden, also verschiedene Techniken der Formenmani
pulation, die es möglich machen sollten, die gewünschte Bedeutungskombination
zu erzielen (vgl. Herbermann 1981:41). 9
Am Beispiel des 'Etymologie'-Begriffs ist deutlich geworden, zu welchen
Schlußfolgerungen und Fehlinterpretationen es fuhren kann, wenn man aufgrund
von gleichlautenden Termini auf gleiche Inhalte schließt. Nicht besser ist es um
solche Interpretationen bestellt, die Termini der modernen Sprachtheorie, etwa
die von Saussure oder die von Chomsky geprägten, auf frühere Epochen in der
Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft übertragen, Humboldt zum Protogenerativi-
sten stilisieren oder Baudouin de Courtenay zum Saussureaner machen, wobei
die intellektuellen Kontexte, die eine bequeme Parallelisierung rasch als un
angemessen erscheinen lassen würde, völlig außer Acht gelassen werden.
Für den Historiker der Linguistik muß es daher eine Hauptregel sein, die
Sprachtheorie eines Autors innerhalb dessen spezifischen 'frame of reference'
festzulegen, immanent zu beschreiben und erst dann in einem nächsten Schritt
solche Termini heranzuführen, die sie dem Verständnis eines heutigen Lesers
näher bringen können, ohne aber die ursprünglichen Intentionen des Autors
zu verfälschen. Daß dies nicht leicht zu bewerkstelligen ist, wissen wir von den
vielen Fällen, in denen dies nicht gelungen ist; von solchen Beispielen,in denen
erst gar nicht der Versuch gemacht worden ist, historisch zu arbeiten, möchte
ich hier nicht erst reden.
1.3. Der sogenannte Erste Grammatische Traktat und die moderne Phonolo-
gie 10
Mein drittes Beispiel zeigt, was geschieht, wenn mittelalterliche Texte von heuti
gen Linguisten (oftmals im Gegensatz zu Philologen!) interpretiert werden, und
zwar ohne Rücksicht auf die Metasprache, die ja auch den jeweiligen historisch-
kulturellen Kontext einschließt, in der ein solcher Text entstanden ist. Ich habe
hierzu den sog. Ersten Grammatischen Traktat, ein isländisches Manuskript des
12. Jahrhunderts, ausgewählt, von dem in den letzten zwölf Jahren insgesamt
drei Übersetzungen mit Kommentar erschienen sind. Obgleich es höchst zwei
felhaft ist, daß der Traktat das Werk eines einzigen Autors ist und daß er viel
leicht gar nicht der älteste von vier Traktaten ist — so nimmt Albano Leoni
(1975:10; 1977) an, daß der zweite Traktat um einiges älter ist (was jedoch von
Raschellà 1982 heftig bestritten wird) —, will ich im folgenden die übliche
Identifizierung beibehalten und von dem Ersten Grammatiker (EG) und dem
Ersten Grammatischen Traktat (EGT) sprechen (vgl. den Forschungsbericht in
Raschellà 1983).
Der EGT hat seit Rasmus Rasks Ausgabe dJ. 1818 breite Aufmerksamkeit
gefunden, vor allem unter skandinavischen Gelehrten. Es ist klar, daß es in die
sem Text um die im 12. Jahrhundert als dringend empfundene orthographische
Reform des Isländischen geht, und man sollte annehmen, daß es dem Autor
(oder den Autoren) darum geht, ohne viel technisches Vokabular der gebildeten
Leserschaft der Zeit das Problem vorzuführen. Wir können ebenfalls annehmen,
daß der EG solche Ausdrücke und Wendungen benutzt, die dem intellektuellen
und kulturellen Gemeingut seiner Leser oder Zuhörer angehören. M.a.W.,
der EG wird vornehmlich solche Termini gewählt haben, von denen er annehmen
kann, daß sie von seinen Zeitgenossen verstanden würden. Ich weise an dieser
Stelle auf diese Überlegungen hin, weil sie später für ein adäquateres Verständnis
der Absicht des EG wichtig sind.
Es steht außer Zweifel (vgl. auch Raschellà 1982), daß es dem EG um die
Einführung zusätzlicher Grapheme ins Isländische geht, um die Werte des lateini
schen Alphabets zur Kodifizierung der isländischen Orthographie effektiver
und vor allem eindeutiger verwenden zu können. Es ist natürlich denkbar, daß in
seinem Argument 'phonologische' Überlegungen eine Rolle gespielt haben, zu
mindest die, daß für jeden charakteristischen Laut ein Zeichen verwendet werden
sollte. Aufgrund des Gesamttextes des Traktats muß es jedoch als unwahrschein
lich angenommen werden, daß der EG darum bemüht gewesen sei, eine phono
logische Theorie zu entwickeln und dabei ein Inventar technischer Ausdrücke
für die phonologische Analyse vorzustellen. Diese Feststellung ist für das Folgen
de wichtig.
In diesem Abschnitt des Aufsatzes möchte ich anhand einiger Beispiele de
monstrieren, wie moderne Gelehrte bei ihrer Textauslegung in die Irre gegangen
sind, weil sie dabei strukturalistische Termini und Prinzipien des 20. Jahrhun
derts in einen 800 Jahre alten Text hineingetragen haben, der, bei nüchterner
Betrachtung, als ein schlichtes und praktisches Argument für die Beseitigung
orthographischer Probleme erscheint. Es ist vielleicht interessant zu vermerken,
daß erste Zweifel an der Angemessenheit der von Skandinaviern entwickelten
Hypothesen von einem italienischen Germanisten, Federico Albano Leoni, ge
kommen sind und nicht, soweit ich sehe 11 , von skandinavischen Philologen.
Obgleich Albano Leoni in weiten Zügen seinen Vorgängern folgt — selbst in
bezug auf deren terminologischen Neuerungen —, glaubt er dennoch, entschie
denen Zweifel an der neueren Interpretationsweise hegen zu müssen (Albano
Leoni 1975:33ff.), besonders an Formulierungen wie solchen von Hreinn Bene-
diktsson, demzufolge der EG als "a distinguished, if isolated, precursor of
twentieth-century theoretical linguistics" (Benediktsson 1972:81) zu gelten habe.
Den ersten Anstoß zu dieser Interpretationsweise des EGT scheint Sveinn
Bergveinsson im Jahre 1942 gegeben zu haben, und zwar offenbar bei dem Ver
such zu zeigen, daß die Prager Phonologie gar nicht so neu und revolutionär sei,
wie es ihre Vertreter meinten. In seinem Aufsatz wies Bergveinsson u.a. darauf
hin, daß der EG eine phonologische Theorie entwickelt habe, in der ein Kon
zept verwendet werde, daß dem der 'phonologischen Opposition' vergleichbar
wäre. In seiner Übersetzung des EGT erweiterte Einar Haugen (1950) Berg-
veinssons Behauptungen, und sein Schüler Benediktsson (1961,1972) elaborier-
te diese Auslegungen des Meisters, welche dieser in seiner zweiten Ausgabe des
Traktats (Haugen 1972) wiederum weiter ausbaute.
Vor einigen Jahren hat der Bergener Germanist Bjarne Ulvestad diese Aus
legungen einer Kritik unterzogen (Ulvestad 1976), und ich möchte an dieser
Stelle nur zwei Beispiele herausgreifen, die m.E. deutlich zeigen, wie Gelehrte
in die Irre gehen können, wenn sie Bezeichnungen in alten Texten mit modernen
sprachtheoretischen Bedeutungen füllen. In der Auslegung des EGT scheinen mir

das Wort grein (Pl. greinir) und die Wendung skipta mali von besonderer Wichtig
keit für das Verständnis der Intentionen des EG zu sein.
Beide, Haugen (1972:17) und Benediktsson (1972:215), übersetzen grein
mit 'distinction' (Unterschied), obgleich sie in Zoëgas Concise Dictionary o f Old
Icelandic (Zoëga 1910:171) z.B. die Grundbedeutung des Wortes als "branch
(of a tree)" oder "division" (vgl. deutsch 'Abzweigung') hätten finden können.
Haugen (1950) aber hatte die neuere Übersetzung vorgeschlagen, und Benedikts
son kommentierte wie folgt:
Haugen has translated grein by 'distinction' (i.e. in the sense of modern
technique). [. . .] This translation represents a distinct advance beyond the
different translations of this term by Dahlerup-Jonsson ('forskel, nuance,
forskellighed, vokal, slags'). However, the term is used in two slightly
different ways: either to designate the relationship between two units
(or two groups of units), which are contrasted with one another in a
significant way, or sometimes to indicate the end points of these relations,
or the distinctive units themselves, where, in modern terminology, we
should often simply use the term phoneme [. . .]. This double use of the
term 'distinction' is no doubt very fortunate, emphasizing as it does the
negative, relational or contrastive, nature of the phonemes as elements
composing linguistic signs. (Benediktsson 1961:240—41; cf. Benediktsson
1972:68-69)
Wir wollen uns hier nicht fragen, ob Benediktssons Auffassung moderner phono-
logischer Konzepte viel Sinn ergibt; notieren wir nur, daß er nach Übernahme
von Haugens 'distinction' nun auch noch den Begriff des Phonems einführt mit
dem Argument, daß dies den Sinn des 800 Jahre alten Textes erhelle.12 Statt
dessen sei eine Passage aus dem EGT angeführt, in der (im Originaltext) der
Ausdruck grein erscheint. In ihr bringt der EG seine Gründe für die Hinzunahme
weiterer Zeichen für Vokale im Isländischen vor, und zwar wie folgt - ich zitie
re nach Benediktssons Übersetzung:
Now I shall take these eight letters — since no distinction has yet been
made for the i — between the same two consonants, each in its turn, and
show and give examples how each of them . . . makes a discourse of its
own . . .: sar : sor, ser : ser, sor : sor, sur : syr. (Benediktsson 1972:215 —
16; cf. also Haugen 1972:17)
Der eingeschobene Satz, "since no distinction has yet been made for the i",
scheint Haugen (1950:32-33, 1972:37) und Benediktsson (1961:238-39;
1972.215) ein Rätsel aufgegeben zu haben, und zwar deshalb, weü sie in der
Aufstellung der Beispiele sogleich an eine Kommutationsliste gedacht haben, an
die Technik, Phoneme auf der Grundlage von 'minimal pairs' zu identifizieren.
Sie vergaßen, daß es die Absicht des EG war, den Bedarf von weiteren Graphe
men an praktischen Beispielen nachzuweisen und übersahen deshalb das Nächst
liegende, nämlich die einfache Tatsache, daß das Isländische keine Form *sir
kennt und offenbar nichts anderes vom EG intendiert war, als dieses Faktum zu
vermerken. Da Benediktsson jedoch grein mit 'distinction' widergegeben hat
(und dieses Wort als einen terminus technicus ansieht), kann er nur glauben,
daß dieser Einschub sich auf die Reihe kontrastierender Wörter bezieht oder,
"more accurately", auf das Unvermögen des EG, "to present a more complete
series" (1972:215).
In Wirklichkeit war es das Anliegen des EG zu zeigen, daß das Isländische
vier weitere Vokalzeichen benötigte (und nicht mehr). Hierzu nimmt er die
fünf Vokale des Lateinischen zum Ausgangspunkt für die Erweiterung des is
ländischen Orthographiesystems und zeigt, wie mithilfe der Aufteilung von vier
der lateinischen Vokale, nämlich a, e, o und u, durch Inzufügung von diakriti
schen Zeichen bzw. eines neuen Vokalzeichens (y), dies bewerkstelligt werden
kann. Interessanterweise verwendet der EG das Wort stafr (Pl. stafir) 'Buchstabe'
für die vier lateinischen Vokale, von denen die anderen vier Vokale 'abgezweigt'
seien (vgl. Benediktsson (1972:206), und nicht etwa grein(ir). Diese Wortwahl
hätte jedoch die Erklärung der fraglichen Stelle liefern können, denn dieses
'Abzweigen' der Vokale hätte wörtlich genommen werden sollen, und zwar in
der Form einer Metapher und womöglich eines Stammbaums: Die acht bzw.
neun Grundvokale des Isländischen lassen sich von den vier bzw. fünf Vokalen
des Lateinischen ableiten. Die Übersetzung von grein mit "distinction" oder gar
"distinctive Opposition", wie Haugen und Benediktsson vorschlagen, anstelle
von 'Zweig', 'Abzweigung', 'Unterteilung' oder dergleichen ist zumindest eine
Überinterpretation des Textes, die die praktischen und pädagogischen Absichten
des EG verdecken.
Es scheint jedoch, daß, wenn einmal ein Wort zu einem Fachterminus ge
macht worden ist, mit dessen Hilfe ein Text im Einklang mit modernem sprach
theoretischen Verständnis interpretiert wird, auch andere Ausdrücke den Status
metasprachlichen Vokabulars erhalten. Dies geschieht z.B., wenn der EG auf die
Nasalvokale des Isländischen zu sprechen kommt. Dort sagt er nämlich - ich zi
tiere wieder Benediktssons (1972:217) Übersetzung:
But now each of these nine letters [des Isländischen] will produce a new
one if it is pronounced through the nose, and this distinction [grein] is
in fact so clear that it can change the discourse [mali skipta].
Anstelle von Benediktssons Widergabe von skipta mali mit "change of discourse"
wählt Haugen (1950:39; 1972:34) "change of meaning". Offenbar sieht keiner
von beiden diese Wendung als in irgendeiner Weise problematisch an und, im
Einklang mit ihrer Interpretation des EGT, sehen sie in ihr einen wichtigen Kern
des theoretischen Arguments des EG (vgl. Benediktsson 1972:80). Daß jedoch
ihre Übersetzung irreführend ist, wird schon deutlich aus der ersten Stelle, in
der mali skipta erscheint. Dort spricht der EG über die Mehrdeutigkeit, die da
durch auftreten könne, daß ein Buchstabe mehr als einer lautlichen Widergabe
entspreche. In Haugens (1950:14-15) Übersetzung lautet diese Stelle wie folgt:
[. . .] it is not to be expected that I [. . .] shall be able to read well and to
make out which path to take where more than one course is possible
because it is written one way, but not clearly, and we then have to guess
[. . .]. But even though everyone can make something out of it, it is
practically certain that everyone will not arrive at the same result when
it changes the meaning [ef mali skiptir], particularly in the laws.
In der zweiten Auflage des EGT änderte Haugen (1972:15) die hier fragliche
Wendung zu "when the meaning is hereby changed", und ähnliche Übersetzun
gen finden sich bei Benediktsson (1961:244; 1972:215) und ebenfalls Albano
Leoni (1975:85), obgleich mit einer möglichen Einschränkung (vgl. ibid., S. 27).
Frühere Übersetzer dieser Stelle gaben sie mit 'wenn es von Wichtigkeit ist'
oder auf ähnliche Weise wieder, eine Übersetzung, die in den Standardlexika als
ein aus dem Justizbereich stammender Ausdruck gekennzeichnet wird, ein Fak
tum, das man leicht hätte vom Nachsatz "particularly in the laws" schlußfolgern
können.
In der modernisierten Übertragung "if/when it changes the meaning" gibt
diese Wendung überhaupt keinen Sinn; sie ist bestenfalls überflüssig. Es ist daher
schon spaßig, bei Haugen etwa zu lesen (1972:10;vgl. 1950:11), daß besondere
Sorgfalt geübt worden sei bezüglich "the grammatical terms in an effort to avoid
interpolating modem concepts", wenn die vorgelegten Übersetzungen gerade
den Beweis liefern, daß die modemen Übersetzer nicht in der Lage waren, sich
von ihrer eigenen Strukturalistischen Ausbildung frei zu machen und es zu ver
meiden, einen Traktat aus dem 12. Jahrhundert in ein dem 20. Jahrhundert
vergleichbares, sprachtheoretisches Argument zu verwandeln.
2. Schlußfolgerangen: Einige allgemeine Überlegungen zur angemesseneren

Behandlung von Sprachideen, die früheren Epochen angehören
Die obigen Beispiele ließen sich ohne Zweifel vermehren ; man brauchte sich
nur neue Übersetzungen von sprachwissenschaftlichen Texten des vergangenen
Jahrhunderts anzusehen.13 Aber sie mögen genügen, um daraus ein paar Schlüsse
zu ziehen, die für den Geschichtsschreiber der Entwicklung der Sprachfor
schung wichtig sein sollten.
Der erste Grundsatz könnte abgekürzt mit 'Kontextualisierung' gekennzeich
net werden; d.h., daß der Historiker in seiner Darstellung darauf achten sollte,
daß er hinreichend in Betracht zieht, was Goethe den 'Geist der Zeiten' nannte.
Dies gilt natürlich nicht allein für das Problem der Metasprache, sondern für das
Gesamtverständnis sprachlicher — und sprachwissenschaftlicher — Texte. Nicht
selten spielen sozio-ökonomische und selbst politische Faktoren eine Rolle;
denken wir einmal daran, daß die ordo naturalis-Diskussion, die der französi
schen Sprache eine Sonderstellung zuwies, vor allem im 18. Jahrhundert so hohe
Wellen schlug, als Frankreich bestrebt war, eine kulturelle und politische Vor
machtstellung in Europa zu erringen und behaupten.
Der nächste Schritt wäre wohl, daß der Geschichtsschreiber den vorliegenden
Text in seinem historischen, kulturellen und sprachlichen Zusammenhang be
greift. Vielleicht könnte man hier von einem Prinzip der Immanenz sprechen.
Dazu gehört natürlich die Kunst des Einfühlens. Der Gesamthorizont der im Text
vorgelegten Sprachidee oder Sprachtheorie muß, wenigstens in der analytischen
Phase, aus sich selbst heraus entwickelt werden, ohne Bezug auf gegenwärtige
Terminologie und heutiges Verständnis der Disziplin.
Dann, vielleicht in einem dritten Schritt, nachdem auf die beiden ersten
Richtlinien hinreichend eingegangen worden ist, könnte der Versuch unternom
men werden, moderne Konzepte und Termini an den Text heranzutragen, wobei
jedoch der Leser gleichzeitig gewarnt werden muß, hier keine Identifizierung vor
zunehmen sei, sondern daß es hier allein um den Versuch gehe, Sprachverständ
nis früherer Epochen dem Linguisten von heute näher zu bringen. So wäre es
vielleicht möglich, d.h. also, wenn das rechte Vorverständnis geschaffen worden
ist, den mittelalterlichen Begriff der significatio vocis mit dem Saussureschen
Terminus 'signifié' widerzugeben. M.a.W., wenn der Historiker ein solches Ver
fahren benutzt, dann muß er sich selbst gegenüber Rechenschaft darüber abgeben
und dem Leser die einzelnen Schritte seines Vorgehens deutlich vorführen, um
die Gefahr einer Geschichtsklitterung zu bannen.
Nur dann also, wenn der Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichtsschreiber diese drei
Prinzipien sorgfältig beachtet, nämlich das der historischen und intellektuellen
Kontextualisierung, das, was man in der Literaturwissenschaft als 'immanente
Interpretation' bezeichnet, und schließlich die vorsichtige Einführung einer Me
tasprache, die die Sprachideen früherer Epochen dem heutigen Leser zugänglich
macht, dann ließen sich wohl die vielen Verfälschungen des Rankeschen 'wie es
eigentlich gewesen' ersparen, von denen neuere Darstellungen voll sind.
Zusammenfassend gesagt, sollten wir von der Historiographie der Linguistik
das fordern, was wir auch von der Sprachwissenschaft verlangen: ein sorgfältiger
Umgang mit der Metasprache, denn, wie Condillac uns lehrt: "Une science n'est
qu'une langue bien faite"! 14
Anmerkungen
* Oeuvres philosophiques de Condillac, hrsg. von Georges Le Roy, Bd. 2, S. 149 (Paris:
Presses Universitaires, 1949). - Über dieses Thema habe ich schon vor etlichen Jahren
referiert, und zwar anläßlich der International Conference on Medieval Grammar (Davis,
Calif., 19.-20. Feb. 1976) und der Second International Conference for the History of
the Languages Sciences (Lille, 2 . - 5 . Sept. 1981). Beide Manuskripte sind bisher unver
öffentlicht. Der gegenwärtige Beitrag geht auf einen Vortrag zurück, den ich am 20. De
zember 1984 an der Universität Bonn gehalten habe.
1 Tarski (1956:167, 210, 251, 280) verwendet jedoch im gleichen Artikel Ausdrücke wie
'metatheory' und 'metadiscipline' im Zusammenhang mit 'metalanguage'.
2 Rey-Deboves Unterscheidung zwischen "métalangage naturel" - wohl im Anschluß an
Jakobson (1976) - und "métalangage formalisé" (vgl. Rey-Debove 1978:9ff. und 1979:
15) ist dagegen weniger befriedigend.
3 Anläßlich eines m.W. bisher nicht veröffentlichten Vortrags im Rahmender International
Conference on Medieval Grammar, Davis, Kalifornien, im Februar 1976.
4 Zitiert nach Léon Vernier, Etude sur Voltaire et la grammaire au XVIIIe siècle (Paris
1888; Wiederabdruck, Genf: Slatkine, 1970), S. 32, ohne Angabe der Quelle.
5 Diese Kritik trifft nicht auf Curtius zu, der (1954:487) besonders auf Isidor de Sevillas
bedeutendes und einflußreiches Werk Ethymologiarum libri verweist, in dem verschiede
ne Verfahren des Etymologisieren s unterschieden werden, so etwa 'ex origine', 'ex cau
sa', 'ex contrario', usf., Techniken, die schon zu Isidors Zeiteine lange Tradition hatten
(vgl. Amsler 1976). - Vielleicht sollte am Rande erwähnt werden, daß die oft zitierte
Etymologie lucus a non lucendo (Isidor Ethymol. I.xxix3 in der Oxford-Ausg.) in der
Tat korrekt ist (mündliche Auskunft von Karl Horst Schmidt, Univ. Bonn).
6 Ein solches Ziel scheint noch bei dem englischen Lexikographen W. W. Skeat (1838 —
1912) nachzuklingen, wenn er notiert: "We can sum up the whole matter by saying that
our pursuit is Etymology, by which we seek to give an account of the true origin of a
word. The real object is in due time to arrive at a perfect knowledge of the whole, the
living and eternal truth "(Skeat 1891:462). Vgl. hierzu auch O'Neill (1976).
7 Dt. Übers.: Etymologie ist die Auslegung eines Wortes durch ein anderes, und zwar
durch ein oder eher mehrere bekannte [Wörter] in derselben Sprache oder in verschiede
nen entsprechend der Eigenschaft der Dinge und der Ähnlichkeit der Buchstaben, wie
z.B. lapis 'Stein' < ledens pedem 'den Fuß verletzend' und piger 'faul' < pedibus eger
'fuß krank'.'
8 Paraphrasierend wiedergegeben: Ich frage auch, ob es sich bei der Etymologie um eine
spezielle Form der Derivation handelt, wie z.B. cadaver, welches gleichsam so viel ist wie
caro data vermibus [Fleisch, den Würmern übergeben]. Wenn man nur ein wenig darüber
nachdenken will, wird man sehen, daß dies nicht der Fall ist, denn wenn es doch so
wäre, könnte jedes Wort als Derivativ angesehen werden, da ja jedes Wort 'etymologisiert
werden ' kann. Hierzu ist zu erklären, daß die Etymologie keine spezielle Form der Deri
vation sein kann, sondern daß es sich hierbei lediglich um eine Pseudoderivation handelt.
Sie spielt nämlich nur auf die Wortbedeutung an und bezieht dabei ihre Argumente auf
grund der Buchstaben und Wortbedeutungen anderswo her [i.e., nicht von der eigentli
chen Wortbedeutung her], wie z.B. bos "bonus operator soli" (Ochs = ein guter Boden
bearbeiter), mons "moles opposita nascenti soli" (Berg = Felsmasse, der aufgehenden
Sonne entgegenstehend), taurus "tuens a.gmina vacarum robore virium suarum" (Stier =
die Kuhherde mit seinen Kräften schützend), deus "dans eternam vitam suis" (Gott =
der den Seinen ewiges Leben schenkt),  "radix omnium malorum avaricia (Rom =
die Wurzel allen Übels ist der Geiz), homo "habens omnia manu omnipotentis" (Mensch
= der alles aus der Hand des Allmächtigen hat), weil der Allmächtige alles wegen des
Menschen geschaffen hat, sinceris "sine carie" (aufrichtig = ohne Mangel) usw. Deswegen
kann man trotzdem nicht sagen, daß diese Wörter aus jenen abgeleitet bzw. aus jenen
zusammengesetzt seien, die zu ihrer Etymologisierung herangezogen worden.
9 Daß das Mittelalter zwischen Etymologie und (synchronischer) Semantik zu unterschei
den wußte, zeigt sich etwa bei Thomas von Aquin: "alius est etymologia nominis, et
aliud est significa tio nominis" (zitiert nach Herbermann 1981:35, Anm. 13).
10 Dieser Abschnitt des Aufsatzes verdankt einiges der sorgfältigen (und viel detaillierteren)
Arbeit von Ulvestad (1976).
11 Eine rühmliche Ausnahme könnte Bjarne Ulvestad darstellen (vgl. Ulvestad 1976:206,
Anm.) und vielleicht auch die verstorbene dänische Gelehrtin Anne Holtsmark ( 1 8 9 6 -
1976) - v g l . Ulvestad (1976:223).
12 Ähnliches laßt sich auch in heutigen Texten finden, die Übersetzungen von Äußerungen
des vergangenen Jahrhunderts darstellen; vgl. etwa meine Rezension der englischen
Übersetzung von Humboldts berühmter Einleitung zum Kawi-Werk (Language 49, 1973,
6 8 2 - 6 9 5 ) , in der u.a. 'Laut' mit 'phoneme' widergegeben wurde.
13 Vgl. Anm. 12.
14 Zitiert bei Firth im Zusammenhang mit einer Diskussion der Wichtigkeit von Metaspra
che in der Sprachwissenschaft in Selected Papers of J.R. Firth, 1952-59, hrg. von
Frank R. Palmer (London: Longmans 1968), S. 202, Anm, 5. - Soweit ich weiß, findet
sich kein solches Zitat im Werk Condülacs; aber es faßt Condillacs Überlegungen gut
zusammen, ähnlich wie Meillets Wendung von der Sprache als einem 'système où tout se
tient' sich gut auf Saus sures Sprach theoríe anwenden läßt.
Literatur
Albano Leoni, Federico

1975 Il primo trattato grammaticale islandese. Bologna: Mulino,
1977 Beiträge zur Deutung der isländischen 'Esten grammatischen Abhandlung'.
In: Arkiv för Nordisk Füologi 92, 7 0 - 9 1 .
Am sler, Mark Eugene
1976 The theory of Latin 'etymologia' in the early Middle Ages: From Donatus to
Isidore. Ph.D. Diss., Ohio State University.
Bene diktsson, Hreinn
1961 The earliest Germanic phonology. In: Lingua 10, 2 3 7 - 2 5 4 .
1972 The First Grammatical Treatise. Edited with introduction, text, notes,
translation, and vocabulary. Reykjavik: Institute for Nordic Linguistics.
Bergveinsson, Sveinn
1942 Wie alt ist die 'phonologische Opposition'? In: Archiv für Vergleichende
Phonetik 6, 5 9 - 6 4 .
Butterfield, [Sir] Henry
1931 The Whig interpretation of history. London: Bell; Nachdruck, 1968.
Camap, Rudolf
1958 Beobachtungssprache und theoretische Sprache. In: Dialectica. International
Review of Philosophy of Knowledge 12 ; 2 3 6 - 2 4 8 .
Chomsky, Noam
1966 Cartesian Linguistics. A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New
York/London: Harper & Row.
Curtius, Emst Robert
1954 Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter. 2., verb. Aufl., Bern/
München: Francke;6. Aufl., 1967.
Diez, Friedrich
1869 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der romanischen Sprachen. 3., verb, Aufl., Teil
I, Bonn: Marcus; 1. Aufl., 1861.
Gardner, Thomas J.
1973 Hauptströmungen der modernen Linguistik. Chomsky und die generative
Grammatik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Grotsch, Klaus
1982 Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik und zur
historischen und methodologischen Selbstvergewisserung der Disziplin.
Göppingen: Kümmerle.
Harris, Zellig S.
1973 [Bespr. von] A Leonard Bloomfield anthology ed. by ChJF. Hockett (Bloom-
ington: Indiana University Press 1970). In: International Journal of America
Linguistics 39, 2 5 2 - 2 5 5 .
Harweg, Roland
1981 Verwendung und Erwähnung und die Unterscheidung zwischen Objektspra
che und Metasprache. In: Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und
Kommunikationsforschung 34, 285-292.
Haugen, Einar
1950 First Grammatical Treatise. The earliest Germanic phonology. Baltimore,
Maryland: Waverly Press; 2., verb. Aufl., London: Longman 1972,
Herbermann, Clemens-Peter
1981 Moderne und antike Etymologie. In: Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprach
forschung 95, 2 2 - 4 8 .
Hsieh, Hsin-L
1980 Set theory as a meta-language for natural languages. In: Papers in Linguistics
13,529-542.
Jakobson, Roman
1976 Metalanguage as a linguistic problem. In: Nyelvtudomany Közlemények 78,
3 4 6 - 3 5 2 ; [ursprünglich am 27. Dezember 1956 als Präsiden ten an spräche auf
dem Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America gehalten].
Klinck, Roswitha
1970 Die lateinische Etymologie des Mittelalters. München: Fink.
Koemer, E[mst] F[rideryk] K[onrad]
1975 European structuralism: early beginnings. In: Sebeok, Th. A. [Hrsg.]: Cur
rent trends in linguistics, vol. XIII: Historiography of lingistics. The Hague/
Paris: Mouton, 7 1 7 - 8 2 7 .
1976 Towards a historiography of linguistics: 19th and 20th century paradigms.
In: Parret, H. [Hrsg.]: History of linguistic thought and comtemporary
linguistics. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 6 8 5 - 7 1 8 .
oll, Hans-Georg
1958 Die französischen Wörter "langue" und "langage" im Mittelalter. Genf:
Droz/Paris: Minard.
Kubczak, Hartmut
1975 Vorschlag zur Unterscheidung von Langue, Metasprache und Metaebene.
In: Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 3, 3 1 4 - 3 2 1 .
Mounin, Georges
1959 Une illusion d'optique en histoire. In: Travaux de l'Institut de Linguistique
de Paris 4, 7 - 1 3 .
Niederene, Hans-Josef
1975 Die Sprachauffassung Alfons des Weisen. Studien zur Sprach- und Wissen
schaftsgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
1983 Der Ursprung des Wortes. Wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Bemerkungen zur
mittelalterlichen Etymology. In: Cranston, M. [Hrsg.]: Le gai savoir. Es
says in linguistics, philology, and criticism. Dedicated to the memory of
Manfred Sandmann. Madrid: Porrua Turanzas/Potomac, Maryland: Studia
Humanitatis, 6 9 - 8 2 .
 Neill, Michael Thomas
1976 Etymology: its meaning in language study before 1900 and the English
tradition. Unveröff. Ph.D. Diss., Gainesville, Florida, University of Florida.
Penttilä, Aarni
1962 Über die metasprachlichen und linguistischen Ausdrücke. In: Sitzungsbe-
[1963] richte der Finnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1962, 1 3 3 - 1 4 7 .
Pfaffel, Wilhelm
1981 'Quartus gradus etymologiae'. Untersuchungen zur Etymologie Varros in
'De lingua Latina'. Königstein, Taunus: Hain.
Pisani, Vittore
1975 Die Etymologie. Geschichte - Fragen - Methode. (Deutsche Übersetzung
der zweiten, durchgesehenen und erweiterten Auflage Brescia 1967 [von I.
Riemer]). München: Fink.
Raschellà, Fabricio D.
1982 The so-called Second Grammatical Treatise. An orthographic pattern of late
thirteenth-century Icelandic. Edition, translation, and commentary. Firence:
Monnier.
1983 Die altisländische grammatische Literatur. In: Göttingische Gelehrte Anzei
gen 235.3/4, 2 7 1 - 3 1 5 .
Rey-De bove, Josette
1978 Le métalangage. Etude linguistique du discours sur le langage. Paris: Robert.
1979 Les logiciens et le métalangage naturel. In: Histoire Epistemologie Langage
1.1,15-22.
Riessner, Klaus
1965 Die "Magna Derivationes" des Uguccione da Pisa und ihre Bedeutung für die
romanische Philologie. Roma: Ed. di Storia e Letteratura.
Salus, Peter H[enry]
1969 PRE-pre-Cartesian linguistics. In: Papers of the Fifth Regional Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 4 2 9 - 4 3 4 .
Scharfe, Hartmut
1961 Die Logik im Mahabhā ya. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
1971 Pänini's metalanguage. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Schleicher, August
1869 Die deutsche Sprache. 2., von J. Schmidt besorgte Aufl., Stuttgart: Cotta;
1. Aufl., 1860.
Schmitter, Peter
1982 Untersuchungen zur Historiographie der Linguistik. Struktur - Methodik -
theoretische Fundierung. Tübingen: Narr.
Schröter, Robert
1960 Studien zur varronischen Etymologie. I. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Skeat, Walter W[illiam]
1891 Principles of English etymology. Oxford: Clarendon; 2., verb. Aufl., 1892;
Nachdruck, College Park. Maryland: McGrath 1970.
Spence, N[icol] C[hristopher] W[illiam]
1959 [Bespr. von Koll 1958]. In: Archivum Linguisticum 1 0 , 1 5 8 - 1 6 0 .
Staal, J[ohan] Frits
1961 The theory of definition of Indian logic. In: Journal of the American Orien
tal Society 81, 122-126.
1975 The concept of metalanguage and its Indian background. In: Journal of
Indian Philosophy 3, 315-354.
Stegmüller, Wolfgang
1969 Hauptströmungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie. Bd. I. 4. Aufl., Stuttgart:
Cotta.
Stocking, George W.
1965 On the limits of 'presentism' and 'historism' in the historiography of the
behavioral sciences. In: Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 1,
211-218.
Tanner, R[obin] G.
1970 Aristotle as a structural linguist. In: Transactions of the Philological Society
1969,99-164.
Tarski, Alfred
1931  poj ciu w prawdy odniesieniu do sformalizowanych nauk dedukcjnych.
In: Ruch Filozoficzny 12, 2 1 0 - 2 1 1 . [Zusammenfassungeines Vortrags vor
der Warschauer Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft vom 2 1 . März 1931].
1935 Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen. In: Studia Philosophica
[1936] 1,261-405.
1956 The concept of truth in formalized languages. In: Tarski, A.: Logic, semant
ics, metamathematics. Papers from 1923 to 1938, translated by J.H.
Woodger. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 152-278 [engl. Übers. von Tarski
19351.
Ulvestad, Bjarne
1976 Grein su er mali skiptir. Tools and traditions in the First Grammatical
Treatise. In: Historiographia Linguistica 3, 2 0 3 - 2 2 3 .
Untermann, Jürgen
1975 Etymologie und Wortgeschichte. In: Seiler, H. [Hrsg.]: Linguistic work
shop III. Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts. München: Fink, 9 3 -
116.
Vallini, Cristina
1980 Etimologia come descrizione. In: Annali dellTstituto Universitario Orientale
(Napoli) 23, 2 0 1 - 2 2 1 .
Zamboni, Alberto
1976 L'etimologia. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Zoëga, Geir T[6masson]
1910 A concise dictionary of Old Icelandic. Oxford: Clarendon; Nachdruck, 1952,
1967.
ON THE PROBLEM OF 'INFLUENCE'
IN LINGUISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY*
Jeder große Mann hat seinen retrospektiven

Einfluß.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Die fröhliche
Wissenschaft, 1887
0. The problem defined
Recent years have witnessed the appearance of major studies devoted

to questions of methodology and epistemology in the writing of the history
of linguistics (e.g., Grotsch 1982; Schmitter 1982). This may be taken as a
sign of linguistic historiography coming of age. To be sure, a number of
questions pertaining to method and the philosophy of science have not yet
been settled, and others have hardly been raised, though there can be no
doubt that almost everyone engaged in historical research will have come
across them in one form or another.
One of these questions has to do with what I have called 'the problem
of metalanguage' in linguistic historiography (Koerner 1987), i.e., the use
of a language for the description of linguistic concepts, ideas or theories of
earlier periods in the study of language which does not misrepresent the
meaning or intention of a given author while at the same trying to make the
reflections of past epochs in the discipline accessible to the present-day
practitioner in the field. Another, seemingly minor, question concerns the
proper dating of references cited in historical accounts (cf. Brozek 1970;
Vande Kemp 1984), which no doubt can be of importance in the context of
* This chapter constitutes a reprint of a paper first published in Papers in the History of Linguis
tics: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences
(ICHoLS III), Princeton, 19-23 August 1984 ed. by Hans Aarsleff, Louis G. Kelly & Hans-Josef
Niederehe (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. Co., 1987), pp. 13-28.
the subject of the present paper, namely, the problem of 'influence', actual
or probable, suggested or alleged, in the development of a linguistic idea, a
general theme, or an entire framework of scientific research.
To be sure, the term 'influence' as frequently employed in writings
dealing with the history of linguistics appears to be an ill-defined term. As
a matter of fact, most writers do not define it at all but simply use it as if
everyone was in agreement on the meaning of this concept. Instead of offer
ing a definition at this point, I would like to discuss three examples in lin
guistic historiography in which this subject has led to at times heated debate
and attempt some methodological clarifications thereafter.
The three topics I shall present in the main parts of this paper are the
following: The question of Herder's influence' on Humboldt (1.1); the 'in
fluence' of Darwin on Schleicher (1.2), and the 'influence' of Durkheim on
Saussure (1.3). Of the three, only the last question will be discussed in any
detail for lack of space. However, I hope that the other two are presented
with sufficient clarity to allow for some conclusions to be drawn from them
as well.
1.0 Three Examples of 'Influence' in Linguistic Historiography
The subjects chosen for illustration of the problem of 'influence' in the

history of the study of language concern important phases in the evolution
of linguistics as a science during the 19th century and at the turn of the 20th
century. Indeed, it may be argued that the beginning of the 19th century
witnessed a coupure épistémologique (Foucault 1966:13ff.), that Schleicher
produced the 'disciplinary matrix' or 'scientific paradigm' for comparative-
historical grammar (cf. Koerner 1982), and that Saussure, in turn, provided
20th-century linguistics with a frame of reference that is still felt in theoret
ical discussions about the nature of language and of linguistics (e.g.,
Scheerer 1980). It is these assumptions that make the investigation of the
possible sources of these influential thinkers in the study of language, Hum
boldt, Schleicher, and Saussure, so compelling. Historians are not only
interested in discovering the sources of their inspiration but also in deter
mining what made their proposals different from previous ones and so
important for several subsequent generations of researchers. That histo
rians of linguistics have at times been too quick to point to forerunners and
'influences' in their writings, and that a number of details still await sine-ira-
et-studio elaborations is suggested at the outset of this brief discussion.
ON THE PROBLEM OF 'INFLUENCE' 33
1.1 The Question of Herder's 'Influence' on Humboldt

In recent years Hans Aarsleff (1977/1982) has challenged the widely
accepted view that Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) had absorbed many
of Herder's ideas about the nature of language, especially those advanced
in his prize-essay of 1770, Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache (Herder 1772).
Aarsleff directed his critique especially against Gipper & Schmitter's study
of 1975, in which the vast literature on linguistics in the age of Romanti
cism' is surveyed and the traditional standpoint regarding the importance of
Herder for Humboldt and others in the first half of the 19th century main
tained. Aarsleff argued instead that the available literature has not been
studied carefully, and that major schools of thought were ignored by
(mostly German) scholars. The picture advocated by Aarsleff places Hum
boldt in the tradition of Condillac, in particular as developed by the
Idéologues with whom Humboldt had been in contact during his sojourn in
Paris between 1798 and 1801.
Interestingly enough, 19th-century scholarship differed on the question
of the 'influence' of Herder's ideas on Humboldt's philosophy of language.
Thus Rudolf Haym (1821-1901), in his 641-page biography of Humboldt,
argued (Haym 1856:494):
Von dem Boden der kritischen Philosophie und des ästhetischen Humanis
mus ausgehend, erweisen sich die Humboldtschen Ansichten fast dur
chweg als Läuterung, Ausführung und Rechtfertigung dessen, was zuerst
in poetischer Intuition ergriffen zu haben das unbestreitbare Verdienst
Herders ist.
Heymann Steinthal (1823-99), Haym's contemporary and probably the
most influential champion of Wilhelm von Humboldt in the 19th century,
opposed this view (Steinthal 1858:12), also later, after Haym had restated
his position in his 2-volume biography of Herder:
Er [i.e., Humboldt] wiederholt die Gedanken Herders — er vertieft, er
verfeinert, er bestimmt, er klärt sie, er denkt das von jenem gleichsam
atemlos Gedachte mit ruhig verweilender Umsicht zum zweiten Male nach
und durch. (Haym 1880-85 I. 408)
But when one reads Steinthal in the fourth enlarged edition of his Der
Ursprung der Sprache, his opposition to Haym's view does not sound as
strong as Aarsleff (1982:339) seems to suggest. Thus, after having denied
that Humboldt had learnt from and continued ideas of Herder and
Hamann, Herder's friend and sometime opponent, Steinthal (1888:10)
argued:
Humboldt ist nur aus sich und aus seiner Zeit zu begreifen. Der Geist
seiner Zeit aber wurde vorbereitet durch Männer wie die genannten.
Diese bilden also bloß ideell die Vorstufe zu Humboldt's Sprachwis
senschaft, ohne daß sie darum in thatsächlichem Zusammenhange mit der
selben stehen
This Statement cannot be construed, I believe, as a strictly opposite position
to Haym's; in fact, it is no more than a somewhat weaker claim, namely,
that Humboldt was not directly indebted to Herder, but that he drew from
the 'climate of opinion' of the period in which Herder played an important
role. August Friedrich Pott (1802-1887), a great admirer of Humboldt, sub
scribed to Steinthal's views on the matter in his voluminous introduction to
an edition of Humboldt's posthumous Ueber die Verschiedenheit des
menschlichen Sprachbaues (Pott 1876). But then there is no indication that
Pott undertook an independent investigation of the question (cf. Lauchert
1893:762). Edward Sapir (1884-1939), writing at the beginning of this cen
tury, sides with Haym (and with Lauchert, whose paper appears to have
been largely overlooked in the more recent literature), "in view of the
greater probability of the continuity of ideas" (Sapir 1907:141).
In recent years, even a staunch advocate of the filiation Herder-Hum
boldt such as Helmut Gipper concedes (1981:108) that, in the absence of
clear statements by Humboldt to this effect and because of a lack of tes
timony in Humboldt's correspondence (a great deal of which appears to
have been lost during World War II), it has become rather difficult to pro
vide strong evidence for Herder's influence on Humboldt's linguistic think
ing. However, studies that analysed Humboldt's work carefully (and which
are not mentioned in Aarsleff), such as Brown (1967:65) and Heeschen
(1972:31), found sufficient evidence to maintain the traditional view of
Humboldt being indebted to Herder as well as others, including Hamann
and Locke. (See now also Manchester 1985:10-11.)
More important in the present debate is the fact that Aarsleff, in lieu of
providing the evidence against what he regards as a serious distortion of the
history of linguistic ideas, mainly refers to passages taken from Humboldt's
correspondence. In his opinion, these suggest that Humboldt did not think
highly of Herder and that he instead felt that his contacts with the
Idéologues were crucial in shaping Humboldt's philosophy of language. As
evidence, the reader is given assurances that his paper constitutes an "ab
régé d'une monographie en projet, ce qui explique que ne soit utilisée
qu'une partie des très nombreux documents dont nous disposons" (Aarsleff
1977:233, n.1; in the 1982 version this statement has been ommitted). No
attempt at a textual analysis of Humboldt's (or Herder's) linguistic writings
has been made.
Given the strong criticisms repeatedly launched by Aarsleff against
other scholars since his 1970 polemic against Chomsky's treatment of the
history of linguistics, it is surprising that Wulf Oesterreicher's careful study
of the question demonstrates that Aarsleff falls victim of just those
shortcomings he has denounced in the work of others (Oesterreicher
1981:124-30 passim). These include rhetorical posturing instead of giving
textual evidence, selectivity and subsequent misrepresentation of sources
actually cited, and a general incapacity to realize that the early 19th century
witnesses more of a break with tradition than a continuity of 18th-century
doctrines. The Romantic movement, we may recall, which was inspired by
Rousseau and, in Germany, especially by Herder, regarded itself as a reac
tion against the Enlightenment, in particular against those aspects origina
ting in France.
Even if we do not find sufficient textual evidence for proving beyond a
shred of doubt that Humboldt's linguistic thinking owed much to Herder, I
believe we can be sure that Herder's ideas on the origin of language (cf.
Jacob Grimm's acknowledgement of 1852 as cited in Sapir 1907:140) and its
historical development did have an impact on the study of language at the
outset of the 19th century. That Herder's ideas had become only of histori
cal interest by the mid-19th century (cf. Steinthal 1888:10) should not sur
prise us: witness the work of Schleicher and others from 1850 onwards.
In other words: if we hesitate to maintain the strong traditional claim,
we are rather safe in saying that Herder constituted part of the intellectual
atmosphere of the period in which Humboldt's ideas took shape (cf. Mar
chand 1982).1
1.2 The Question of Darwin s 'Influence' on Schleicher
Our next example differs from the first in many respects. What the two
have in common is that they have both become received opinion in the so-
called histories of linguistics. But there the similarities end, for there is
ample evidence available to counter the fable convenue in the present case.
Crudely put, the development of August Schleicher's (1821-68) theory
of language is depicted as a shift from Hegelian idealism to Darwinian
materialism. In other words, it has been claimed in many textbooks and
papers devoted to 19th-century linguistics in general or Schleicher in par-
ticular that Schleicher abandoned his early views on linguistics as part of

Geisteswissenschaft in favour of linguistic science as falling within the
domain of Naturwissenschaft following the appearance of Charles Darwin's
(1809-1882) Origin of Species in 1859, and that his views on language evolu
tion had been modeled after Darwin's theory.
This widely accepted picture was redressed in an important paper by J.
Peter Maher in 1966, but still many years later we find traces of this mista
ken interpretation in a variety of places. Dinneen (1967:189) actually
associates Darwinian biology with the Neogrammarian position on the
exceptionlessness of sound laws and ascribes Schleicher's famous statement
'If we know not how a thing became, we know it not' (1863:10) to Darwin!
Leroy (1971:22) connects Schleicher's rigorous application of linguistic laws
with the 'new' theories of Darwin (as if Darwin had no forerunners).
Arbuckle (1970[1973]:28) maintains the traditional picture according to
which Schleicher "must be read within the context of the idealist philosophy
of his student days, and the positivism or Darwinism of his maturity." Even
Robins, who in earlier study (Robins 1973:42) had noted that Schleicher's
interpretation of language history had originally not been influenced by
Darwin, but that Schleicher regarded Darwin as a support for his own views
after he had been introduced to his work by his colleague at Jena, Ernst
Haeckel (1834-1919), did not modify his earlier statement that "Schleicher's
theory of linguistic history, ..., was in line with Darwinian ideas prevalent
in the second half the [19th] century" (Robins 1979:181).
There are exceptions to the prevalent image of Schleicher as a Dar
winist (e.g., Andersen & Bache 1976). But, given the recent restatement
and further development of the corrections to the traditional and wholly
misleading image of Schleicher by Maher (1983),2 I need not dwell exten
sively on such a refutation here and may instead refer the reader to treat
ments of this subject as well as related ones of my own (Koerner 1982,
1983). Historians of linguistics failed to do two things: First, they did not
read much, if any, of the writings by Schleicher himself, but relied only too
often on accounts by others (e.g., Whitney 1871). Second, they failed to
establish the sources of Schleicher's theoretical inspiration, in particular his
acquaintance with botany, pre-Darwinian theory of evolution, the unifor-
mitarianist principle in geology, and the like.
Both lines of investigation would have established a variety of impor
tant facts and observations which could only have led to a considerable revi
sion of the distorted picture of Schleicher in the annals of linguistic science.
For example, Schleicher published two drawings of a Stammbaum in 1853

and half a dozen more of those genealogical trees in 1860, several years
before he came across the second revised German translation of Darwin's
epoch-making book. Hence there is no question that his ideas must have
come from other, earlier sources. Already by 1850 Schleicher had aban
doned his earlier position that linguistics was an historical discipline like
philology or literary studies. In short, the traditional depiction of Schleicher
having developed his naturalistic model of language structure and linguistic
evolution under the influence of Darwin (cf. Jacob 1973:25) can easily be
disproven and should be replaced by a presentation of Schleicher's views
that is based on a close reading and a careful analysis of both primary and
secondary sources.
1.3 The Question of Durkheim's 'Influence' on Saussure
Like the other two case histories, the story of Ferdinand de Saussure
(1857-1913) having developed his conception of language and of linguistics
'under the influence of Emile Durkheim's (1858-1917) sociological theories
has been one of the widely accepted views in the history of linguistics. Like
the other two, there are good reasons to question the adequacy of the
opinio communis, as I hope to show in what follows.
The story has by now a fifty-year history. It began in earnest at the Sec
ond International Congress of Linguists held in Geneva in 1931, when
Witold Doroszewski (1899-1976) put forward the claim that Saussure had
developed his langue/parole distinction by analogy to concepts developed
by Durkheim and his rival Gabriel de Tarde (1843-1904), respectively
(Doroszewski 1933a). Two years later Doroszewski (1933b) published
another paper in which he elaborated on the question of Durkheim's influ
ence on Saussure, especially with regard to the concept of langue as 'fait
social'. Doroszewski's basic claim was that Saussure's ideas about the
nature of language were 'de provenance extralinguistique', a claim which I
have objected to on various occasions, most extensively in my 1973 book on
Saussure (pp.48-49, 226-27, 230-31, 239n.l2, and elsewhere). It appears
that Doroszewski's proposals were compelling, as we find the claim of Durk
heim's influence reiterated in many historical accounts of the study of lan
guage (e.g., Jacob 1973:255; Robins 1979:200) and elaborated on in others
(e.g., Dinneen 1967:192-95; Bierbach 1978:153-76 et passim). More
recently Geoffrey Sampson (1980:48) has taken me to task for denying
"that Saussure was influenced by Durkheim [and] arguing [instead] that his
intellectual forebears should rather be sought exclusively among linguists

such as the American W. D. Whitney". Though I never said 'exclusively',
Sampson can be said to have summed up the basic tenets of my position.
Limitations of space do not permit me to present Sampson's own views
on the matter, but it can be said that he relies heavily on secondary sources
and has not consulted either Godel's Sources manuscrites (1957) or Engler's
'édition critique' (Saussure 1968, 1974), which should form the basis for any
serious research on Saussure's linguistic thought. Referring to Doro-
szewski's authority (1933a:90-91; 1958:544n.3), Sampson (1980:48) affirms:
"We know that Saussure followed the Durkheim/Tarde debates with
interest." Doroszewski had claimed in his 1931 paper that he knew that
'd'une source certaine' and in 1957 he identified his informant as Louis
Caille (1884-1962), a former student of Saussure's at Geneva. This sounds
like an interesting detail. Curiously enough, however, no other of Saus
sure's pupils is known to have made a similar observation, even though
Bally, Sechehaye, Léopold Gautier (1884-1973), Albert Riedlinger (1883-
1978), and possibly others had been much closer to Saussure than Caille.
Indeed, at the Geneva Congress (as the proceedings document on p.147)
Antoine Meillet (1866-1936), a student of Saussure's in Paris between 1885
and 1891 and subsequent friend and correspondent of his, contradicted
Doroszewski's claim. This is a fact that historians of linguistics have conve
niently ignored to the present day.
Meillet's disclaimer was not an incidental remark. Thus, on 25
November 1930, nine months before the Congress, Meillet wrote to
Trubetzkoy, probably in response to a query by the Viennese scholar: "J'ai
été bien étonné quand j'ai vu F. de Saussure affirmer le caractère social du
langage: j'étais venu à cette idée par moi-même et sous d'autres influ
ences..." (Hagège 1967:117). This remark is not without interest, if we
recall that Meillet knew Durkheim (who had been given a professorship in
Paris in 1902) and that he contributed to his Année sociologique for several
years. Meillet seems to be saying that Saussure did not speak about the
social nature of language during his appointment in Paris. But he does not
seem to exclude the possibility of Saussure having adopted views of Meil
let's expressed by him in papers in 1905 and 1906, shortly before Saussure
was to begin his teaching on general linguistics, and of which he had sent
offprints to the maître de Genève (cf. Koerner 1984:33n.l2). It is because of
Saussure's regular contacts with Meillet that I raised the possibility of a
mediation of Durkheimian ideas to Saussure through Meillet (1973:230-32,
379), though my own research, following Godel's (1957:282) suggestions,

did not turn up anything that could be regarded as evidence for Saussure's
dependence on Durkheim (cf. Koerner 1973:45-60 and 62-66, notes). Rij
laarsdam (1978:264), after having investigated the 'Durkheimian connec
tion' in detail, conceded that neither Meillet nor Saussure was more than
partially familiar with Durkheim's sociology; perhaps this cannot be
regarded as satisfactory in the face of much more forceful claims by
Hiersche (1972), Bierbach (1978), and others alleging a definite depen
dence of Saussure on Durkheim.
In Saussure's theory the social nature of language seems to play a sec
ondary role at best; the distinction between langue and parole is in effect not
made on the basis of a 'fait social'/'fait individuel' distinction, as Bierbach
(1978:165-66) suggests, at least not in the Durkheimian sense of the collec
tivity exercising a social constraint on the individual.3 It is generally known
(e.g., Sampson 1980:47), though not frequently acknowledged, that Dur-
kheim's name is nowhere mentioned is Saussure's published or unpublished
writings. At the same time, it is evident even in the 'vulgata' version of the
Cours that Saussure is referring to the work of William Dwight Whitney
(1827-94), of whom he characterizes himself as an admirer in 1908 (cf.
Godel 1957:51). In his Language and the Study of Language of 1867, Whit
ney had noted the following (p.404):
Speech is not a personal possession, but a social; it belongs, not to the indi
vidual, but to the member of society. No item of existing language is the
work of an individual; for what we may severally choose to say is not lan
guage until it be accepted and employed by our fellows. The whole
development of speech, though initiated by the acts of individuals, is
wrought out by the community.
Read with our present knowledge of Saussure's teachings, such a quotation
sounds rather 'seductive'. It may however not be used as an argument to
exclude an influence of Durkheimian ideas on Saussure's thinking during
the first decade of this century, when Durkheirr's sociological precepts
appear to have been widely discussed, especially following the second edi
tion of his Règles de la méthode sociologique in 1901. Indeed, we should
suppose that Saussure, like any other intellectual of the period, was in some
way familiar with the exchanges between Durkheim and Tarde. His cousin
Adrien Naville (1845-1930), professor of philosophy in Geneva, published a
second and much revised version of his 1888 Classification of the Sciences,
to which Saussure contributed a few ideas on the semiotic nature of lan-
guage (Naville 1901:104).4 In addition, for most of the time he taught his
courses on general linguistics (1907-1911), Saussure also served at the uni
versity library, carefully classifying incoming books for the Faculty of Let
ters and Social Sciences (cf. Muret 1915:46). It is therefore reasonable to
assume that Saussure had a general idea of what was going on at the time in
philosophy, psychology, sociology, and other fields, including political
economy, a subject to which he referred on several occasions in his lectures.
However, the probability that Saussure knew of the work of Durkheim
(as well as of others) should not be construed as an indication that Saussure
was influenced by or particulary indebted to Durkheim. I am therefore
inclined to speak of Durkheimian notions, at least in French-speaking
lands, as forming a part of the 'climate of opinion' of the early 20th century,
which could not have failed to be discussed in intellectual circles. At least,
this is the case as long as I do not see (pace Bierbach, Sampson, and others)
any convincing concrete, textual, evidence that Saussure incorporated
Durkheimian sociological concepts in his theoretical argument.
As stated at the outset of this paper, much appears to hinge on the

meaning and importance we attach to the term 'influence'. If me mean by
it that certain ideas were part of the intellectual package, as it were, of a
particular period, we could easily agree that Humboldt, for example, could
not have escaped ideas put forward by Herder, even if we did not have any
testimony by Humboldt himself to this effect. Something similar may be
said in Saussure's case with regard to Durkheim. However, such a broad
interpretation of influence' may not be very satisfactory and probably not
very meaningful either. We would therefore do well to establish a clearer
definition of the over-used term and develop criteria for its proper applica
tion. The following list may serve as a guideline:
2.1 A particular author's background, familiy tradition, schooling, studies
and particular interests and pursuits during his formative years may be of
significance in establishing connections that may lead to evidence of (fre
quently unconscious) borrowing, integration and assimilation of particular
ideas, concepts, or theories. Family papers, correspondence, school cur
ricula, and university courses taken by a given author may serve as sources
for the historian.
2.2 The evidence may be stronger if textual parallels between a particular

theory or concept and supposed sources can be established. For the discov
ery of a source or sources of inspiration, biographical information provided
by 2.1 may prove useful. For instance, Schleicher's lifetime interest in
botany may explain his approach to language and the introduction of terms
taken from the natural sciences (e.g., morphology) into linguistics.
2.3 Probably the most important evidence in favour of a claim of influence
may result from direct references by an author to the work of others. For
instance, in his lectures Saussure referred to the work of Whitney, Her
mann Paul, Baudouin de Courtenay and Kruszewski, but not to Georg von
der Gabelentz, Tarde or Durkheim, for example. While such direct refer
ences alone may not prove much, unless substantiated through textual com
parison (2.2), it appears more appropriate to investigate the scholars and
works mentioned by a given author before hypostatizing an impact on his
thought by others not referred to by him in his writings, whether published
or not.
I believe that if these three criteria are taken into account in a step-
by-step manner, we will be much closer to satisfactory answers as to
whether or not Herder influenced Humboldt, Darwin provided a model for
Schleicher, and Durkheim led Saussure to a social conception of language.
NOTES
1) The general importance of Herder in the history of ideas has recently been reiterated in
a paper by Luanne Frank, "Herder's Essay on the Origin of Language: Forerunner of contem
porary views in history, aesthetics, literary theory, philosophy", Forum Linguisticum 7:1.15-26
(1984 for 1982), in which all subjects of interest to Humboldt are treated except linguistics, on
which, however, see Alfons Reckermann, Sprache und Metaphysik: Zur Kritik der sprachlichen
Vernunft bei Herder und Humboldt (Muenchen: W. Fink, 1979).
2) Maher is particulary critical of Aarsleff s account of Schleicher's 'Darwinism' (cf. Maher
1983:xix-xxi), but he also cites (pp.xxii-xxiv) others, like A. L. Kroeber, Joseph Greenberg, J.
R. Firth, and René Wellek, who had a much more satisfactory idea of what Darwin's theory
actually meant. Besides, if not more importantly, both Kroeber and Firth pointed to the fact
that in linguistics evolutionary theory had taken hold three generations before the appearance of
Origin of Species.
3) The concept of 'contrainte sociale' is pivotal in Durkheim's theory, as it is with the help of
this 'force' that he hopes to establish the psychological reality of what he calls a 'fait social' (cf.
Koerner 1973:50-51, for details). Where we read of 'la contrainte de l'usage collectif in the 'vul-
gata' text (cf. Saussure 1931:131), the critical edition (Saussure 1968:206) speaks of 'un caractère
impératif of language; it is clear from this passage and many others in the Cours that the editors
sought to 'improve' the students' notes at hand, adding ideas and concepts reflecting their own
intellectual experience, not necessarily Saussure's.
4) Interestingly enough, although Naville deals with sociology at some length (1901:103-107)
and discusses the concept of social constraint (104-105) in some detail, he does not mention
Durkheim at all in this section or elsewhere in the 178-page book.
REFERENCES
Aarsleff, Hans. 1977. "Guillaume de Humboldt et la pensée linguistique

des Idéologues". La Grammaire générale: des Modistes aux Idéologues
ed. by André Joly & Jean Stéfanini, 217-41. Villeneuve-d'Ascq: Publica
tions de l'Univ. Lille III. [Transl. into French by G. Garnier.]
------. 1982. "Wilhelm von Humboldt and the Linguistic Thought of the
French Idéologues". From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the study of lan
guage and intellectual history by H. Aarsleff, 335-55. Minneapolis: Univ.
of Minnesota Press; London: Athlone.
Andersen, Fleming & Carl Bache. 1976. "August Schleicher: Towards a
better understanding of his concept of language change". Anthropologi
cal Linguistics 18.428-37.
Arbuckle, John. 1970[1973]. "August Schleicher and the Linguistic/Philol
ogy Dichotomy: A chapter in the history of linguistics". Word 26:1.17-
31.
Bierbach, Christine. 1978. Sprache als 'fait social': Die linguistische Theorie
F. de Saussure's und ihr Verhältnis zu den positivistischen Sozialwis
senschaften. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.
Brown, Roger Langham. 1967. Wilhelm von Humboldt's Conception of
Linguistic Relativity. The Hague: Mouton.
Brozek, Josef. 1970. "A Note on Historians' Unhistoricity in Citing Refer
ences". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 6.255-57.
Dinneen, Francis P., S.J. 1967. An Introduction to General Linguistics.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1933a. "Sociologie et linguistique: Durkheim et de
Saussure". Actes du Deuxième Congrès international de Linguistes, 146-
147. Paris: A. Maisonneuve. (Discussion, 147-48.)
1933b. "Quelques remarques sur les rapports de la sociologie et la lin-
guistisque: Durkheim et F. de Saussure". Journal de Psychologie nor
male et pathologique 30.82-91. (Repr. in Essais sur le langage presented
by Jean-Claude Pariente, 99-109. Paris: Ed. de Minuit, 1969.)

-------. 1958. "Le structuralisme linguistique et les études de géographie
dialectale". Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists
ed. by Eva Sivertsen, 540-68. Oslo: Oslo Univ. Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1901. Les Règles de la méthode sociologique. 2nd enl.
ed. Paris: F. Alcan.
Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences
humaines. Paris: Gallimard.
Gipper, Helmut. 1981. "Schwierigkeiten beim Schreiben der Wahrheit:
Zum Streit um das Verhältnis Wilhelm von Humboldts zu Herder".
Logos Semantikos, vol.I: Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie und
Sprachwissenschaft ed. by Jürgen Trabant, 101-115. Berlin: W. de Gruy-
ter; Madrid: Gredos.
, and Peter Schmitter. 1975. "Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachphiloso
phie im Zeitalter der Romantik". Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by
Thomas A. Seboek, vol.XIII: Historiography of Linguistics, 481-606.
The Hague: Mouton.
1979. "Exkurs: Humboldt — ein unerkannter 'Ideologe'? Zu einigen
Thesen von Hans Aarsleff". Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachphilosophie
im Zeitalter der Romantik: Ein Beitrag zur Historiographie der Linguistik
by H. Gipper & P. Schmitter, 99-116. Tübingen: G. Narr.
Godel, Robert. 1957. Les Sources manuscrites du Cours de linguistique
générale de F. de Saussure. Geneva: Droz.
Grimm, Jacob. 1852. Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache. 3rd ed. Berlin: F.
Dümmler. (1st ed., 1851; 5th ed., 1862.)
Grotsch, Klaus. 1982. Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung: Ein Beitrag
zur Kritik und zur historischen und methodologischen Selbstvergewis-
serung der Disziplin. Göppingen: Kümmerle.
Hagège, Claude. 1967. "Extraits de la correspondance de N. S.
Trubetzkoy". La Linguistique 3:1.109-136.
Haym, Rudolf. 1856. Wilhelm von Humboldt: Lebensbild und Charakteris
tik. Berlin: R. Gaertner.
1880-85. Herder nach seinem Leben und seinen Werken dargestellt. 2
vols. Ibid.
Heeschen, Volker. 1972. Die Sprachphilosophie Wilhelm von Humboldts.
Dissertation, Ruhr-Univ., Bochum.
Herder, Johann Gottfried. 1772. Abhandlung über den Ursprung der
Sprache, welche den von der Königl. Academie der Wissenschaften ...
gesetzten Preis erhalten hat. Berlin: . F. Voss. (2nd ed., 1789.)

Hiersche, Rolf. 1972. Ferdinand de Saussures langue-parole-Konzeption
und sein Verhältnis zu Durkheim und von der Gabelentz. Innsbruck:
Inst. für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, Univ. Innsbruck.
Jacob, André. 1973. Genèse de la pensée linguistique. Paris: A. Colin.
Koerner, E. F. Konrad. 1973. Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and develop
ment of his linguistic thought in western studies of language.
Braunschweig: F. Vieweg.
------. 1982. "The Schleicherian Paradigm in Linguistics". General Linguis
tics 22.1-39.
------. 1983. "Preface" and "Introduction". Schleicher 1983.ix*-xxii*, xxiii*-
lxxi*.
------. 1984. "French Influences on Saussure". Canadian Journal of Linguis
tics 29.20-41.
------. 1987. "Das Problem der Metasprache in der Sprachwissenschaftsge
schichtsschreibung". Beiträge zur Historiographie der Linguistik ed. by
Peter Schmitter, 63-80. Tübingen: G. Narr. (= Chap. 2).
Lauchert, Friedrich. 1894. "Die Anschauungen Herders über den Ursprung
der Sprache". Euphorion: Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 1.749-71.
Leroy, Maurice. 1971. Les grands courants de la linguistique. 2nd rev. and
enl. ed. Brussels: Ed. de l'Univ. de Bruxelles. (8th printing, 1980.)
Maher, J. Peter, 1966. "More on the History of the Comparative Method:
The tradition of Darwinism in August Schleicher's work". Anthropolog
ical Linguistics 8:3.1-12.
-------. 1983. "Introduction". Schleicher et al. 1983.xvii-xxxii.
Manchester, Martin L. 1985. The Philosophical Foundations of Humboldt's
Linguistic Doctrines. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Marchand, James W. 1982. "Herder: Precursor of Humboldt, Whorf, and
modern language philosophy". Johann Gottfried Herder: Innovator
through the ages ed. by Wulf Koepke & Samson B. Knoll, 26-34. Bonn:
C. Bouvier.
Meillet, Antoine. 1905. "Comment les mots changent de sens". Année
sociologique 9.1-38. (Repr. in Linguistique historique et linguistique
générale by A. Meillet, vol.I, 230-71. Paris: E. Champion, 1921.)
1906. "L'état actuel des études de linguistique générale: Leçon
d'ouverture du cours de Grammaire comparée au Collège de France lue
le mardi 13 février 1906". Revue des idées 3.296-308. (Repr., op. cit., 1-
17.)
Muret, Ernest. 1915. "Ferdinand de Saussure". Ferdinand de Saussure

(1857-1913), 41-48. Geneva: A. Kuendig. (Repr., Morges: Impr. F.
Trabaud, 1962.)
Naville, Adrien. 1901. Nouvelle classification des sciences: Etude
philosophique. Paris: F. Alcan.
Oesterreicher, Wulf. 1981. "Wem gehört Humboldt? Zum Einfluß der
französischen Aufklärung auf die Sprachphilosophie der deutschen
Romantik". Logos Semantikus, vol.I: Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie
und der Sprachwissenschaft ed. by Jürgen Trabant, 117-35. Berlin: W. de
Gruyter; Madrid: Gredos.
Pott, August Friedrich. 1876. Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Sprachwis
senschaft. Berlin: Calvary & Co. (2nd ed., 1880.)
Rijlaarsdam, Jetske  1978. Platon über die Sprache: Ein Kommentar zum
Kratylos. Mit einem Anhang über die Quelle der Zeichentheorie Fer
dinand de Saussures. Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.
Robins, Robert Henry. 1973. Ideen- und Problemgeschichte der Sprachwis
senschaft; mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts.
Transl. into German by Christoph Gutknecht & Klaus-Uwe Panther.
Frankfurt/M.: Athenaeum.
1979. A Short History of Linguistics. 2nd ed. London: Longman.
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1980. Schools of Linguistics: Competition and evolu
tion. London: Hutchinson.
Sapir, Edward. 1907. "Herder's 'Ursprung der Sprache'". Modern Philol
ogy 5.109-142. (Repr., with a preface by K. Koerner, in HL 11:3.349-53,
355-88, 1984.)
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1931. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par
Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Ried
linger. 3e éd. Paris: Payot. (All subsequent editions, including Tullio De
Mauro's so-called 'édition critique' of 1972, follow this one.)
-------. 1968. Cours de linguistique générale. Edition critique de Rudolf
Engler. Tome I. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. (Fasc. 4, 1974.)
Scheerer, Thomas M. 1980. Ferdinand de Saussure: Rezeption und Kritik.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Schleicher, August. 1850. Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Ueber-
sicht. Bonn: H. B. König. (New ed., see Schleicher 1983 below.)
-------. 1863. Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar:
H. Böhlau. (Engl. transl. in Schleicher et al. 1983.13-69.)
-------. 1983. Die Sprachen Europas . . . . New ed. with an introd. by Konrad
Koerner. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
, Ernst Haeckel & Wilhelm Bleek. 1983. Linguistics and Evolutionary

Theory ed. by Konrad Koerner. Ibid.
Schmitter, Peter. 1982. Untersuchungen zur Historiographie der Linguistik:
Struktur — Methodik — theoretische Fundierung. Tübingen: G. Narr.
Steinthal, Heymann. 1858. Der Ursprung der Sprache, in Zusammenhang
mit den letzten Fragen alles Wissens. Eine Darstellung der Ansicht
Wilhelm v. Humboldts, verglichen mit denen Herders und Hamanns. 2nd
rev. ed. Berlin: F. Dümmler. (1st ed., 1851; 4th enl. ed., 1888.)
Vande Kemp, Hendrike. 1984. "On Unhistoricity in Citing References".
History of Psychology Newsletter 16:4.34-39 (Oct. 1984).
Washabaugh, William. 1974. "Saussure, Durkheim, and Sociological
Theory". Archivum Linguisticum n.s. 5.25-34.
Whitney, William Dwight. 1867. Language and the Study of Language.
New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.; London: Trübner & Co. (6th
ed., 1901; repr., New York: AMS Press, 1971.)
-------. 1871. "Strictures on the Views of August Schleicher Respecting the
Nature of Language and Kindred Subjects". Transactions of the Ameri
can Philological Association 2.35-64. (Repr., under the new title
"Schleicher and the Physical Theory of Language", Oriental and Lin
guistic Studies by W. D. Whitney, 298-331. New York: Scribner,
Armstrong & Co., 1873.)
MODELS IN LINGUISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY*
0.0 Introductory Remarks

On another occasion (Koerner 1976a) I have outlined what I believe to be
the importance of the history of linguistics - if properly treated — to the field of
linguistics itself, and I will not repeat the full argument here. It will suffice to
summarize its main lines. First of all, there seems to be general agreement about the
usefulness of history when it comes to introducing the neophyte to the field. More
importantly, both the practitioner and the discipline as a whole can benefit in
several respects from a thorough acquaintance with earlier theories and accomplish
ments.
To begin with, historical knowledge of one's own field will make the prac
titioner a true scientist in the original sense of the term; cf. the Latin scientia
'knowledge'. This means that the scientist knows the origin of the general assump
tions, methods, and theories of his area of study as well as their limitations. This
historical knowledge as opposed to mere technical expertise in the particular science,
consisting of the mere operation of machinery and the manipulation of data in
accordance with prescribed rules and established procedures, offers the prospective
investigator the flexibility that may be required should unforeseen problems or a
shift in the interpretation of the subject of investigation occur. The technician, when
confronted with important changes in methodology or with an unexpected result
in his research, may be quite incapable of adapting himself to the new situation,
particularly if it turns out that the procedures and rules he once learned have been
rendered invalid.
In addition to being the source of a certain intellectual flexibility, which may
permit him to evaluate alternative proposals or a competing theory, there is another
reason why historical knowledge can benefit the practitioner of the craft: It fosters,
together with the consciousness of the relative truth of any particular methodology
or theory, the avoidance of excessive claims, and may lead to moderation in the
scientist's attitude toward competing theories. Kristeller (1964:6), for instance,
argues in favor of the importance of the history of philosophy for philosophy itself
in the following terms :
If we are trying to overcome certain current views which we consider false,
we may find historical criticism a powerful weapon that will lay bare the
sources and theories behind some present modes of speaking and of think
ing.
While I may not share the militancy with which the argument is advanced, there is
* This chapter is a reprint, with corrections, of a paper submitted in August 1980 and published
in 1984 in Forum Linguisticum 6:3.189-201 (Lake Bluff, Ill.: Janus Press, April 1982).
no doubt in my mind that genuine historical knowledge helps to distinguish true

advances in the field from variations on the same theme, and might thereby reduce
the, at times, annoying frequency of (re-)discoveries of phenomena which have been
known to many in the past under different names.
In addition to these intellectually or socially beneficial effects, there may
be other reasons why the study of the history of a particular subject could prove
to be an asset to the discipline itself. For example, it may be argued that in an age
of increasing specialization the history of linguistics, by showing the general lines of
scientific endeavors in the past and their relevance to present-day activities, may give
unity to the discipline as a whole.
1.0 Toward the Establishment of a Methodology in Linguistic Historiography

Much still needs to be done before benefits accrue from the history of lin
guistic science. It is my belief that the history of linguistics must establish a coherent
framework for research and a perspicuous format for the presentation of past
periods, ideas and events in order to become a serious enterprise. However, before
discussing this important part of linguistic historiography as I have tried to do in the
past ten years or so, something may be said about the background and the training
a historian of linguistics should have.
Malkiel (1969:432) speaks about the 'dual expertise' that the historian of
linguistic science should have acquired. He must know 'a good deal about intel
lectual history (embedded within the matrix of general history) and about the more
technical aspects of linguistics'. Of particular importance is Malkiel's emphasis on
the historian's ability to 'demonstrate the specialized knowledge of the scientific
. . . domain' (ibid.); in other words, the historian of linguistics must be a linguist
after all, and not a historian, philosopher, or philologist. This seems to be a very
reasonable requirement. However, we may infer from Kristeller's (1964:4-6) pro
grammatic statement concerning the relationship between the history of philosophy
and the history of ideas that the former subject should be treated by philosophers,
and not, as appears to have been the rule, by scholars from other fields, such as his
tory, literature or classical philology. Indeed, it appears that the history of science,
for instance, has traditionally been the domain of philosophers rather than natural
scientists. Thomas Kuhn — and this may have been one of the reasons why his
proposals have been so thoroughly scrutinized by his colleagues — who moved from
physics to history of science, is the exception rather than the rule.
The other aspect of the historian's 'dual expertise' is hardly less important.
Kristeller (1964:6-7) is very emphatic about the prerequisites of a historian of
philosophy, though these have less to do with the historical background and training
of the scholar. Kristeller holds that historians of philosophy who are not primarily
philosophers present the history of philosophy in a way different from what may be
of especial interest to the philosopher. As a result, the historian of philosophy must
go back to the primary sources and not rely, in the treatment of a particular philoso
pher, a particular school, or a particular concept, on the work of other historians.
Accordingly, the historian of philosophy must be able to read the texts and docu
ments in their original language. Translations and reliance on secondary sources are
only admissible in exceptional cases. It seems that special training in general history
is not a necessary requirement, though general historical knowledge remains indis
pensable to the historian of philosophy.
MODELS IN LINGUISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY 49
The history of linguistics, however, is not dealing with a subject like philoso
phy that has to do exclusively with ideas, intellectual activities and commitments.
Since the object of linguistics, namely the study of language in all its manifestations,
is much more concrete, its history is in some way similar to the development of the
sciences. However, as I have stated repeatedly (e.g., Koerner 1975:119-20; 1976b:
690, and 1981: 162-163), the historian of linguistics must understand the 'climate of
opinion' of a given period if his assessment of a particular phase in the development
of linguistics is to make sense to a present-day practitioner in the field.
This being said, the history of linguistics may be in need of more than scholars
equipped with the above twin expertise. Since the science of language is much closer
than any other of the social and behavioral sciences to having a well-defined, con
crete object of investigation, its rigor of analysis is closer to that of the natural
sciences. As a result, it seems natural that the historian of linguistics would be
interested in knowing what the historian of science does. If we are to believe
Kvastad (1977), then the history of ideas, for example, has little to offer in terms of
methodological insight. Arthur O. Lovejoy's (1873-1962) important life-work
notwithstanding, there do not seem to be any well-established principles of research:
On the whole, the methodology of the history of ideas is in its infancy. The
field is in this respect behind general history, of which it is a part. One may
therefore suggest that the interest of historians of ideas should be more
directed towards the methodological problems of their field than has
hitherto been the case. The reason is that when the foundation of a house
is shaky, it does not make much sense continuously to add new stories to it.
(Kvastad 1977:174)
Unfortunately, Kvastad's own proposals are far from satisfactory; the pseudo-formal
apparatus and the 'logical' definitions that he is presenting do not seem to lead, at
least in his paper, to any new insights. Similarly, the history of philosophy does not
seem to have developed much of a methodology. Although much work, 'polemical',
'doxographical', 'critical', etc., has been done in the field ever since Theophrastus
(c. 350 B.C.) and Diogenes Laertus (c. 200 B.C.), the focus appears to have been on
epistemological and 'attitudinal' problems rather than on methodological ones.
Passmore (1967:229) feels that the philosopher writing the history of his own sub
ject is 'likely to distort it, just because he has strong views of his own'. If this is
correct, it would weaken Kristeller's (1964) argument in favor of the philosopher
rather than a historian writing the history of philosophy. However, the result of
strong personal views may not have to be a whiggish type of history. Frederick
Copleston's 9-volume A History of Philosophy (1948 ff.), for example, remains a
serious scholarly work, though the reader must be aware of the author's Catholic
views. On the other hand, Passmore (ibid.) notes that the 'pure historian with no
philosophical enthusiasm is almost certain to compose a doxography', i.e., an
entirely detached chronological and biographical account of past philosophical
schools of thought.
If my assessment is correct, namely, that both the history of philosophy
and the history of ideas have little to offer to the historian of linguistics, except for
some generalities (which he might well have discovered without reading their
writings), there seem to be only two options left to the person concerned with the
establishment of the history of linguistics as a serious scholarly undertaking. He may
either acquaint himself with the work of historians and philosophers of science and
see to what extent their findings might be applicable to the history of linguistics,
or try to develop a methodology of his own, adapted to the particular nature and
demands of linguistic historiography.
Where the history of science is concerned, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions, first published in 1962, has proved to be particularly sug
gestive, partly, it would seem, because Kuhn applied ideas to the subject that he
himself had drawn from the humanities and the social sciences. Few, if any, have
ever seriously argued that the observations or proposals of historians of science,
whether they be of a Popperian, Kuhnian or any other type, 1 could be directly
applied to the history of fields other than those for which they have been developed.
It is therefore regrettable that Percival (1976) has assumed the position of a 'prae-
ceptor historiographiae linguisticae' and, after a serious distortion of the ideas of
Kuhn as well as of the development of 19th-century linguistics,2 advocated the
rejection of any of Kuhn's suggestions. I for one still believe that the concepts of
'paradigm' (or, perhaps better, 'disciplinary matrix'), 'normal science', 'revolution',
etc., proposed by Kuhn may still be useful to the historian of linguistics if he does
not press the argument to a point where it no longer makes sense. Concerning the
usefulness of the concept of 'scientific revolutions', Stephen Murray (1980:84) has
recently made the following comment pertinent to my argument:
Absolute novelty is not such a realistic criterion, nor is total victory. No

paradigmatic community has ever been coterminus with an entire disci
pline, whether in behavioral, biological, or physical science. In spheres
other than science, we speak of revolutions that were partly successful (the
Reformation did not annihilate Catholicism, the Bolshevik Revolution did
not lead to an end of social inequality, nor to a withering away of the
1
I am thinking, for example, of the sociological model of history of science as advocated
by Robert K. Merton since the late 1930s (cf. Merton 1973), which, according to Hall (1963:1)
conceives of science as 'a cultural artefact, a manifestation of intellectual energy that is stimulated,
checked or modified by the structure, beliefs and aspirations of the society with which this scien
tific activity is associated.' - Murray (1980) bases part of his argument on the writings of Mullins
(1973, 1975) on the social structure of scientific groups.
2
Nothing needs to be said here about Percival's assessment of the 19th century in linguis
tics, since he seems to be basing his argument entirely on secondary information (Percival 1976:
290-91). By contrast, his interpretation of the essential ideas in Kuhn (1970) is largely misleading
and cannot pass unanswered, especially since many readers may, for a variety of reasons (including
intellectual laziness), be tempted to take Percival's analysis at face value. To begin with, nowhere
in Kuhn can the statement be found that progress of a scientific field shows itself in 'periodic
quantum leaps' (Percival 1976:286). More importantly, Kuhn has never claimed that a scientific
revolution is 'an event brought about by the striking achievement of a SINGLE scientific genius'
(ibid.) or that 'revolutions are precipitated by SINGLE individuals' (p. 287; emphasis in the
original). Such a misinterpretation does not become true by repetition; cf. Percival's assertion
(p. 286) that the 'role of the lone innovator is essential to Kuhn's conception of a scientific revo
lution'. (In note 11, p. 290, we find yet another reference to this erroneous interpretation.) In
fact, Kuhn repeatedly speaks of the difficulty of identifying a particular discovery with the name
of one individual and a given date. Nor did Kuhn press the argument (as Percival does, pp. 291,
292); the fact that some do not approve of the change does not, in Kuhn's view, invalidate the
occurrence of a paradigm change. In short, it is difficult to see why Percival's argument against the
application of Kuhn's concepts and principles to the history of linguistics should carry any weight
since they are in fact based on a distorted picture of Kuhn's proposals. (The fact that historians
of linguistics cannot agree on when and where a paradigm change occurred during the past 150
or so years [Percival, pp. 290-91] may shed a light on the sorry state of linguistic historiography,
but cannot be taken as an indication that Kuhn's ideas apply 'at best vacuously' to events in the
history of linguistics, as Percival wants us to believe.)
state) or failures (the 1848 European revolution, or post-World War I

revolutions in Central Europe). There is no reason to expect ''purer" cases
in science than in the situations to which they are supposed to be analogous.
However, I have restated my views on the matter elsewhere (Koerner 1981: 158-164),
and do not wish to reiterate them here. Instead, I would like to explore in the
present paper the possibility of developing models for the historian of linguistics
which may help him clarify the points at which significant changes in the develop
ment of the science of language took place, and, above all, identify the various
aspects that he should be aware of and try to account for in his analysis.
2.0 Models for an Understanding of the History of Linguistics3

2.1 The traditional, somewhat naive, and certainly overly optimistic conception
of the development of science, was expressed by no less a scholar than Leonard
Bloomfield (1887-1949), who stated:
The man of science (but not always the amateur) surveys the results of
earlier students and applies his energies at the point where they left off.
Instead of always starting over again from the beginning, science progresses
cumulatively and with acceleration. (Bloomfield 1933:40)
Still 34 years later the linguist William Samarin maintains that 'progress is spiral and
cumulative', adding, with a reference to Lyons (1962), the following illustration of
his claim:
. . . the history of science is full of examples to support the opinion that
the actual cannot be properly described, perhaps not even recognized,
except in the framework of what has previously been envisaged as possible.
At the same time, of course, the sphere of what is thought of as possible is
being constantly revised under the impact of discoveries made in the
description of actual languages. (Samarin 1967:4)
Probably without realizing it, Samarin in this way provides an example of how the
history of science has traditionally been depicted, a view which, at least since Kuhn's
book of 1962, has become discredited. This fairly inadequate picture of the develop
ment of science may be depicted as follows:
Figure 1
With reference to Kuhn (1970:2), I may term this model, which shows a unilinear
progression, with the line becoming stronger with time, the Progress-by-Ac cumula
tion Model.
2.2 A somewhat more sophisticated view of the development of linguistics (and
probably of any other science) will recognize that there are, at different points in
3
The substance of this section and, especially, the diagrams used herein were first presen
ted on 7 November 1976 at the Seventh Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society held at
Cambridge, Mass. (cf. Koerner 1977, esp. pp. 169-72), i.e., several weeks before I received a copy
of Stewart (1976), whose official publication date was in fact 20 December 1976. This stimulating
account of the use of graphic designs and models in linguistics, from August Schleicher's genealo
gical trees (1853 ff.) to the representations by Chomsky, Sydney Lamb, and others, suggests the
importance of visual illustrations for the clarification of certain ideas or theoretical arguments.
time, 'mainstream' lines of linguistic activity as well as 'underground' currents, or,

in Hymes' (1974:21) terminology, 'central and peripheral traditions'. Ideological,
social, political, and other reasons may decide which line of thought constitutes the
'mainstream' focus of attention (i.e., Hymes' 'cynosure') at a given period. This
Mainstream-vs.-Undercurrent Model may be represented as follows:
Figure 2
Of course, there are intra-linguistic factors as well that have a determining influence
on what may be the center of attention and represent the strongest paradigmatic
community. One approach may be able to explain certain linguistic features more
fully than another. This does not eliminate other approaches, but merely makes
them less visible to the public eye.
The Mainstream-vs.-Undercurrent Model (Fig. 2) remains essentially mono-
dimensional in its vision of the development of science; in contrast to the Progress-
by-Accumulation Model (Fig. 1) it at least suggests that there is usually more than
one line of thought prevalent at any period in linguistics or any other discipline
(though perhaps less noticeable in the natural sciences). During the 19th century,
for example, especially during the period dominated by a materialist approach to
language, first represented by August Schleicher, then by the Neogrammarians
(roughly 1850 to 1900), the Humboldtian trend in linguistics (cf. Koerner 1973b,
1977b), characterized by a broader ('mentalistic') spectrum of interests in language,
was at least part of the 'undercurrent' tradition kept alive by Heymann Steinthal
(1823-1899), Georg von der Gabelentz (1840-1893), and others. At the turn of the
century, however, Humboldtian (as well as Neo-Kantian) idealism became a much
stronger current. Indeed, during the period between the two World Wars, especially
in German-speaking lands and in Italy, and partly until the late 1950s in some
quarters, this former 'undercurrent' had become something of a 'mainstream'.
(This explains why the 'Saussurean Paradigm' did not obtain a firm hold in these
countries before the 1960s.)
2.3 The Mainstream-vs.-Undercurrent Model, however, cannot account for the
change of more peripheral trends to central 'cynosures'. It therefore appears neces
sary to devise a model that takes into account the dynamic aspect in the history of
a discipline. Thus something like a Pendulum-Swing Model seems to be called for
in recognition of the observation that, within the development of linguistics, for
instance, a continuous alternation between contrastive approaches to the subject
('empiricist' vs. 'rationalist', 'materialist' vs. 'idealist', etc.) is to be reckoned with:
Figure 3
One frequent form that the Pendulum-Swing Model assumes has been described as
the perennial contrast between 'theory-orientation' and 'data-orientation' (cf.
Robins 1974 for an illustration of this phenomenon in the classical Roman period,
the middle ages, and later periods in the history of linguistic thought). Of course
this model (as any model for that matter) is probably too rigorous to apply in many
instances without ignoring other activities or trends of a given period. Perhaps we
are still too much imbued with the Hegelian conception of the development of
science (and of human affairs in general) in terms of a dialectical thesis-antithesis-
synthesis alternation. Such a conception may blindfold us and disguise the fact that
we have made an observation without having been able to understand, let alone to
explain, the reason for certain recurrent changes of emphasis in linguistics. (The
reason for our inability to explain such alternations is that we have restricted our
attention to intra-disciplinary events; cf. 2.6 below.)
2.4 Historians of linguistics are aware of continuities as well as discontinuities
(cf. Grosse 1973; Robins 1976). There may be many reasons why a certain trend
subsides, and it appears that sometimes a general change of perspective and direction
may cause a particular tradition to fall into disrepute. Much has been said in favor of
and against the 'Chomskyan Revolution' in linguistics (cf. Hymes 1974, Percival
1976); some have stressed the continuity aspect of transformational-generative
linguistics (Gleason 1976), others have seen in it a definite break with earlier work in
the discipline (most recently Newmeyer 1980). As it happens, there are indications
that, while transformational-generative grammar may still be commanding much
attention in linguistics, other trends, both older and newer ones, have been main
tained or established.
There are, however, other examples to be found in the history of linguistics
which may more clearly indicate the possibility of discontinuity of particular tra
ditions. One such tradition is that of the grammaire générale usually associated with
the Jansenist Abbey of Port-Royal near Paris, and the 'general and rational'
grammars of French as well as of other languages that its professors produced since
the mid-1650s. It can be shown that this tradition, which dominated much of 18th-
century work in linguistics, became less and less influential from 1800 onwards.
Within France the general grammars written by Domergue, Silvestre de Sacy, and
Sicard (all first published in 1799) were frequently reprinted, some as late as the
mid-1840s and early 1850s. But outside the country of origin, general grammar
fell into disrepute when empirically-oriented comparative grammars began to drive
out the much more philosophical, argumentative and aprioristic types of grammar.4
Probably somewhat more realistically the Discontinuity-vs.-Continuity Model
may be depicted as follows:
Figure 4
As it happens, even the Grammaire générale tradition was taken up to some degree a
few generations later, producing a line from Bréal to Saussure (cf. Koerner 1976c),
4
A full illustration and explanation of this tradition and its discontinuity in the history
of linguistics will have to be the subject of a separate study - Cf. chap. 6 below.
and from there to Hjelmslev's 1928 Principes de grammarie générale (Copenhagen:

A. F. Host), not to mention the re-awakening of interest in this tradition following
Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics (1966). This explains the use of certain dotted lines
in the above diagram (Fig. 4). It does not take into account the Pendulum-Swing
Model (Fig. 3), though the historiographer would have to reckon with a co-existence
and a co-operation of these two factors, which at times (e.g., if 'grammaire générale'-
work is identified with 'theory-orientation') may coalesce.
2.5 If we abstract from the preceding two factors, namely, the possibility of dis
continuity and the dialectal relationship between data-orientation and theory-
orientation, we might depict the development of linguistics, like any other dis
cipline, as a science advancing through time. To illustrate this development, we
might use the graphic device of a spiral, with the horizontal (dotted) arrow indi
cating progress in time:
Figure 5 a
Indeed, this (what we may call) Relative-Progress Model may be used to take into
account the pendulum-swing kind of development, while at the same time suggesting
that return to a particular emphasis on a particular approach will never be the same
as before, but will have changed some of its ingredients due to advances in the field.
The diagram (Fig. 5a) may be turned by 90 degrees to offer perhaps a better picture
of the recurrence of (almost) the same outlook, preference in approach, or turn of
events, each time on a more advanced level:
Figure 5 b
All these above models, including the last two (Fig. 5a and 5b), do not take into
account factors other than, it would seem, intra-linguistic ones. However, it is a
common-place observation that disciplines do not operate in a vacuum but are

dependent on a society that supports them and ideas (and, at times, ideologies)
to sustain them. It goes without saying that the serious historian of linguistics would
have to try to trace and to analyze these extra-linguistic factors.
2.6 In a programmatic paper (Koerner 1976b) I have tried to parallel particular
'paradigms', i.e., widely accepted frameworks guiding linguistic research during a
given phase in the evolution of the field, with particular situations and 'climates of
opinion'. At least some of these extra-linguistic factors having a particular impact
on these 'paradigms' associated with the work of Schleicher, Saussure, and Chomsky
were identified in that paper.
19th-century work in linguistic science is especially characterized by what I
have called (Koerner 1980) a 'parasite' tendency. Linguistics in the past century,
trying to become as 'scientific' and rigorous as those disciplines that had already
achieved wide acceptance as a field of science, borrowed terms as well as principles
of analysis from these dominant fields of research. Thus, from about 1800 onwards,
if not somewhat earlier (cf. Salmon 1975), botany (in particular Linnaen taxono
my), biology, and especially comparative anatomy (represented by Cuvier, Blumen
bach, and others) began offering models of analysis which the generation of Bopp,
Rask and Grimm tried to imitate in their treatment of language. In the mid-19th
century geology (cf. the work of Lyell) and (largely Lamarckian) evolution theory
played an important role in contemporary theorizing, Schleicher being the most
conspicuous and influential representative of the period. Towards the end of the
19th century, when linguistics began to free itself from conceptions supplied by the
natural sciences, sociology, psychology, and political economy began exerting their
influence on linguistic thinking (cf. Paul's Prinzipien, first published in 1880, which,
curiously enough, had little impact on the neogrammarian practice of analyzing
'dead' languages). If one considers that Saussure's reflections on 'synchronic' prin
ciples of language analysis date back at least as far as 1891, we may realize the in
fluence of the 'climate of opinion' on his linguistic views. A model taking into ac
count these extra-linguistic influences at different periods in the discipline's develop
ment may assume the following graphic shape (incorporating here only the 'pendu
lum swing' [Fig. 3 above] of one major current):
Figure 6
Indeed it seems that advances in methodology or theory were usually made when
ever ideas, concepts, and in fact procedures of discovery were introduced into
linguistics from disciplines outside the field.
However, we will note quickly that this modified version of the Pendulum-
Swing Model (which we may term the Extra-Linguistic Influence Model) does not
take into account other factors, which had a bearing on the development of linguis
tic science in the 19th century, for example, the political situation in Europe.
Napoleon's reign until 1815 made George Boiling speak of a linguistics after Water
loo; his Continental Blockade against Britain prevented the various Sanskrit gram
mars written by British scholars in the first decade of the 19th century from be
coming known on the Continent. It was sheer accident that Alexander Hamilton,
the former member of the East Indian Company, who was visiting Paris in 1802,
was forced to stay there after the rupture of the Peace of Amiens in 1803. Hamilton
not only played a major role in the cataloging of the Sanskrit manuscript holdings
of the Bibliothèque Nationale, but also in introducing Friedrich Schlegel to the
study of Sanskrit.
Indeed, if political and socio-economic factors are properly taken into ac
count, the analysis of the development of a field such as linguistics becomes even
more involved and complex. Bopp's epoch-making Conjugationssystem appeared
in 1816, one year after Waterloo, and so did François Raynouard's (1761-1830)
grammar of Old Provençal (as volume one of his 6-volume Choix de poésies origi
nales des Troubadours, Paris 1816-1821), which is commonly regarded as the
beginning of Romance philology. Together with a rise of nationalism in Germany
following the defeat of Napoleon's armies, there was also an expansion of institu
tions of higher learning. This expansion could not fail to boost the study of lan
guages, in particular Latin and Greek, but also of modern vernaculars, and the study
of language in general. In 1819, the first chair of Sanskrit was created at the Univer
sity of Bonn (A. W. Schlegel was the first incumbant); two years later, at the Uni
versity of Berlin (and with the support of Alexander and Wilhelm von Humboldt),
Bopp received a university professorship for Sanskrit and Oriental Literature; the
University of Munich established a chair in the same subject in 1826, and other
universities in Germany followed their example. In short, the increasing profession-
alization of linguistic studies could not fail to have an important impact on the
development of the field. It is the task of the historian of linguistics to acquaint
himself with these facts and factors in his description of a particular period in
linguistic research.
The analysis of extra-linguistic influences on the discipline itself is by no
means an easy task, even in instances where we are ourselves witness to certain
events in linguistics. Hymes (1974:21) has suggested a 'sociolinguistic' approach to
the history of linguistics, but from his own account of the Chomskyan 'revolution' I
gather that this is not as easy as it sounds. Where the development of 20th-century
linguistics in the United States is concerned, it could be shown that certain changes
in approach or wide-spread acceptance of on-going work was frequently related to
the interest that the federal government and its agencies took in the study of lan
guage at various points in time. Compare the importance of the Army Language
School during World War II for the structuralist approach during the 1940s and
1950s, and the support that transformational-generative linguistics received from the
National Defense Education Act of late 1958 and other programs (cf. Meisel 1973).
In this paper I have ventured to explore other avenues than those already laid
out for us by neighboring fields, such as the history and philosophy of science. I
will be satisfied if the discussion has suggested to the (future) historian of linguistics
that the adequate treatment of the subject is by no means something that can be
done easily by anyone who has linguistic training and a knowledge of English.
On the contrary, the demands on a historiographer must be more than knowing
one's sources and knowing how to count as Hobsbawm (1980:728) has recently
suggested. As we have seen, there are a number of intra-linguistic and extra-linguistic
factors that need to be accounted for. I submit that the so-called 'Chomskyan
Revolution' in linguistics, for example, cannot be properly explained in terms of a
wide-spread dissatisfaction with the mechanistic-behaviorist approach to language
analysis during the 1950s. It is certainly true that the taxonomist tradition of the
Bloomfieldian mold could not satisfy the highly intellectual mind; but to bring
about a change within general linguistic thinking, many factors, including situa
tional ones, would have to be taken into account. The novelty of Chomsky's ap
proach - he introduced for the first time notions into linguistics which had been
developed outside the field, e.g., recursive mathematical models, symbolic logic,
etc. — explains at best part of the success of his proposals; various socio-economic
and political factors (cf. Hymes 1974:16-17; Gray 1976:48-49), and indeed psycho
logical-social phenomena, such as what Max Weber called 'charisma' (cf. Murray
1980:84-85), would have to be thoroughly investigated.
REFERENCES
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: H. Holt & Co.
Gleason, Henry Allan, Jr. 1976. 'Continuities in Linguistics'. The Second LACUS
Forum 1975 ed. by Peter A. Reich, 3-16. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam Press.
Gray, Bennison. 1976. 'Counter-Revolution in the Hierarchy'. Forum Linguisti-
cum 1.38-50.
Grosse, Siegfried. 1973. 'Kontinuität und Diskontinuität in der Sprachwissen
schaft'. Kontinuität — Diskontinuität in den Geisteswissenschaften ed. by
Hans Trümpy, 189-212. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Hall, A. Rupert. 1963. 'Merton Revisited, or Science and Society in the Seven
teenth Century'. History of Science 2.1-16.
Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1980. 'The Age of the Mobsters'. Times Literary Supplement
No. 4031 (27 June 1980), p. 728.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. 'Introduction: Traditions and Paradigms'. Studies in the
History of Linguistics ed. by Dell Hymes, 1-38. Bloomington & London:
Indiana University Press.
Koerner, E. F. K. 1973a. Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and Development of his
Linguistic Thought in Western Studies of Language. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg.
--------. 1973b. The Importance of Techmer's 'Internationale Zeitschrift für
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft' in the Development of General Linguistics.
Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
--------. 1976a. 'The Importance of Linguistic Historiography and the Place of
History in Linguistic Science'. Foundations of Language 14:4.541-47. (Repr.
in Koerner 1978.63-69.)
-----------. 1976b. 'Towards a Historiography of Linguistics: 19th and 20th Cen
tury Paradigms'. History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Linguistics
ed. by Herman Parret, 685-718. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter. (Repr. in
Koerner 1978.21-54.)
----------. 1976c. 'Saussure and the French Linguistic Tradition'. In Memoriam
Friedrich Diez: Akten des Kolloquiums zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der
Romanistik (Trier, 2.-4. Okt. 1975) ed. by Hans-Josef Niederehe et al., 405-
417. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
-------. 1977a. 'On the Non-Applicability of Kuhn's Paradigms to the History
of Linguistics'. Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the North Eastern
Linguistic Society (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 5-7Nov. 1976) ed. by Judy Anne
Kegl et al., 165-74. Cambridge, Mass.: Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy,
M.I.T.
--------. 1977b. The Humboldtian Trend in Linguistics'. Cahiers Linguistiques
d'Ottawa 5.27-40.
--------. 1978. Toward a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected Essays. Preface
-------. 1980. 'Pilot and Parasite Disciplines in the Development of Linguistic
Science'. Folia Linguistica Historica 1:1.213-24.
-------. 1981. "The Neogrammarian Doctrine: Breakthrough or Extension of the
Schleicherian Paradigm. A problem in linguistic historiography'. Folia Linguistica
Historica 2:2.157-178. (Repr. as chap.7 in this volume.)
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. 1964. 'History of Philosophy and History of Ideas'. Journal
of the History of Philosophy 2.1-14.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd enl. ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1st ed., 1962.)
Kvastad, Nils B. 1977. 'Semantics in the Methodology of the History of Ideas'.
Journal of the History of Ideas 38:1.157-74.
Lyons, John. 1962. 'Phonemic and Non-Phonemic Phonology: Some Typological
Reflections'. International Journal of American Linguistics 28.127-34.
Malkiel, Yakov. 1969. 'History and Histories of Linguistics'. Romance Philology
22.530-66.
Meisel, Jürgen M. 1973. 'Noam Chomskys Umwälzung der Sprachwissenschaft'.
Linguistische Perspektiven: Referate des VII. Linguistischen Kolloquiums
(Nijmegen, 26.-30. Sept. 1972) ed. by Abraham ten Cate and Peter Jordans,
1-22. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.
Merton, Robert K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical
Investigations. Ed. and with an introd. by Norman W. Storer. Chicago: Uni
versity of Chicago Press.
Mullins, Nicholas. 1973. Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American
Sociology. New York: Harper & Row.
------. 1975. 'A Sociological Theory of Scientific Revolutions'. Determinants
and Controls of Scientific Development ed. by Karin D. Knorr et al., 185-203.
Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Murray, Stephen . 1980. 'Gatekeepers and the "Chomskian Revolution'". Journal
of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16.73-88.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1980. Linguistic Theory in America: The First Quarter-
Century of Transformational Generative Grammar. New York: Academic
Press.
Passmore, John. 1967. 'Philosophy, History of. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
ed. by Paul Edwards, vol. 6.226-30. New York: Macmillan & Free Press.
Percival, W. Keith. 1976. 'The Applicability of Kuhn's Paradigms to the History
of Linguistics'. Language 52:2.285-94.
Robins, R. H. 1974. 'Theory-Orientation versus Data-Orientation: A Recurrent
Theme in Linguistics'. Historiographia Linguistica 1:1.11-26.
---------. 1976. 'Some Continuities and Discontinuities in the History of Lin

guistics'. History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Linguistics ed. by
Herman Parret, 13-31. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter.
Salmon, Paul B. 1974. 'The Beginnings of Morphology: Linguistic Botanizing in
the 18th Century'. Historiographia Linguistica 1:3.313-39.
Samarin, William J. 1967. Field Linguistics: A Guide to Linguistic Field Work.
Stewart, Anne Harleman. 1976. Graphic Representation of Models in Linguistics.
Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press.
PRACTICING LINGUISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY*
0. Introductory Observations. Ever since publishing my first program

matic statement concerning the history of linguistics (Koerner 1972), I
have made use of the traditional term 'historiography' in a particular
sense, namely, as ''pertaining to the principled manner of studying and
presenting the past of a given discipline". Recent publications (e.g.,
Schmitter 1982) suggest that this designation has become accepted
among the younger generation of scholars engaged in serious work in the
history of the study of language. This also holds true of the monograph by
Manfred Kohrt, which has prompted the present review. Although 'His
toriographie1 does not appear in the book's title or in any of its chapter
headings, the term can be found throughout the argument, and quite in
agreement with more recent usage (including in its adjectival form). It is
true that the author rarely takes into consideration what I have referred
to as 'the climate of opinion' or, following Goethe, 'den Geist der Zeiten',
except in the chapter in which political ideas are discussed (which how
ever have no relation to the field of linguistics). But, as we shall see in
what follows, there was no particular need in the investigation under re
view to establish anything like an extra-linguistic framework in order to
be able to succeed in the envisaged goal. There, it was sufficient to embed
a particular work of linguistic scholarship in the context of other works of
the same (or preceding) period(s). Also, where its subsequent interpre
tation is concerned, one should establish the scientific and general intel
lectual commitments of those who gave it special significance for the de
velopment of 20th-century pursuits in linguistic theory (as well as
theories outside linguistics).
1. The Theses and Findings of the Study under Review. Kohrt's study is
devoted to a minor figure in the history of linguistics, the Swiss dialectol-
ogist Jost Winteler ( 1846-1929), a close contemporary of another scholar
* On the occasion of Phonetik, Phonologie und die "Relativität der Verhältnisse": Zur Stellung
Jost Wintelers in der Geschichte der Wissenschaft by Manfred Kohrt (Wiesbaden & Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner, 1984).- Repr., with permission from the editor, from Word 36:3.258-265 (1985).
for whom an even more important place in the development of modern

phonology has been claimed: the Pole Jan (Ignacy or Niecis aw) Bau
douin de Courtenay (1845-1929). In referring to Winteler as a 'minor fig
ure' I believe that I am in full agreement with Kohrt. The implication is
that Winteler did not provide any new framework for doing linguistic re
search. However, his celebrated Kerenzer Mundart published in 1875
(though with the imprint of 1876, as Kohrt, pp. 7-8, n. 5, has carefully
established once and for all) has a rightful place in the annals of linguistic
geography because of its careful analysis of a particular dialect which
subsequent researchers took as a model for their own work.
The goal of Kohrt's efforts may be summarized as follows: to ana
lyze Winteler's contribution to our knowledge within the context of his
own terms—what I have recently called, with reference to literary usage,
'immanente Interpretation' (Koerner, forthcoming), within his own time
and its established traditions, and to dispel a variety of claims regarding
Winteler's originality. Since the early 1930s, when Nikolaj Sergeevic Tru-
betzkoy(1890-1938) first chanced upon Winteler's work(cf. Kohrt, p. 16
and elsewhere), these claims have tended to distort Winteler's true posi
tion in the history of linguistics. A side issue, not without interest to his
torians concerned with minute textual analysis and careful interpreta
tion, deals with the relationship between Winteler and his one-time pupil
at the Kantonsschule at Aarau, Switzerland, Albert Einstein (1879-
1955), who completed his high school education there during 1895-96 af
ter having failed to do well at the Luitpold-Gymnasium in Munich (cf.
Kohrt, 75-81 and 82-97). Indeed, these two chapters in Kohrt's book
may serve as warning to everyone not to jump to conclusions on the basis
of personal contacts between two men (which in the present case were
relatively intense, as Kohrt demonstrates, pp. 76-77) and of a similarity
of terms used in their respective publications. Kohrt establishes in a most
careful manner what the present writer has had occasion to observe ever
since he ventured into linguistic historiography, namely, that statements
made by the late Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) regarding the history of
linguistics must be taken with a grain of salt and, in many instances, with
much more than that. Thus, what Kohrt aptly calls Jakobson's Zitatcol-
lage (p. 84) holds especially true of his attempt to connect Winteler's re
marks concerning the relativity of conditions ('Relativität der Verhält
nisse'), which Winteler (1876:27) used in connection with phonetic-
phonological matters only (cf. Kohrt, pp. 32ff., for details), with Ein
stein's (special) Theory of Relativity, first advanced in his paper on elec
trodynamics of 1905. The fact of the matter is that whenever Einstein is
referring to the clairvoyance of 'Papa Winteler' in his autobiographical
PRACTICING LINGUISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY 63
accounts, he is referring to Winteler's political acumen, and never to his

linguistic work (cf. Kohrt, pp. 85-97 passim). As Kohrt clearly shows,
there has been, and there can be, no connection between Winteler's ter
minology and Einstein's theory (and scientific thought in general).
To return to Winteler's importance in linguistics, Kohrt amply dem
onstrates, by example and theoretical reflection, the problems faced by a
present-day historian eager to establish wie es eigentlich gewesen
(Ranke). To begin with, there are the so-called histories of linguistics
which offer us a short-cut if we wish to decide what author and which
publication made history—something Kohrt was careful not to take up.
Then there is the possibility of relying on authority, and in particular on
the observations and interpretations made by distinguished linguists.
This possibility was critically pursued by Kohrt, but dismissed in a step-
by-step analysis of the evidence. In effect his treatment illustrates how
careful we must be in accepting such arguments presented by great schol
ars in the field of linguistics proper, and in particular by those who are
definitely theory-oriented and interested in advancing a cause. It would
be hazardous to think that only Chomsky's Cartesian linguistics of 1966
constitutes a case in point, in which someone reinterprets the past to
strengthen his present stand. I am not sure what prompted Jakobson in
particular instances to produce at best unreliable accounts of past events
in the study of language. However, it is interesting to note that he engaged
himself in matters pertaining to linguistic historiography only toward the
end of his career, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, after Praguean
phonology and many other ideas developed in Europe during the 1920s
and 1930's (including his own) had been 're-invented' or absorbed in
some fashion in North America.
In the case of Trubetzkoy, the reason for engaging in a reassessment
of the linguistic past can be seen more clearly: as the acknowledged
leader of a (supposedly) new way of treating the sound structure of lan
guage, Trubetzkoy must have felt the need to convince his contemporar
ies of the novelty of his approach. And—as any keen observer of public
debates knows, especially when the subject of contention is a theory or
an ideology (or both)—what better way to establish one's claim to 'crea
tivity' and 'innovation' than by demonstrating that one's contemporaries
have gone astray (and, as a result, failed to account for 'interesting' data)
because they followed the wrong path in their scientific pursuits. Tru-
betzkoy's " L a phonologie actuelle" of 1933 was intended to serve as a
vehicle to further the 'new faith'; it is no doubt a most forceful propa
ganda piece.' But it should be read with this observation in mind. Tru
betzkoy was not interested in the history of linguistics per se, but in his
own theoretical commitments which, especially during the late 'twenties

and early 'thirties, were under attack from various quarters; telling one's
opponents that they were not appreciative enough of the work of their
predecessors was at least one effective means of turning the tables.
Kohrt is careful not to sound too critical of Trubetzkoy's interpreta
tion of Winteler's Kerenzer Mundart as it contains observations premon-
itoring principles of analysis whose importance has now been recognized
for the first time in the annals of linguistic science. Kohrt may have done
so for two reasons: First, Trubetzkoy read Winteler's book at a time
when he was reshaping his own theoretical views (cf. Kohrt, pp. 16-19,
69-70, 99-100) and was probably prone to projecting his current concern
onto observations made by others under different conditions and 'points
de vue' (Saussure). Second, whereas Trubetzkoy had been satisfied with
making a few suggestive references to Winteler's work, it was his long
time associate and Mitstreiter (before becoming an 'MIT-Streiter', one
may add), Jakobson, who 'improved' upon Trubetzkoy's suggestions by
adding further parts to the edifice, which however Kohrt (pp. 66ff.) is suc
cessful in dismantling piece by piece. Indeed, Kohrt is right when he pre
sents Trubetzkoy's misinterpretations and Jakobson's distortions of the
material at hand as a 'historiographisches Lehrstück' (p. 69). As a result,
anyone reading Kohrt's succinct analyses of the available primary and
secondary sources will profit from doing so. Also, anyone, such as the
present writer, who is suspicious of 'established truths' in the history
(and, especially, the so-called histories) of linguistics, will find his suspi
cion amply confirmed: Winteler was not, to any extent, a forerunner of
Praguean phonology; he was not advocating the use of minimal pairs, but
making use of established practice in phonetic analysis; nor was he inter
ested in semantic contrast (cf. Kohrt, pp. 24-26); Winteler's (1876:105)
expression 'dynamisch verwendet' has nothing to do with Trubetzkoy's
use of 'phonologisch bedeutsam' and, as Kohrt (pp. 49-64) demon
strates extensively, in Winteler's own argument 'dynamisch' is less than
a well-defined term (p. 57).
It is instructive to read instead the linguistic literature of the 1870s
(as well as of earlier periods), and in particular reviews of Winteler's Ker
enzer Mundart, which in fact was his doctoral thesis at the University of
Jena done under the precocious Eduard Sievers (1850-1932), who was
four years younger than Winteler and already an 'extra-ordinary' profes
sor of Germanic philology at age twenty-one (and a 'full' professor by
1876). The first chapter in Kohrt's monograph ("Die Bedeutung von Jost
Wintelers Arbeit in den Augen seiner Zeitgenossen", pp. 8-13) quotes
relevant passages from comments made by Wilhelm Scherer (1841-86),
Karl Brugmann, (1849-1919), Miko aj (Habdank-) Kruszewski (1851-

1887), and Henry Sweet (1845-1912) as well as observations made by the
lesser-known J(ohann) F(riedrich) Kräuter ( 1846-1888), on whom Kohrt
supplies no biographical information.2
Thus Scherer identifies the book's characteristic advance in compar
ison to previous work in dialectology as consisting 'in more precise pho
netic conception and description, (and) in more exact transcription al
lowing for (actually: designating) more minute (feinere) differences'
(Kohrt, p. 8). For Brugmann the Kerenzer Mundart exemplifies the kind
of work which will provide more accurate data for linguistic study than
previous 'paper-based' analyses (cf. Kohrt, p. 10). In short, and Kohrt
supplies a number of other quotations to this extent, Winteler's work was
hailed by his contemporaries as 'paradigmatic' for dialect geography in
particular, and close phonetic-phonological description in general. It is
however Winteler's 'fortis'/'lenis' distinction in the analysis of the Ke-
renz dialect (Winteler 1876:22) and which he claims to be characteristic
of Upper German in general (p. 23), to which Kohrt devotes an entire
chapter (pp. 28-46). However, this is the case only, if we consider, as he
does, distinctions between 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' articulatory
energy and 'essential' and 'accidental' (in the sense of "subjacent") fac
tors in sound analysis to be concomitant notions. (In this connection it is
refreshing to note that Kohrt does not fall victim to an overinterpretation,
nor does he claim originality for Winteler when he speaks of 'System der
Laute' (1876:25) or makes general use of the term 'Sprachgefühl'.) Win
teler's distinction between 'fortis' and 'lenis' instead of the traditional
'voiced'/'voiceless' or 'surd'/'sonant' in his description of spirants was
not accepted by most of his contemporaries, but it was this distinction
that impressed Trubetzkoy when he first read the Kerenzer Mundart (cf.
Kohrt, pp. 16-17), and which, through Jakobson's intermediary, became
a point d'appui in Chomsky and Halle's Sound pattern of English
(1968:324).
2. Concluding Remarks. A number of conclusions may be drawn from

the present monograph in regard to work in the history of linguistics in
general. To begin with, it appears that historians of linguistics, as Grotsch
( 1982) has recently suggested, need far fewer theoretical discussion con
cerning the epistemology and methodology of linguistic historiography
than has frequently been maintained, provided of course that they have a
sufficient knowledge of general history and historical research methods.
The other proviso is—and this is not made clear in Kohrt's study—that
historians of linguistic science have a thorough training in the field whose
development they are delineating. (This would exclude people like Elmar
Holenstein who, as Kohrt demonstrates on various occasions, has cho
sen to follow Jakobson uncritically and tended to add embellishments of
his own to his master's claims, thus compounding the distortions already
introduced by Jakobson.)
Another point is—and this is splendidly illustrated in the book under
review—that a careful textual analysis of the sources which takes into
consideration the general intellectual context of the period in which a
given author propounds a theoretical position or makes a statement
which may be of importance in the subsequent development of the disci
pline, will lead to good results. 3 As in the case of Jost Winteler's contri
bution to linguistics, such studies may successfully undermine, if not re
fute, traditional interpretations and misunderstandings. Those studies
will lead to a much more adequate picture of an author and his work.
Thus, in final analysis, he will be assured of a (in all senses of the word)
rightful place in the annals of linguistic science.
One may wish that more such monograph treatments will be made of
various scholars in the study of language who are known to have contrib
uted significantly to the advancement of the field, such as Georg von der
Gabelentz (1840-93) or Franz Nikolaus Finck (1867-1910),4 to mention
just two scholars who largely followed the 'Humboldtian trend' in lin
guistics (Koerner 1977). As a result, they did not receive their due as their
ideas were not 'mainstream' either during the period of neogrammarian
domination of the field or subsequently, when structuralism become the
essential framework. They deserve a reassessment.
ENDNOTES
1
Trubetzkoy's ( 1933) paper contains a variety of errors (or distortions) of historical fact;
I am referring here to only a few: (1) When talking about Saussure's concept of'phonème',
Trubetzkoy makes reference to the Cours only; he appears not to be aware of the fact that
Saussure made regular use of the term in his much earlier Mémoire (Saussure 1878). (2) As
a result, he is ignorant of the fact that Baudouin de Courtenay (through the intermediary of
his pupil Kruszewski) took the term (together with a number of others, such as 'zéro' and
'alternance 1 ) from Saussure, rather than developing the concept (or at least coining the
term) independently. (3) Trubetzkoy speaks of language as a system 'où tout se tient' five
times in his paper, not realizing that it is Meillet's phrase, not Saussure's (even though it is,
no doubt, in the spirit of Saussure).
2
For information on Kräuter, see Friedrich Dürr's brief notice in Wilhelm Viètor's
( 1850-1918) Phonetische Studien 2:2:241 -42 ( 1889).
3
If it is permitted to offer a criticism here, it would be to say that Kohrt's monograph is,
both in style and presentation, far too discursive; it contains numerous repetitions and
cross-references, and it becomes only too obvious that the author tried to turn a paper into
a book (cf. Vorwort, p. vii). In other words, the study could have been cut by one third with-
out loss of relevant information. Part of this may be due to the fact that German does not
lend itself to concise scientific discourse, as does English, for example, though this may be
due more to the language user than to the language at hand. One more remark: in this day
and age it should no longer be permitted to publish a book without an index; I have read the
book carefully, but it is time-consuming to trace individual statements subsequently.
4
I have supplied a number of life-dates of scholars in this paper partly because Kohrt
has given biographical dates only selectively, and also because such dates may at times be
of importance. For instance, Kohrt (p. 5) refers to Gabelentz' Sprachwissenschaft in its
1901 edition, perhaps not realizing that Gabelentz had died in 1893 and could not have pre
pared the second and much enlarged edition himself (cf. Koerner 1978:137ff., for details).
Similarly, on page 60, Kohrt refers to Johann Christoph Adelung's (1732-1806) Hand
wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache by the year 1846 (without indicating in the bibliography,
p. 106, any previous edition of the volume), again without drawing the reader's attention to
the fact that Adelung had died 40 years earlier and that, as a consequence, his dictionary
could not be representative of 19th-century usage. In short, while Kohrt may be right in cri
ticising others for undue preoccupation with specific dates (cf. pp. 5-6, note 2), he cannot
hope to escape criticism himself for not respecting chronological matters too carefully.
Thus it would be more proper to indicate the original date of publication (in the present case:
1857, cf. Kohrt, p. 108) of a reference rather than citing "Jacob Grimm (1884, S. 82)", es
pecially when pre-1875 procedures of phonetic analysis are at issue (p. 24). Also, given the
long-standing debate as to what Sievers took from his Doktorand Winteler (cf. Kohrt, pp.
6 - 8 , note 5; 21, note 32; 29, note 38), the reader would have been interested in Sievers' views
of'dynamischer Accent' in his 1876 Lautphysiologie and not only in his 1901 Phonetik (cf.
Kohrt, p. 49), i.e., the fifth much enlarged and revised edition of Sievers' influential book.
REFERENCES
Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist

thought. New York: Harper and Row.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern oƒ English. New York: Harper
and Row.
Einstein, Albert. 1905. "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper." Annalen der Physik
17:891-921.
Grotsch, Klaus. 1982. Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik
und zur historischen und methodologischen Selbstvergewisserung der Disziplin.
Göppingen: Kümmerle.
Koerner, E. E K(onrad). 1972. 'Towards a historiography of linguistics: 19th and 20th cen
tury paradigms." Anthropological linguistics 14:7:255-80.
-----------. 1977. ' T h e Humboldtian trend in linguistics." Studies in descriptive and historical
linguistics: Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann. Ed. Paul J. Hopper. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. Pp. 145-58.
----------. 1978. Toward a historiography of linguistics: Selected essays. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
----------. (Forthcoming). "Das Problem der Metasprache in der Sprachwissenschaft
sgeschichtsschreibung." Zur theorie und Methode der Geschichtsschreibung der Lin
guistik, Peter Schmitter, Ed. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1878. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues
indo-européennes. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. (With the imprint of 1879.)
Schmitter, Peter. 1982. Untersuchungen zur Historiographie der Linguistik: Struktur—

Methodik—theoretische Fundierung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Sievers, Eduard. 1901. Grundzüge der Phonetik zur Einführung in das Studium der Lau
tlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. 5th rev. ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. (The
first ed. of 1876 still used 'Lautphysiologie' in lieu of 'Phonetik' in its title.)
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1933. " L a phonologie actuelle." Journal de psychologie normale et path
ologique 30:227-46.
Winteler, Jost. 1876. Die Kerenzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus in ihren Grundzügen dar
gestellt. Leipzig & Heidelberg: C. F. Winter. (Contrary to the imprint, the book ap
peared in 1875.)
CONTINUITIES AND DISCONTINUITIES IN THE HISTORY
OF LINGUISTICS*
0.0 Introductory observations
During the past fifteen or so years, we have frequently heard the claim, especially
with regard to 'modern linguistics', that certain theoretical frameworks were to be
regarded as entirely novel and as breaking with past commitments in the field. A
claim to 'discontinuity', to 'rupture épistémologique', or to 'revolution' has fre
quently been enunciated to characterize these supposed 'new beginnings', the
replacement of past 'paradigms', or the establishment of 'linguistics as a science',
suggesting of course that previous endeavours, while perhaps not without merit,
were not yet conducted within a framework that could qualify as 'scientific'.
It is the task of the historian to investigate those claims through careful empirical
research, discern between the claims being made and actual accomplishments, and
look for factors that may have played a role in the establishment of new
commitments, a change in orientation, and to analyse and describe a particular
atmosphere that fosters the sentiment (possibly shared by members of one
generation) of a 'revolution' having taken place. It will be the task of the histori
ographer to bring these empirical findings into proper perspective, to give a
reasonable interpretation, and to offer an adequate explanation of what actually
happened. To ensure the proper presentation of the development of a given disci
pline, the historian of linguistics must know how to conduct his work. The estab
lishment of the principles that should guide the historian is the task of the historiog
rapher or, to avoid the double meaning of the term, the 'historiologist', a term pro
posed by Bokadorova (1986) in a recent programmatic statement. In other words, the
historiologist is the person dealing with the entire realm of what may be subsumed
under the term 'metalanguage' to be employed by the historian. (By this I do not
simply mean the technical vocabulary to be used by the historian but in fact a well-
defined frame of reference which deals with questions of method, epistemology, and
philosophy of science.) As far as I know, such principles developed in a coherent
fashion have not yet become available to the historian and historiographer. The list of
An earlier version of this chapter was first presented at the 14th International Congress of
Linguists held in Berlin on 10-15 August 1987.
papers and larger works especially devoted to questions of historiographical method

is surprisingly short, and much effort is required to improve the situation. To my
mind, the establishment of a firm guide for work in the history of linguistics has
become particularly desirable as the field has received so much popular attention in
recent years, with the danger of too many in effect unqualified people participating in
the enterprise whose, perhaps tacit, epistemological and methodological foundations
are frequently either not seen or ignored.
For the last fifteen years I have tried to address some of the problems facing the
historian of linguistics and offer a few proposals toward their solution. In these
efforts, I have found some of the concepts proposed in T. S. Kuhn's influential book
of 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, useful; but nowhere did I claim that
Kuhn's morphology of scientific revolutions could be directly applied to the history
of a subject like linguistics. I believe that linguistics cannot be viewed like a natural
science where the advancement of the field can usually be shown fairly concretely
(through the development of new technologies, new techniques of more accurate
measurements, particular discoveries, etc.), at least not up to the present date.
Indeed, despite its sophistification, formal rigor (at least in certain areas), and fairly
advanced accountability, it seems to me that linguistics as a field is and will remain a
social science (and thus subject to changes of 'points de vue' without necessarily
bringing about a concomitant increase in our understanding of the nature of
language). If advances even in the so-called 'hard sciences' are not cumulative,
following a steady progression, the development of linguistics may not legitimately
be expected to be a field that is advancing progressively. In fact, it may be
reasonable to assume that the science of language has witnessed pendulum swings,
changes of emphasis, progressive as well as regressive moves, and the like within its
long history (cf. chap.4 above).
I have dealt on other occasions with particular subjects that I find most important
in linguistic historiography, namely, the question of 'metalanguage' (in its narrower
sense) and its connection with epistemology (Koerner 1987a), and the status of
'influence' in historical work and general argument (Koerner 1987b). This time, I
shall address the question of 'continuity' and 'discontinuity' in the history -- and the
historiography -- of linguistics, a subject which may be at the heart of the discussion
in the history of linguistics in our days, given the frequent claims that have been
advanced about the 'Chomskyan Revolution' in recent years (cf. Koerner 1983)
1.0 Continuities and Discontinuities in the Development of Linguistics
Looking at the history of the study of language in Europe during the past one
thousand years, we discern, perhaps aided -- or prejudiced -- by the traditional
division of periods into Middle Ages, Renaissance, Humanism, or Reformation, and
from then onwards usually by centuries (with the 18th usually being identified with
the term 'enlightenment'), we may discern different movements, trends, or traditions,
some of them extending over large geographical areas and fairly long stretches of
CONTINUITIES AND DISCONTINUITIES IN THE HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS 71
time, and others more localized and of a much shorter duration (cf. Bahner 1981).
Those familiar with the Middle Ages for instance will probably not be satisfied by a
distinction between two or three phases, usually conceived in chronological terms,
but will recognize that there were particular centres from which certain ideas spread to
other regions, that there were in fact a variety of interests pursued alongside each
other — such as dictionary compilation, school grammar pedagogy, and activities
motivated by rhetorical, theological, or other concerns. These interests have been
given much less attention because of the one-sided preoccupation with 'theory' that
has characterized linguistics during the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, we find in
present-day histories of linguistics much more about the Modistae of the late medieval
period or the work on language and logic between Peter of Spain (d.1277) and Paul
of Venice (d.1429) than about the earlier period. (See, however, Hovdhaugen
[1982:106-139] for a laudable attempt to take a fresh look at the situation.)
1.1 Example One: The 'Grammaire générale and raisonnée' tradition. Even if it is
agreed that periodization is and probably remains a problem, we nevertheless have all
observed that certain preoccupations, frameworks, scholarly activities, and so on
have had a high participation rate at certain times, and a low one or none at all at other
times. One well-known example is the grammatical doctrine associated with Port
Royal, usually referred to by the title of the 1660 book written the Jansenist scholars,
Antoine Arnault (1612-1694) and Claude Lancelot (c.1615-1695), namely, the
Grammaire générale et raisonnée (cf. Mertens & Swiggers 1983 on the fate of this
text in the 19th century). If publications are a guide, one may witness a fizzling out
of note-worthy work during the first decade of the 19th century. For instance, there
were the following significant publications in 1799, which had a variety of
subsequent editions, but which were visibly eclipsed by linguistic work of a different
kind within a short time:
1) Urbain Domergue (1745-1810), Grammaire générale analytique (Paris: Imprimerie de .

Houet, an VII [= 1799]). [Cf. Busse (1985:180-81): no further edition; Tell (1874:217) mentions a
'Grammaire' of 1805.]
2) Abbé Roch-Ambroise-Cucurron Sicard (1742-1822), Élémens [sic] de la grammaire générale
appliqués à la grammaire française (Paris: Deterville, 1799) [2nd ed., 1801; 3rd ed., 2 vols., 1808.
In 1806 also an Abrégé de la Grammaire générale ... (Tours: Letournoy), xx + 35 pp., was
published.]
3) Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy (1758-1838), Principes de grammaire générale, mis à la
portée des enfans [sic], et propres à servir d'introduction à toutes les langues (Paris: Delance &
Lesueur, 1799; "seconde édition, corrigée et augmentée", 1803). [This ed. has been reprinted in the
"Grammatica Universalis" series (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Fromman-Holzboog, 1975), although 4
more editions appeared during the author's life-time: 1815, 1821, 1824, and 1832. The 1975 reprint
also lists (pp.10*-12*) a 1849 Brussels ed. with an altered title, and an 8th ed. (Paris, 1852) as well
as translations into Danish (Copenhagen, 1801), into German (by Johann Severin Vater) in 1804,
and into English (Andover, Massachusetts [United States!], 1834).]
We notice that Domergue's book had no further edition, that Sicard's Élémens had its
last edition in the year that Friedrich Schlegel's (1772-1829) influential Ueber die
Sprache und Weisheit der Indier (see the chapter 17 in this volume for an appraisal of
Schlegel's work) appeared, but that, by contrast with the first two, Silvestre de
Sacy's Principes had a considerable success.1 I admit that this is not a clear-cut
picture, and so we would have to look at a variety of other relevant publications of
the period. For instance, Nicolas Beauzée's (1717-1789) Grammaire générale of
1767 (Paris: J. Barbou), which had another edition in 1819 (Paris: A. Delalain);
however, this was practically an unchanged reprint, and no further edition appeared.
Pierre Restaut's (1696-1764) Principes générales et raisonnés de la grammaire
française, first published in 1730, had only one further edition, and this as late as
1832 (Paris: Le Gras, Lottin et al.); his Abrégé des principes de la grammaire fran
çaise of 1739 was, by contrast, quite successful, with an 11th ed. by 1774 and the
last edition appearing in 1824. So it appears that by the second decade of the 19th
century the interest in this type of approach had waned, if not ceased for all practical
purposes. Even publishers did not want to invest anything in this tradition any
longer. Writing in 1928, Guy Harnois noted dryly [p.82]: "De 1800 à 1850 on
assiste en France à l'agonie de la Grammaire Générale." But the source had run dry
much before then. The original text of Arnauld and Lancelot's work was reissued in
1803, with a variety of 18th-century additions; it was published in a second edition in
1810. Little is known about Alexandre Bailly and his motives for offering the reading
public yet another edition of the Port-Royal Grammar in 1846;2 but there are no
indications that many took note of it. No further edition of the Grammaire générale et
raisonnée appeared before the publication of Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics of
1966.
In the literature, it is common to refer to Pierre Burggraff s (1803-1881) Prin
cipes de grammaire générale of 1863 as an indication of continuity of the tradition.
However, this 600-page volume is a vast compilation of materials accumulated by the
author, who, a professor of Oriental languages at the University of Liège since 1837,
assumed the teaching of a course on 'grammaire générale' with a view to participating
in the training of secondary-school teachers in 1847. His Principes resulted from
these teachings over the years. Although he was a student of August Wilhelm
Schlegel (1767-1845) at the University of Bonn for three years (1828-32), Burggraff
subsequently became an ardent follower of Silvestre de S, whom he regarded as
"un des savants les plus distingués qui aient jamais existé" (Burggraff 1863:590). It
is obvious that Burggraff had learned little about the work of Bopp, Grimm, and
1
However, we should not overlook the fact that Silvestre lived much longer than the other two
authors, and that his position as the most distinguished Arabist of his time and founding director
of the Paris Institut des Langues Orientales since 1795 must have a great deal to do with this
success, not the least through his students which included Franz Bopp (1791-1867), the German-
born Orientalist Julius von Mohl (1800-1876) among many others. In 1806 Silvestre (note that
the 'de Sacy' was added to the family name by the scholar himself) was in addition named to the
chair of Arabic at the Collège de France. For further details on Silvestre de Sacy, see Raymond
Schwab's The Oriental Renaissance (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1984), 64-65, 295-298,
and elsewhere.
2
Perhaps it was triggered by the still more obscure 'édition totale' of 1845 (Mertens & Swiggers
1983:360)
others, aligning himself with a more or less dead tradition instead. His Principes
remained his sole publication of note.
However, it is easy to spend too much time on the Grammaire générale tradition,
and in what follows in this chapter, I am turning my attention to other trends in the
19th century, namely, those that eventually became much more international move
ments: the GGR remained basically a French affair; August Friedrich Pott's (1802-
1887) critique of the 'sogenannte Allgemeine Grammatik' of 1863 for instance was in
effect a review article on Heymann Steinthal's (1823-1899) work on language
typology and the history of linguistics among the Greeks and the Romans. For in
stance, the works by August Ferdinand Bernhardi (1769-1820) and Johann Severin
Vater (1772-1826) on Allgemeine Grammatik at the beginning of the 19th century for
instance (e.g., Bernhardi 1805; Vater 1805) had (pace Bernd Naumann 1986:49)
other sources of inspiration than the work of Arnault, Lancelot, Pierre Nicole (1625-
1695), and their followers, namely, the philosophical systems of Kant and Fichte.
1.2 Example Two: The Humboldtian tradition in linguistics. Contrary to what

Professor Malmberg has been saying in his plenary session paper on "Wilhelm von
Humboldt und die spätere Linguistik" — I'm referring to the Preprints published in
Berlin in April 1987 — there is little hard evidence for the claim, advanced most
forcefully by Hans Aarsleff in recent years, that Condillac had a major influence on
Humboldt's linguistic thought (Malmberg, pp.4-5). Those who have investigated the
subject more thoroughly (e.g., Oesterreicher 1981), were able to show that the work
of Humboldt is by no means in line with the French tradition, be it the philosophes,
the encyclopédistes, or the Idéologues following them at the turn of the 19th century.
Rather, the critique that Herder made of just these rationalist or sensualist French
traditions led to a new épistémè, to use the late Michel Foucault's term. In fact,
Foucault's findings support both the observation made earlier regarding the
Grammaire Générale tradition and the one that I am now trying to argue. He states:
... nous avons beau penser que [...] que la théorie de la valeur chez Condillac se retrouve pour
une part dans le marginalisme du XIXe siècle, [...], que le propos de la Grammaire générale (tel
qu'on le trouve chez les auteurs de Port-Royal ou chez Beauzée) n'est pas si éloigné de notre
actuelle linguistique, - toute cette quasi-continuité au niveau des idées et des thèmes n'est sans
doute qu'un effet de surface; au niveau archéologique [i.e., a deep historical understanding of
what really happened], on voit que le système des positivités a changé d'une façon massive au
tournant du XVIIIe et du XIXe siècle. (Foucault 1966:14)
Thus when dealing with the work of Humboldt for example, we probably won't have
difficulties in finding traces of 18th-century thought, both German and French;
indeed, he lived in the last third of that century, taking an active part in the intellectual
life of the period. But we should not forget that during the 1760s and 1770s
intellectul currents were developing in contrast to Enlightenment thought, a distinct
approach to nature, history, and the human condition which is usually associated
with the names of Rousseau and Herder, and which we find developed in the
German Romantic Movement and the philosophies of Fichte, Schelling, Schleier-
macher, and Hegel, to mention only the most prominent thinkers at the beginning of
the 19th century. But Humboldt was not a philosopher in the strict sense, but much
more of a practical, empirically oriented linguist than traditional accounts make us
believe. It is only very recently that this side of Humboldt's œuvre has been
demonstrated (see Buchholz 1986).
Usually, Humboldt is seen as a philosopher of language concerned with the
relationship between language and mind and as someone who has, as a result of his
reflections, developed a framework of linguistic typology that produced a series of
followers, notably Steinthal, Misteli, Gabelentz père and fils, Friedrich Müller, Franz
Nikolaus Fink, and others, but also (and largely in opposition to Steinthal's line of
interpretation of Humboldt's work) A. F. Pott, mentioned earlier. Yet the 'Hum-
boldtian trend in linguistics' (Koerner 1977) was only one line of research in the 19th
century, and by no means the most influential. In fact, this trend was overshadowed,
from the time that Humboldt retired to his castle on the outskirts of Berlin to devote
his life to linguistics, i.e., from 1820 onwards, by the ever-growing currents of
historical linguistics championed by Grimm, and the by the comparative Indo-
European work advanced by Bopp, traditions that were synthesized in a positivist
fashion by August Schleicher in the mid-19th century. Thus, when looking back at
the 19th century, historians of linguistics will probably agree that the 'Humboldtian
trend' was more of an undercurrent than anything like a mainstream enterprise (cf.
also chap.4 in this volume). Indeed, it appears to me that this line of linguistic
thought has had its ups and downs, and its (partial and modified) revivals at different
periods of time and in different cultural and political settings. In this paper, I am
devoting my attention to Germany, Italy, and North America only, leaving
developments in France, Belgium, Russia, and other countries aside.
1.2.1 Germany. The lines of development of the Humboldtian tradition in Germany

are fairly clear-cut. We can discern a filiation initiated around 1850 by Heymann
Steinthal (1823-1899) in the area of language classification and characterization
which was continued by others into the mid-20th century, for instance in the work of
Ernst Lewy (1881-1966). At the beginning of the 20th century ~ and here we notice
a parallel development in Italy —, there was another school of thought harking back to
Humboldt and reacting to the positivism and historicism of the jung grammatische
Richtung. It was spear-headed by Benedetto Croce (1866-1953) in Italy, and Karl
Vossler (1872-1949) in Germany. This school had little influence on German
linguistics outside the Romania, however; in fact, it was largely confined to
philological and literary studies than linguistics proper. But it appears that this neo-
Humboldtian movement was at least partially responsible for preventing the ideas of
the Cours de linguistique générale from taking hold in Germany before the mid-
1960s. (Again we will detect a parallel development in Italy in this regard.) These
schools, the 'Idealistische Neuphilologie' in Germany and the 'Neolinguistica' in
Italy, have been given monograph treatment by H. H. Christmann (1974).
Another neo-Humboldtian trend was developed during the late 1920s and early
1930s; it is associated particularly with the work of Leo Weisgerber (1899-1984) and
Jost Trier (1894-1970), and influenced the development of linguistics in German-

speaking lands until the mid-sixties much more than any other school. The best-
known living representative of this school of 'Sprachinhaltforschung' is probably
Helmut Gipper (b.1919); no monograph on this school is available to date (cf.
however Basilius' paper of 1952, which also refers to North-American trends).
1.2.2 Italy. We have mentioned Italy in the above section already. In contrast to
Germany, the Neolinguistic school proved to be a much stronger movement. Its
program was developed by Matteo Giulio Bartoli (1873-1946) and Giulio Bertoni
(1878-1942) during the 1920s in their joint Brevario di neolinguistica (Modena,
1925; 2nd ed., 1928). They were followed by an entire generation of Italian scholars
such as Benvenuto Aronne Terracini (1886-1968), Giacomo Devoto (1897-1974),
Antonino Pagliaro (1898-1973), Giuliano Bonfante (b.1904), and others, all of them
with varying degrees of adherence to the doctrine. It is safe to say that the majority
of Italian linguists until the 1960s were under the influence of the Neolinguistica,
which may be characterized by a strong opposition to neogrammarian tenets, a
particular interest in dialectology, on the one hand, and in literary language, on the
other (for details, see Christmann 1974). Traces, and at times rather strong ones, of
this movement can still today be found among a number of Italian scholars, within
the philosophy of language and in linguistics proper - I am thinking of Tullio De
Mauro, as a representative of the former, and of Paolo Ramat, as a representative of
the latter; they were students of Pagliaro and Devoto, respectively. The Humboldtian
tradition in Italy until the 1950s was so strong that a linguist such as Eugenio Coseriu
(b.1921), who spent some ten years in the country until 1951, has remained much
imbued with the energeia conception of language until today, regardless of his later
assimilation of Saussurean ideas.
1.2.3 North America. There has been a long-standing connection between

Humboldt and North American scholars interested in the languages and the culture of
the indigenous peoples. We may refer to Humboldt's correspondence with John
Pickering (1777-1846), which lasted from the early 1820s to Humboldt's death in
1835 (cf. Müller-Vollmer 1976) as well as to the posthumous publication of
Humboldt's study of the verb in American Indian languages arranged in 1885 by the
University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Daniel Garrison Brinton (1837-1899) as
just two such examples. It appears that the Humboldtian line of linguistic thought
was transmitted more enduringly by Franz Boas (1858-1942), who arrived in North
America in 1886, and who soon established an ethnolinguistic school in North
America which is still active today. It would not be diffcult to trace this tradition in
the work of Boas's most gifted student Edward Sapir (1884-1939) and the various
generations of anthropologists and linguists trained by Sapir and their students. To
choose just one such line, we may refer to Charles Frederick Voegelin (1906-1986),
Dell H. Hymes (b.1927), and Regna D. Darnell (b.1943); but other lines could be
drawn up too (cf. the students of Stanley S. Newman, Mary R. Haas, or Morris
Swadesh, to mention just three more students of Sapir's).
There was no need for a 'rediscovery' of Humboldt à la Chomsky, for the
tradition remained a lively one in North America during the past 150 or so years (cf.
Koerner 1988). In short, we may speak of a certain continuity of Humboldtian ideas
both in Europe and America (and possibly in other places too). The question that
remains however is how powerful these traditions have been in various countries,
and whether they have not been more of an undercurrent than a major trend. Close
analysis of the matter reveals that the Humboldtian tradition in linguistics was only
important in certain periods and in certain countries. In the 19th and early 20th
century it had to compete with comparative-historical Indo-European philology which
dominated much of what was done in linguistics - though by concentrating on the
so-called 'exotic' languages and on general questions of language scholars following
the Humboldtian line had their fields carved out for them; from the 1920s and 1930s
onwards, the neo-Humboldtians had to compete with Saussurean structuralism, both
in Europe and North America, and again by working with American Indian languages
and by addressing questions of language, culture, and society, subjects largely
ignored by the 'descriptivists' of the Bloomfieldian school (which to no small extent
includes the work of Chomsky), those following the Humboldtian line could hold on
to at least a portion of North American linguistics.
2.0 Concluding remarks
We may conclude from the above observations that it is by no means easy to

decide matters of continuity and discontinuity in linguistic theory and practice
throughout the ages. However, it appears comparatively easy to show that the
Grammaire Générale tradition did come to an end by the 1820s, even in France, for
all practical purposes; besides, it never became a strong intellectual current in any
country outside France. By contrast, the Humboldtian tradition, which is much less
clearly circumscribed and includes a number of varying interpretations and partial
exploitations of Humboldt's legacy, has a much more involved history. Different
currents developed in the 19th and in the 20th century, both in Europe and in North
America, but in most instances, they rarely developed into leading schools of thought
and when they did, it was for a short period and affected some parts of linguistics
only. It appears that this kind of development of particular schools of thought is
more of the rule than the exception in the evolution of linguistic science, and that
clear-cut discontinuities are rare, if they ever occur. In this time and age where there
is still so much talk about the Chomskyan 'revolution in linguistics', I would like to
invite a careful investigation of the data available of pre-1957 American linguistics in
order to determine whether we really have to do with a distinct case of discontinuity
or a continuity in a scientific sense. In my opinion there is an evident, if selective and
partial, continuity of ideas, procedures, and programs between pre- and post-
Chomskyan linguistic theory in North America (cf. chap.8 in the present volume, for
details).
REFERENCES
Arnauld, Antoine & Claude Lancelot. 1803 [1660]. Grammaire générale et raisonnée
der Port-Royal, [...], précédée d'un essai sur l'origine et le progrès de la langue
française, par M. [Claude Bernard] Petitot [(1772-1825)] [...] et suivie du
Commentaire de M. [Charles Pinot] Duclos [(1704-1771)], auquel on a ajouté des
notes. Paris: Perlet. (2e éd., Paris: Bossange & Masson, 1810.)
Bahner, Werner. 1981. "Kontinuität und Diskontinuität in der Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaft". Zur Dialektik der Determination in der Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaft, I. (= Linguistische Studien, Reihe A, No.86), 1-18. Berlin:
Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft, Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.
Bailly, Alexandre, ed. 1846. Grammaire générale et raisonnée de Port-Royal. Suivie
1Q de la partie de la LogiqueQ de Port-Royal qui traite des prépositions' 2- des
Remarques de Duclos [...]; 3 du supplément à la Grammaire générale de P.-R.,
par l'Abbé Fromant [de 1756], et publiée sur la meilleure édition originale, avec une
introduction historique. Paris: Hachette. (Repr., Geneva: Slatkine, 1968.)
asilius, Harold. 1952. "Neo-Humboldtian Ethnolinguistics". Word 8.95-105.
Bernhardi, August Ferdinand. 1805. Anfangsgründe der Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin:
H. Frölich.
Bokadorova, N[atalija] Ju. 1986. "Problemy istoriologii nauki  jazyke". Voprosy
Jazykoznanija 35:6.68-75.
Brinton, Daniel G[arrison]. 1885. The Philosophie Grammar of American Language,
as set forth by Wilhelm von Humboldt, with the translation of an unpublished
Memoir by him on the American verb. Philadelphia: McCalla & Stavely.
Buchholz, Ulrike. 1986. Das Kawi-Werk Wilhelm von Humboldts: Untersuchungen
zur empirischen Sprachbeschreibung und vergleichenden Grammatikographie
Münster: Institut für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft der Westfälischen Wilhelms-
Universität.
Burggraff, Pierre. 1863. Principes de grammaire générale, ou, Exposition raisonnée
des éléments du langage. Liège: A. Dessain.
Busse, Winfried. 1985. "François-Urbain Domergue (1744-1810): Kommentierte
Bibliographie". Historiographia Linguistica 12.165-188.
Christmann, Hans Helmut. 1974. Idealistische Philologie und moderne Sprach
wissenschaft. Munich: W. Fink.
Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences
humaines. Paris: Gallimard.
Harnois, Guy. n.d.[1928]. Les théories du langage en France de 1660 à 1821. Paris:
Société d'Edition "Les Belles Lettres".
Hovdhaugen, Even. 1982. Foundations of Western Linguistics: From the beginning
to the end of the first millenium A.D. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Koerner, E. F. Konrad. 1977. "The Humboldtian Trend in Linguistics". Studies in
Descriptive and Historical Linguistics: Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann ed. by
Paul J. Hopper, 145-158. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
--. 1983. "The Chomskyan 'Revolution' and Its Historiography: A few critical
comments". Language & Communication 3.147-169.
------- 1987a. "Das Problem der Metasprache in der Sprachwissenschafts

geschichtsschreibung". Zur Theorie und Methode der Geschichtsschreibung der
Linguistik: Analysen und Reflexionen ed. by Peter Schmitter, 63-80. Tübingen: G.
Narr. (Repr. as chap.2 in this volume.)
-------. 1987b. "On the Problem of 'Influence' in Linguistic Historiography".
Papers in the History of Linguistics: Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS III), Princeton, 19-
23 August 1984 ed. by Hans Aarsleff, Louis G. Kelly & Hans-Josef Niederehe,
15-27. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. (Repr. as chap.3 in this volume.)
------- 1988. "Towards a History of Americanist Linguistics". The Fourteenth
LACUS Forum 1987 ed. by Sheila M. Embleton. Lake Bluff, Illinois: Jupiter
Press.
Mertens, Frans-Jozef & Pierre Swiggers. 1983. "La Grammaire générale et raisonnée
de Port-Royal: Notes bibliographiques". Historiographia Linguistica 10.357-362.
Müller-Vollmer, Kurt. 1976. "Wilhelm von Humboldt und der Anfang der amerika
nischen Sprachwissenschaft: Die Briefe an John Pickering". Universalismus und
Wissenschaft im Werk der Brüder Humboldt ed. by Klaus Hammacher, 259-334.
Frankfurt/Main: V. Klostermann.
Naumann, Bernd. 1986. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache zwischen 1781 und
1856. Berlin: E. Schmidt.
Oesterreicher, Wulf. 1981. "Wem gehört Humboldt? Zum Einfluß der französischen
Aufklärung auf die Sprachphilosophie der deutschen Romantik". Logos Seman-
tikos: Studia linguisticain honorem Eugenio Coseriu, vol.I: Geschichte der Sprach
philosophie und der Sprachwissenschaft ed. by Jürgen Trabant, 117-135. Berlin:
W. de Gruyter; Madrid: Gredos.
Pott, August Friedrich. 1863. "Zur Geschichte und Kritik der sogenannten Allge
meinen Grammatik". (Fichte's) Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische
Kritik (Halle) 43.102-141 and 181-245.
Tell(e), Julien. 1874. Les Grammairiens français depuis l'origine de la grammaire en
France jusqu'aux dernières œuvres connues. Brussels: F. Callewaert. (Repr.,
Geneva: Slatkine, 1967.)
Vater, Johann Severin. 1805. Lehrbuch der Allgemeinen Grammatik. Halle/S.:
Renger.
THE NEOGRAMMARIAN DOCTRINE: BREAKTHROUGH
OR EXTENSION OF THE SCHLEICHERIAN PARADIGM
A PROBLEM IN LINGUISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY*
Wenn auch meine Philosophie nicht hinreicht, etwas Neues auszufinden, so

hat sie doch Herz genug, das längst Geglaubte für unausgemacht zu halten.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742—99)**
1.0 THE PROBLEM D E F I N E D
I t might appear t h a t I have expounded contradictory views

concerning 19th-century linguistics. According to one (Koerner
1976a[1972]), the linguistic theories advanced by August Schleicher
during the 1860s provided a framework or paradigm for subsequent
research in historical-comparative linguistics, which at the time
was almost identical with linguistics tout court.1 The other view
(Koerner 1976b), enunciated somewhat later, according to which
the year 1876 might be regarded as something like a turning point
in linguistics, appears to conflict with the first standpoint. Indeed,
most available histories of linguistics accept the view t h a t it is
with the Junggrammatiker, and during the later 1870s and 1880s,
t h a t a new approach to historical-comparative linguistics was ini
tiated. On this interpretation, contemporary researchers in the
field still rely heavily on the principles worked out and codified
by Brugmann, Delbrück, Osthoff, Paul, Sievers, Verner, and their
associates.
* This chapter goes back to a paper first presented at the Fourth International Conference
on Historical Linguistics held at Stanford University in March 1979, and of which a thoroughly
revised and greatly enlarged version was published in Folia Linguistica Historica 2:2.157-178
(1981).
** Vermischte Schriften, neue, vermehrte Original-Ausgabe (Göttingen: Dieterich,
1844), vol. I , p . 32.
1
The 'Humboldtian trend' (cf. Koerner 1977), concerned with general problems
of language, linguistic typology, non-Indo-European languages, etc., played a secondary
role in the development of the discipline, though the 20th century witnessed a revival of
interest in this more philosophical approach to language.
The present paper is an attempt to reconcile these two opposing

points of view. First, it will investigate the epistemological basis of
the fable convenue according to which the Neogrammarians estab
lished a new frame of reference for historical-comparative research;
second, an attempt will be made to show t h a t it was in fact Schlei
cher who, through his work in Indo-European phonology and
morphology, in language typology, dialect study (1858), field work
(1856 — 57), and many other areas of investigation, laid the basis
for something like a 'disciplinary matrix' on which subsequent
generations of linguists have built. This contradictory view can,
I believe, only be resolved if appropriate consideration is given to
extra-disciplinary factors, including the sociology and psychology
of the community of linguists, i.e., factors which have always, in
one way or another, had an impact on both the evolution of the
discipline and the self-understanding of its practitioners, whether
it be tacit knowledge or not.
2.0 THEORETICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

In a paper published a number of years ago (Koerner 1974)
I identified three common types of history writing in linguistics.
These different types may be characterized by determining the
motives behind their composition.
The first type may be called a Summing-Up History. A history
belonging in this category is usually written by a distinguished
practitioner toward the end of his scholarly career. I t purports to
express the feeling of the majority of his colleagues, namely, t h a t
the field has reached a stage of maturity, i. ., a state of affairs
in which all t h a t remains to be done is what Thomas S. K u h n
(1970 : 24) has called t h e 'mopping-up operations' of 'normal
science'. Benfey's (1809 — 81) Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft
(1869) and Raumer's (1815 — 76) Geschichte der germanischen Phi
lologie (1870) fit this characterization very well.2 Their works appear
ed shortly after Schleicher's death and provided a summary of the
achievements of Western linguistic science up to t h a t point. Even
Pedersen's frequently cited book (especially in its English transla-
2
We may note at least in passing that these histories were written in a
nationalistic atmosphere prevailing in Germany in the 19th century, especi
ally following the defeat of the Austrian armies by the Prussians in 1866 and
the movement toward unification of the German-speaking lands. This
explains the depiction of linguistics as an essentially German enterprise in
these accounts.
THE NEOGRAMMARIAN DOCTRINE 81
tion of 1931)3 and Vilhelm Thomsen's (1842 — 1922) Sprogviden-

skabens historie (1902) may be placed in this category. They simply
extend the surveys of Benfey, Raumer, and others 4 to the post-
1870 period which is largely associated with the junggrammatische
Richtung. Significantly, they do not claim that this recent trend
constituted a break with previous endeavours, either in methodology
or in actual research. Similarly, historical accounts of the develop
ment of modern linguistics written in the 1960s, such as those by
Malmberg, Ivić, Leroy and others, do no more than present the
achievements of the post-Saussurean era, most of them expressing
the feeling t h a t a plateau has been reached. 5
The second type of history-writing tends to be practiced by indi
vidual authors who are usually much younger in age than those of
'summing-up' accounts. Histories of this type put forward a force
ful argument claiming t h a t the work conducted by the contem
porary generation of researchers represents something like a new
departure. The writers use history for a purpose other than simply
depicting the development of the discipline from earlier times to
the present. In fact they use it for propagandistic, political and fre
quently polemic purposes, indulging in what the late Sir Henry
Butterfield (1931 : 11) aptly described as the 'Whig interpretation
of history':
Through this system of immediate reference to the present-day, historical
personages can easily be classed into the men who furthered progress and
the men who tried to hinder it; so that a handy rule of thumb exists by
which the historian can select and reject, and can make his points of
emphasis.
The best modern example of 'Whig History' is without doubt

Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics (1966).6 But his book is by no
3
Note that the 1924 Danish original was preceded by two earlier studies
by Pedersen on the same subject; cf. Koerner (1978a: 16 and 19) for details
on Pedersen 1899 and 1916.
4
Many other accounts of the period in question may be found in Koerner
(1978a); they reflect by and large the same views as those by Benfey and
Raumer. I have selected the latter two titles for the present argument
because they are the best known works of the period.
5
This sentiment, if wide-spread, may of course lead to a feeling of frustra
tion among young, theory-oriented researchers. Eventually, they may look
for alternative ways of conducting research, thereby perhaps introducing a
change of emphasis and a 'revolution' in the Kuhnian sense of the term.
6
In private conversation Chomsky has conceded that Norman Kretzmann's
claim, according to which Chomsky used history largely for polemic purposes,
was not unfounded. Curiously enough, however, it seems that Chomsky
nevertheless regards his book as a serious contribution to the history of
linguistic thought.
means the first history of its type. If we look into the late 19th
century, for example, we will find an account by Berthold Delbrück
(1842—1922), who set out to defend the particular view of linguistic
science taken by his fellow-Junggrammatiker. Accordingly, pre-
1870 linguistics was represented as an earlier phase in the develop
ment of the discipline, from which more recent doctrines marked
a clear departure. Earlier tenets in linguistics were by and large
associated with the name of Franz Bopp (1791 —1867).7 In his
Einleitung in das Sprachstudium of 1880 (as well as in subsequent
revised editions, including the sixth of 1919) Delbrück depicts
Schleicher's views as either fully in line with those of Bopp (Del
brück 1882 : 45—46, 47, 53) or, when they differed from those of
Bopp, as falling short of the brilliance demonstrated by the Young
Grammarians (48 — 53 pass.). Indeed, the concluding statement
(p. 55) describes Schleicher as a 'philologist' together with Bopp
and Grimm, P o t t and Curtius. This is quite in contrast to Schlei
cher's own self-conception, namely, t h a t he was a 'glottologist',
a scientist of language. Ironically enough, it was Schleicher who
advocated time and again a clear-cut division of labour between
'Philologie' and 'Sprachwissenschaft oder Glottik' (cf. Schleicher
1850 : 1 — 5; 1860 : 119 — 23), dismissing the former as merely a
historical discipline interested in language only to the extent t h a t
it reflects the development of the culture of a given people. (Com
pare also Arbuckle 1970, who depicts Schleicher as the originator
of this 'gratuitous' distinction.) This philologist/linguist dichotomy
(which has a long-standing tradition ever since its first use in the
19th century 8 ) reminds us of dichotomies of comparable polemic
7
I t is true, however, that Delbrück displays more 'urbanitas' in his
account than modern linguists seeking to interpret history their way.
8
For those interested in the history of the philology/linguistics debate the
following references may be mentioned to which a host of others could be
added: Georg Curtius (1820—85), Die Sprachwissenschaft in ihrem Verhältnis
zur klassischen Philologie (Berlin: W. Besser, 1845; 2nd ed., 1848); Karl
Brugmann (1849—1919), "Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: Eine akademi
sche Antrittsvorlesung", in Brugmann's Zum heutigen Stand der Sprach
wissenschaft (Strassburg: K. J. Trübner, 1885), pp. 1—41. That this debate
is still alive may be gathered from recent discussions, such as Kurt R.
Jankowsky, "Philologie—Linguistik—Literaturwissenschaft", Lingua Pos-
naniensis 17. 21—35 (1973), and Dietrich Hofmann, "Sprachimmanente
Methodenorientierung — sprachtranszendente 'Objektivierung': Zum Unter
schied zwischen Linguistik und Philologie", Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und
Linguistik 40. 295—310 (1973). Since the late 1960s, a polemic distinction
between 'Sprachwissenschaft' and 'Linguistik' in Germany (and, e.g., between
'glott ologia' and 'linguistica' in Italy) has been made on occasion; cf. Reiner
Hildebrandt, "Linguistik contra Sprachwissenschaft", Neuere Forschungen
intent, such as mechanist/mentalist, taxonomist/transformationalist

etc. in 20th-century debates. 9
I would not emphasize Delbrück's account of Schleicher if it were
not for the fact t h a t 20th-century histories of linguistics have tended
to repeat this one-sided view of Schleicher's contribution to the
field, not realizing that Delbrück was expounding an unabashedly
partisan point of view. Indeed, modern accounts have not only
perpetuated this biased interpretation of Schleicher's accomplish
ments, but have tended to subject Schleicher to ridicule, partic
ularly when he carried his teachings to their logical conclusion by
establishing a little story in Indo-European on the basis of recon
structed forms; cf. King's (1969 : 154—55) remark: "What can
you do with a reconstructed text but look at it ? Hence our chuckling
about people who reconstruct fables in proto-Indo-European."
Other scholars (e. g., Blumenthal 1970: 3) depict Schleicher as a
'biology professor' or characterize him in a similar fashion (cf.
Bronstein et al. 1977: 186—87) because of his naturalist conception
of language.
The third type of history writing concerns the not yet fully rec
ognized treatment of the development of linguistic science. I t will
be employed in the present paper. This third approach, for which
I chose the term 'historiography' (giving it a somewhat different
meaning than it generally assumes), would require nothing less
than the disinterested attempt to set the record straight. However,
this 'sine-ira-et-studio' approach to the subject matter is in need
of a methodology, and careful consideration is necessary if it is
not to result in a naive 'development-by-accumulation' account.
The historian Leopold von Ranke (1795 — 1886), a close contem
porary of Bopp, may perhaps be credited with having enunciated
and practiced what I have in mind (cf. Ranke 1824 and his subse-
in Linguistik und Philologie : Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich
Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1975), pp. 1—
6. — Interestingly enough, Raimo Antilla, in his paper "Linguistik unci
Philologie", which he contributed to Renate Bartsch and Theo Vennemann's
Linguistik und Nachbarwissenschaften (Kronberg im Taunus: Scriptor,
1973), 177—91, made a strong plea in favour of a philological orientation
of linguistics, whereas the editors themselves in their contribution to the
volume ("Linguistik", pp. 9—20), argue that 'Linguistik' is essentially the
theoretical
9
portion of 'Sprachwissenschaft'.
I t may be said that Delbrück describes Schleicher in a manner remi
niscent of Chomsky's depiction of Bloomfield. Indeed, it appears that
scientists eager to promote what they regard as their 'original' views tend to
be patricidal.
quent voluminous work). Indeed, his famous dictum t h a t it is the

d u t y of the historian to establish "wie es eigentlich gewesen" may
be taken to represent the best historiographic tradition rather what
has frequently been associated with shallow 'positivism'. The next
section will therefore address itself to the question of method in
linguistic historiography.
3.0 CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT

Even if one disagrees with a recent statement 1 0 t h a t there are
few publications extant t h a t are devoted to questions of method
in the historical treatment of the science of language, it is true t h a t
much remains to be done in this area. Proposals t h a t I have made
since 1972 can only be regarded as preliminary, even though I still
believe t h a t the essence of these papers might still be valid, at least
for the description of events and phases in 19th and 20th century
linguistics. For example, I still regard the distinction between what
I have termed, following Kuhn, 'paradigm' or probably more ap
propriately 'disciplinary matrix' (Kuhn 1970: 184), 11 on the one
hand, and 'climate of opinion', Zeitgeist or intellectual atmosphere
of a particular period under investigation, on the other, as useful.
This distinction is essential in the present argument. The former
term denotes intra-disciplinary organization and research practice,
the latter notion refers to extra-linguistic factors, be they episte-
mological, psychological, socio-economic or other, which have made
an (at times considerable) impact on the practioners of a particul
ar discipline.
Kuhn's concept of 'paradigm' has been widely discussed by his
torians and philosophers of science as well as by scholars interested
in the history of linguistics. The most cogent criticism to date seems
to be Shapere's (1964) review article of the first edition of Kuhn's
book. Kuhn recognized the ambiguity of the concept and, as a
result, suggested in its stead the term 'disciplinary matrix' (1970:
182). If we interpret it as the sum of concepts and procedures of
10
Cf. the newly created periodical 'Histoire — Epistéhmologie — Lan
gage", published by the Société d'Histoire et d'Epistémologie des Sciences du
Langage (Paris), vol. I, No. 1 (1979), p. 57.
11
Even this term cannot be transferred to the discussion of the history of
linguistics without modification. Kuhn (1970: 184) seems to associate it, at
least partly, with what he calls 'metaphysical paradigms' or 'metaphysical
parts of paradigms'. This aspect of science I would associate with what I
termed 'Überbau' and not with the mechanics of the trade.
analysis to which the student is introduced and which will permit

him to account for the data t h a t constitute the object of investi
gation, this concept may serve in the presentation of theories of
language in the history of linguistics as well.
The concept of 'climate of opinion', which I believe to be the
other aspect the historian of linguistics has to take note of, seems
to be frequently overlooked by historians. Expectedly, this factor
is considered irrelevant by those concerned with the day-to-day
workings of the craft, though it cannot be ignored by those who
wish to obtain a better understanding of their own activity. Becker
(1932:26) supplied the following illustration of the notion which is
also relevant to my proposition:
Whether arguments command assent or not depends less upon the logic
t h a t conveys them than upon the climate of opinion in which they are
sustained. What renders Dante's argument or St. Thomas' definition
meaningless to us is not bad logic or want of intelligence, but the medieval
climate of opinion — those instinctively held preconceptions, in the
broad sense, that Weltanschauung or world pattern — which imposed on
Dante and St. Thomas a peculiar use of the intelligence and a special type
of logic. To understand why we cannot easily follow Dante or St. Thomas
it is necessary to understand (as well as may be) the nature of this climate
of opinion.
The 19th century, which concerns us here, is much closer to our

present-day understanding than the medieval world. In fact, in
almost every field of human endeavour the 20th century has built
on what the preceding century has erected. Nevertheless, we are
far removed from the mid- and late 19th-century épistème (Fou
cault) that it has in effect become difficult for us to understand
certain preoccupations, and appreciate certain views shared by
Schleicher and the generation of linguists which followed him.
This very difficulty is largely responsible for the fact that 20th-
century scholars dismiss the ideas of 19th-century linguists so
readily. Because they do not comprehend the intellectual climate
as well as the general 'context of situation' (Firth) of the period,
modern researchers in the field often accuse earlier generations of
lack of clarity, consistency, and method, even though it is safe to
say t h a t 19th-century scholars were at least as much up to stand
ards of their own time as 20th-century linguists could hope to be.
I n fact, a comparison between Hermann Paul's (1846 — 1921)
Prinzipien, which first appeared 100 years ago (and has been re
printed as late as 1970), and, say, Chomsky's Aspects of 1965, done
by a disinterested historian of linguistics, might well conclude
t h a t Paul's views are much more relevant to the understanding

of the nature of language and its development than those of Chom
sky that are still championed by many practitioners in the field.
Therefore, if we are to do justice to 19th-century linguistic think-
ers, we must be careful not to rely on accounts of the type repre
sented by Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics (1966), where the his
torian engages in 'ancestor hunting', establishing a lineage of
thought t h a t leads directly to his own views. Such a history de
picts the immediately preceding generation of scholars as not
worthy of attention, or, to cite one of the most damning judgments
passed by present-day transformationalists on the ideas of others,
as 'uninteresting'. Earlier historians of this type have perhaps been
kinder to their predecessors. However, as we have seen from Del
brück's account of Schleicher, it is quite hazardous to rely on their
judgments of work of those scholars who were their immediate
predecessors. We can make similar observations about the accounts
of Thomsen and Pedersen, written at the beginning of this century,
and about the many histories written during the past 25 years t h a t
have slavishly relied on these earlier evaluations for their treat
ment of 19th-century linguistics.
What is lacking in previous histories of linguistics is not so much
a positivist attitude that is concerned with relating the develop
ment of the discipline as objectively as possible, but rather a clear
distinction between what one might call, on the one hand, the
intellectual 'Überbau', the 'Zeitgeist' of a particular period, and,
on the other, the 'mechanics of the trade', the intralinguistic prob
lems and the solutions offered by linguists at different points in
time. Such a distinction between what I have called 'climate of
opinion' and 'disciplinary matrix' will significantly help distinguish
the 'pro-domo'-type argument from the true advances made by a
particular group or generation of linguists. The next section is an
attempt at demonstrating the usefulness of this distinction.
4.0 'SCHLEICHERIAN PARADIGM' VS 'NEOGRAMMARIAN

BREAKTHROUGH'
I n a recent paper Henry Hoenigswald (1980) noted emphati

cally t h a t a distinction must be made between what a linguist is
saying what he does and what he is really doing. (There may in
fact be a third component t h a t the linguist may not be aware of,
THE NEOGRAMMAMAN DOCTRINE 87
namely, the epistemological part of his argument.) There is general

agreement t h a t 19th-century linguistics, at least until the 1880s,
was imbued with naturalist conceptions, both about the nature of
language in general and about its mechanism and evolution. This
does not mean t h a t there were no scholars during t h a t period who
held different and opposing views. Linguists in the Humboldtian
tradition, for instance, tended to associate themselves with the
view t h a t linguistic science was in fact a 'Geisteswissenschaft' and
not a 'Naturwissenschaft'. However, if the technical vocabulary
of the period as well as the concepts and methodological principles
advocated by the majority of linguists, irrespective of their philo
sophical allegiance, is a guide, we may note that linguistic theory
and practice were clearly marked by the natural sciences of the
late 18th to the mid-19th century, particularly botany, compara
tive anatomy, geology, and evolution theory. This impact of the
'Zeitgeist' of the period can be seen not only in the terminological
kit of the 19th-century linguist; compare terms such as 'analysis',
'assimilation', 'dissimilation', 'stem', 'root', 12 'growth', 'decay', even
the term 'linguistics' itself, which appears to be modeled after
'physics', 'mathematics', etc. 13 , but also in the tendency to conceive
of language as an 'organism' (a term still used by Saussure in the
sense of 'system') consisting of 'structure(s)' (a term figuring in the
title of Bopp's comparative work of 1820 but already used by F .
Schlegel in his 1808 book), 14 and in the claim that the development
of language follows strict 'physical' laws.
12
I t is t r u e t h a t t h e c o n c e p t of ' r o o t ' w a s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o W e s t e r n linguis
tics t h r o u g h H e b r e w g r a m m a r , p e r h a p s a l r e a d y as early as t h e R e n a i s s a n c e ,
cf. J o h a n n R e u c h l i n ' s De rudimentis hebraicis (Pforzheim: T h o m a s A n s h e l m ,
1506). I t w a s used b y J u s t u s Georg Schottel(ius) in his 656-page Teutsche
Sprachkunst (Braunschweig: B . Gruber, 1641). H o w e v e r , I a m n o t a w a r e of
a n y reference t o Schottelius' b o o k or a n y reference t o H e b r e w g r a m m a r
w i t h respect t o t h i s c o n c e p t in 1 9 t h - c e n t u r y linguistics. I t seems t h a t t h e
t e r m h a d t o be r e - i n t r o d u c e d i n t o linguistics in t h e 19th c e n t u r y , j u s t as
m a n y o t h e r insights of earlier centuries h a d t o be rediscovered.
13
According t o J a n k o w s k y (1972: 94, n . 1) t h e t e r m L i n g u i s t i k ' "is
first used a r o u n d 1800, coinciding w i t h t h e desire t o align language w i t h
n a t u r a l scientific p r o c e d u r e " . H o w e v e r , J a n k o w s k y does n o t cite a source for
t h i s usage. T h e first occurrence of t h e t e r m I k n o w of is t h e short-lived
j o u r n a l edited b y J o h a n n Severin V a t e r a n d F r i e d r i c h J u s t i n B e r t u c h ,
Allgemeines Archiv für Ethnographie und Linguistik (Weimar, 1808). (Note
t h a t in G e r m a n b o t a n y is called ' B o t a n i k ' . ) F o r t h e m u c h earlier use of t h e
t e r m 'Sprachwissenschaft' J a n k o w s k y (1972: 93, note) refers t o t h e title of a
1721 b o o k b y J o h a n n Georg Ansorge (pseud. Melander), Deutscher Rath und
Lehrmeister, . . . ; für Studierende wie auch für alle dieser edlen Sprach
wissenschaft Beflissene (Jena).
14
E v e n a scholar like J a c o b G r i m m (1785—1863), who is usually associated
w i t h a ' r o m a n t i c i s t ' view of language, m a k e s explicit references to t h e
There can be no doubt t h a t the view of linguistics as a natural

science (not so much in regard to its object of investigation but
rather to its methodology) reached its peak in Schleicher's (1821 —
1868) work. Even though there is no truth to the traditional claim
t h a t he developed his ideas under the deep influence of Darwin's
Origin of Species (1859), there is every reason to believe t h a t
Schleicher introduced concepts into linguistics t h a t he had drawn
from the natural sciences, at times via Hegel's 'Naturphilosophie'
(cf. Koerner 1975a: 748 — 752, for details). For instance, there can
be no doubt t h a t the family-tree concept, which he so ardently de
fended from 1853 on, owes much to (probably Lamarckian) biology
(and probably much less to his philological training under Fried-
rich Ritschl, which included the establishment of stemmata or
'Stammbäume' of manuscripts, as Hoenigswald has suggested).
Indeed, we have evidence from Schleicher's own writings (cf.
Schleicher 1855, 1863) t h a t he was well acquainted with the natural
sciences of his day, especially botany, and that he frequently ad
vocated the adoption of principles of linguistic analysis t h a t followed
the lead of the natural sciences. For example, it was Schleicher who
introduced the term and concept of 'morphology' into linguistic
analysis and the rigorous application of a strictly formal approach
to language typology (Schleicher 1859).
I have demonstrated on several occasions (cf. Koerner 1976a
[1972]: 6 9 2 - 9 8 ; 1975a: 7 5 5 - 5 8 ) the significance of Schleicher's
contribution to linguistics: recognition of the importance of the
'sound laws' and the analogy principle in language analysis, the
adoption of the systematic use of the asterisk in reconstruction
(cf. Koerner 1975b), as well as the development of rigorous prin
ciples in the reconstruction of proto-stages of language in general.
I n his Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermani
schen Sprachen of 1861 — 62 (which served as the basic linguistics
text until Brugmann and Delbrück began publishing the Orundriss
twenty-five years later (1886 — 1900), we have the first attempt to
analyse Indo-European in its entirety rather than treating only
one or another of its branches (as Grimm had done) or dealing with
the individual members of the family separately placing them side
by side (as Bopp had done). In the Compendium, Schleicher
natural sciences, especially to Linné's work in botany as a model for scientific

research in linguistics (cf. Koerner 1980: 216—17, for details).
practiced the following principles of historical-comparative linguis

tics, which still today, almost 130 years after their first formula
tion, have lost little of their validity:
When comparing two linguistic forms of two related languages, I first

try to trace the forms to be compared back to their probable base forms,
i.e., that structure [Gestalt] which they must have [had] except for the
sound laws [Lautgesetze] that had an impact on them, or at least I try
to establish identical phonetic situations in historical terms for both of
them. Since even the oldest languages of our language family are not
available in their oldest shape — this is also true for Sanskrit ! — and
since in addition the existing languages are known to us in very different
stages of their development [Altersstufen], we must first try to remove
the different ages of the languages as much as possible before a comparison
can be made. (Schleicher 1852: IV—V; my translation: KK.)
This successful fusion of the almost ahistorical approach to language

comparison which we find in Bopp and the exclusively historical
treatment of a particular language family as practiced by Grimm,
together with the particular emphasis on phonology and morphol
ogy, provided subsequent workers in historical-comparative lin
guistics (which was almost identical with linguistics generally in the
past century) with a framework which I have not hesitated to call,
with Kuhn, a 'paradigm'. I see no reason for changing my view
point today. This view entails the assumption t h a t the so-called
'Paradigma der Junggrammatiker' (Ruzicka 1977: 15) is essentially
an extension of the 'Schleicherian Paradigm'.
Indeed, this claim was first made almost 100 years ago by Her
mann Collitz (1855 — 1935), when he stated t h a t the appearance of
Schleicher's Compendium (1861—62) marked the beginning of a
new epoch of research in comparative grammar (and in fact the
only such 'wesentliche Umgestaltung' as he asserted in 1886), es
pecially in phonology. Collitz (1883: 2) described Schleicher's
achievement as follows:
. . . his presentation [of comparative Indo-European grammar] forms a
unique self-contained system [ein eigenartiges, in sich gefügtes und nach
allen seiten abgeschlossenes system], which tried to show strict lawfulness
in the development of the phonology from the proto-language down to the
individual languages, which assigned every individual phonological
phenomenon its particular place, and which especially through the manner
in which it proceeded with the investigation of a linguistic fact provided
a model for the time to come. (My translation: KK.)
Collitz, it should be noted, was in many respects opposed to the

neogrammarian tenets. However, it is interesting to note t h a t no
less a scholar than Brugmann himself acknowledged in 1885 t h a t
he did not agree with Curtius' assessment t h a t the 'junggrammati-

sche Richtung' constituted a break with the past. On the contrary,
he concedes (contrary to what he and Osthoff wished to make t h e
linguistic world believe in 1878):
Ich für meine Person habe die neueren Anschauungen immer nur für die
organische und folgerechte Fortentwicklung der älteren Bestrebungen
gehalten. . . . Wenn wir Jüngeren auf absolut strenge Beobachtung der
Lautgesetze dringen und die Aufgabe der sprachgeschichtlichen For
schung immer erst dann für gelöst erachten, wenn den lautlichen Unregel-
mäßgkeiten gegenüber die Antwort auf das warum? gefunden ist, so
ziehen wir nur die letzte Consequenz von dem, was man schon vorher
verlangt hatte und was in Gemeinschaft mit Schleicher und Andern
namentlich gegen Bopp und Benfey erfolgreich vertreten zu haben eines
der Hauptverdienste gerade von Curtius ist. (Brugmann 1885: 125)
I n other words, Brugmann himself denies the existence of what

the 65-year-old Curtius, Brugmann's former teacher, in this cri
tique of the neogrammarian position (1885), felt to be a 'Bruch mit
der Vergangenheit' and a mode of research along Völlig neuen Bah-
nen' Even if we recognize Brugmann's reconciliatory gesture toward
Curtius, the above passage should be taken (as Szereményi has re
cently done in Phonetica 36. 164, 1979) as important evidence point
ing toward the correctness of my claim t h a t the year 1876, and
the work of the Junggrammatiker after t h a t historic date, did
not constitute a 'scientific revolution' in (historical-comparative)
linguistics.
Historians of 19th-century linguistics have confirmed Collitz's
and Brugmann's observations. Thus, Brigit Benes (1958: 123),
comparing the theories of the major figures of the period, concludes:
''Die junggrammatische Doktrin . . . ist nur eine konsequente
Weiterführung der Schleicherischen Vorstellung von der Sprache
als eines autonomen Organismus". Not only did the metatheory
not change but also — what is more important — linguistic prac
tice remained substantially the same. This view has been corrobo
rated by several others in recent years. For example Putschke
(1969: 21) states: "Die methodischen Grundsätze der junggramma
tischen Schule können höchstenfalls als eine Absolutsetzung der
um 1870 bestehenden Methodenpraxis angesehen werden".
Jankowsky, who treated the neogrammarian school in an impor
t a n t monograph, notes (1972: 126): "Their work is much more com
prehensive conclusion and selective intensification of what has
been taught and practiced — more taught than practiced though —
before them." Hoenigswald (1974: 351) concedes: "Until more is
known we shall say t h a t it is in the [eighteen] sixties, and with

August Schleicher, t h a t the great change occurred." And Christ
mann, in his anthology of 19th-century linguistics, maintains
(1977: 3) t h a t the doctrine of the so-called Junggrammatiker "[stellt]
eine direkte Fortsetzung und Weiterführung der Konzeption
Schleichers dar."
This view, to which I have subscribed since 1972, however, is by
no means shared by all scholars who have written on the subject.
Thus, Benware (1974: 54) for instance regards the period of 1850 —
1870 as marking "the culmination of the linguistic theories of Bopp",
arguing t h a t a "new 'paradigm' was introduced into linguistics
by Whitney and Scherer" (p. 85). His study, however, does not go
much beyond the year 1868 and supplies little evidence for the
claim except for largely repeating the arguments advanced by
Brugmann, Delbrück, and others.
Yet the question whether or not there was a 'breakthrough', a
major shift of emphasis, in linguistics associated with the jung-
grammatische Richtung from 1876 onwards can by no means be
resolved simply on the basis of the two above quotations from
Collitz and Brugmann, nor by citing authors of historical accounts
of the period. Hoenigswald (1978: 21, 22) appropriately notes:
The great fact is not that 1876 was a turning point or that it marks one
of the great 'breakthroughs' in history. . . . The important thing is,
rather, that it was immediately felt as a turning-point by friend and foe.
While I am not so sure t h a t this was true for the opponents of the
Young Grammarians, especially those of the same generation —
we noted above t h a t Georg Curtius (1820—85) appears to have felt
t h a t there was a break with previous commitments — it may well
have been t h a t the adherents of the 'junggrammatische Richtung'
felt t h a t way. Delbrück's account of 1880 may be taken as an ex
pression of this feeling. However, in the absence of sufficient evi
dence for this interesting claim, 15 we might cite the statement of a
distinguished second-generation Young Grammarian, namely An
toine Meillet (1866 — 1936). In his Introduction à l'étude comparative
des langues indo-européennes, first published in 1903, he stated
''Après 1875, . . . , la scission entre les conceptions du XVIII e [!]
16
A similar observation has been made with regard to the transformation
al-generative school in linguistics; cf. Stephen O. Murray's paper, "Gate
keepers and the 'Chomskian Revolution' ", Journal of the History of the
Behavioral Sciences 16. 73—88 (1980).
siècle et celles de la grammaire comparée est dès lors définitive". 16

This statement suggests t h a t great linguists do not necessarily
have to be discerning historians of their discipline, but it also indi
cates t h a t the mid-1870s were widely regarded as a new beginning
or a turning-point by many practitioners in the field.
Indeed, the 'annus mirabilis' 1876 (Hoenigswald) did see the
publication of at least six important writings that 'hang together'
(Hoenigswald 1978: 17),17 namely, those by Verner, Brugmann,
Osthoff, Leskien, Sievers, and Winteler (cf. Koerner 1976b, for
details). These studies helped explain a number of phenomena t h a t
had puzzled previous generations of linguists, and broadened the
scope of our understanding of the nature and structure of the Indo-
European proto-language and its descendants. In addition, the
principles advocated and/or put to use in these and many other
(cf. Koerner 1978b: xviii, note 6) 1876 publications contributed
to the clarification of theoretical issues that had been recognized
since Schleicher. The result was an air of excitement which at
times led to excessive claims of originality on the part of the young
scholars of Leipzig and their close allies. (That many of their claims
had to be corroborated in later research and in ensuing controver
sies has been documented most carefully in Wilbur's study of 1977.)
As noted earlier in this paper, there is evidence that most of the
Junggrammatiker perceived a break between their work and that
of their predecessors, especially Curtius and Schleicher. It could be
shown t h a t this impression was not entirely unjustified, though
I believe t h a t this has much less to do with Neogrammarians' insist
ence on the infallibility of 'sound laws' (which received particular
support from Karl Verner's findings) and the importance they at
tached to the analogy principle than with a change in the 'climate
of opinion' during the 1880s and 1890s. This change in the intellec-
18
Quoted after the 8th ed. (Paris: Hachette, 1937; ., University,
Ala.: Univ. of Alabama Press, 1964), pp. 468—69. In his 1925 book, La
Méthode comparative en linguistique historique (Oslo: Aschehoug & Co.;
Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, etc.; repr., Paris: H. Champion, 1966), Meillet
speaks
17
of the "principes posés entre 1875 et 1880" (p. vi).
Hoenigswald may have supplied the link between many of the important
1876 studies that van der Horst (1979: 34, . 1) finds missing in Koerner
1976b (cf. Hoenigswald 1978: 17—20). As regards the latter's second criticism
that the paper is based on a methodological fault according to which I began
with the assumption that the year 1876 was an important date, and that I
was trying to supply significant publications for that date after the fact, I
cannot but reply that I had been fascinated (like Hoenigswald and others) by
what appeared at first sight to be sheer coincidence until I discovered the
various connections between the publications in question.
tual climate may be characterized by a departure from biological

conceptions in matters concerning the humanities (Geisteswissen
schaften), and the emergence, during the second half of the 19th
century, of psychology, sociology and political economy as auto
nomous disciplines. (This change in the climate coincided with a
number of other socio-political factors, such as the spectacular eco
nomic growth of Germany following the Franco-Prussian war, the
consolidation of the German state, and the expansion of its educa
tional system.) Closer to the concerns of linguists of the mid-1870s,
however, were ideas concerning the social and psychological nature
of linguistic processes. These notions began to infiltrate their circles
principally through the writings of Heymann Steinthal (1823 — 99),
a Humboldtian linguist turned Herbartian psychologist, and of
the American but largely German-trained Sanskritist and general
linguist William Dwight Whitney (1827 — 94), who was influenced
by Spencerian sociology.
However, as I have tried to document elsewhere (Koerner 1979),
Whitney played a very important role, which, at least during the
late 1870s, was not primarily scientific but polemic in nature. Prom
the early 1870s onwards, Whitney attacked the theories of those
scholars who were particularly influential during the second half
of the 19th century, namely, Max Müller, August Schleicher, and
also Steinthal, whose psychologism he found excessive. Where Ger
many is concerned, it appears t h a t his attack upon Schleicher's
'physical theory of language' (Whitney 1871) was expecially effec
tive. Owing to the prestige t h a t Whitney had already acquired,
both as an Indic scholar and as a general linguist, it permitted the
younger generation of linguists to dismiss Schleicher's ideas about
the biological nature of language. This attitude was further facili
tated by the fact t h a t Schleicher had died several years earlier, in
1868. Interestingly enough, this overt rejection of Schleicher's
biologism did not mean t h a t earlier expressions of the 'new faith'
on the part of the Young Grammarians showed a clear rejection of
language as something like an autonomous entity, a quasi-physical
organism. 1879 publications by Brugmann as well as by Osthoff
still advanced a persuasive argument in favour of a natural-science
theory of sound change.
Once raised by Whitney, however, the question whether lin
guistics was a natural science or a so-called 'historical science'
(historische Wissenschaft) could no longer be avoided. For example,
the French scholar Lucien Adam (1833 — 1918) decided t h a t lin

guistics was both: While phonetics and morphology employed the
methods of the natural sciences, the content aspect of language
was part of human intelligence and hence had to do with the 'his
torieår sciences (Adam 1881: 394—95). In Germany, it appears
t h a t it was in the year 1880, with the appearance of Delbrück's
Einleitung and, in particular, with Hermann Paul's (1846 — 1921)
Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte — note t h a t both scholars had been
pupils of Steinthal and not, like August Leskien (1840—1916), of
Schleicher — t h a t the shift toward sociological and, more impor
tantly, psychological explanations of language change began to
exert its influence.
Curiously enough, however, these ideas did not have a visible
impact on the actual practice of comparative-historical linguistics
of the time. We find t h a t the other Junggrammatiker (as well as
the majority of their contemporaries), though they officially rejected
Schleicher's biologistic conceptions, continued to treat language as a
'thing' independent of the speaker and his social context. I t appears
t h a t the thoroughness of their work and its inner consistency were
in fact only possible because of this (tacitly accepted) premise.
The emphasis of their research lay (as in the work of Schleicher) on
phonology and morphology, to the neglect of semantic and syn
tactic studies. 18
Apart from this emphasis on the basic building blocks of language,
we find t h a t all the concepts, technical terms, and procedures of
analysis employed in the work of the Neogrammarians (as well as
their contemporaries) were either introduced or developed by
Schleicher: 1) the family-tree model of the Indo-European lan
guages; 2) the rigorous method of reconstruction of proto-forms based
on a strict application of the 'sound laws'; 3) the use of the concept
of analogy 19 in the explanation of language change; 4) the term
'morphology' (which he took from biology). Indeed, if we return to
the question posed at the beginning of this paper, we soon discover
t h a t the linguistic theories and methods t h a t we are accustomed t o
associate with the Junggrammatiker (cf. Blümel 1978) have their
origin in the work of Schleicher and his generation (e. g., the work
18
Even Delbrück's voluminous output can hardly be cited as a counter
example since he advanced no syntactic theory of his own, working instead
along the lines of the ancient parts-of-speech tradition in which the centre of
attention is the word rather than the sentence.
of Curtius). We are, therefore, justified in maintaining that, irrespec

tive of the considerable advances in Indo-European phonology and
morphology made in 1876 and subsequent decades, the 'Young
Grammarians' did not provide anything like a new paradigm, a new
frame of reference in comparative-historical linguistics. Instead
their work was carried on within the 'disciplinary matrix' estab
lished largely by Schleicher, and what appeared to many at the time,
and to later generations of linguists as well, as a 'breakthrough' was
little more than a further articulation, an extension of the 'Schlei-
cherian Paradigm'.
5.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS
I t is worth repeating t h a t there was, in the last quarter of the

19th century, and especially from the early 1880s onwards, a change
in the intellectual climate t h a t led scholars of the period (not only
linguists !) to become more aware of the differing nature of inquiry
in the natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften) and in the human
sciences (Kulturwissenschaften). This is clearly argued by Wilhelm
Dilthey (1833—1911) in his Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften
(Leipzig, 1883). This was the period when psychology, sociology,
and political economy emerged as autonomous disciplines, a devel
opment which could not remain without repercussions within
neighbouring fields, including linguistics. The influence of the social
and behavioural sciences is clearly evident, for example, in Philipp
Wegener's (1948 — 1916) Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des
Sprachlebens (Halle, 1885) which, however, received little attention
by 19th-century linguists. Indeed, I have tried to argue t h a t the
incompatibility between theoretical claims and actual practice led,
during the 1890s, to a crisis (though probably not perceived by most
linguists of the time themselves) out of which the 'Saussurean
Paradigm' began to take shape (cf. Koerner 1975a: 759ff.). The
change in the 'climate of opinion' helped the Junggrammatiker and
19
Although Schleicher did not assign to 'analogy' the status of a formal
principle (cf. Schleicher 1876 [1860]: 61—62), it should not be forgotten t h a t
he induced his pupil J a n Baudouin de Courtenay (1845—1929) to give
monograph treatment to just this subject; cf. Baudouin's study, "Einige
Fälle der Analogie in der polnischen Deklination", (Schleicher & Kuhn's)
Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung. 6. 19—88 (1869), completed in
Jena in June 1868, half a year before Schleicher's death. Baudouin received a
doctorate from the University of Leipzig in 1870 on the basis of this work.
others to free themselves from the Schleicherian 'yoke', a t least as

far as the naturalist views underlying Schleicher's metatheory were
concerned. 20 Yet they continued, by and large, t o work within the
framework established b y Schleicher and others before 1870. I n
sum, while noting the cumulative progress and the refinement in
methodology t h a t began with the year 1876, I dare to assert t h a t
there was nothing like a revolution taking place in linguistics in
t h e 1870s as is frequently claimed. 21 This had to wait until the reflec
tions on the substance and methods of linguistic science which
occupied much of Saussure's attention during 1891 — 1911 came
to light with the publication of his posthumous Cours de linguis
tique générale in 1916, exactly 100 years after Bopp's Conjugations-
system.
20
That Schleicher's theories were felt to be oppressive by members of the
younger generation of linguists may be gathered from manuscript notes by
F. de Saussure (who studied in Leipzig and Berlin for four years, 1876—1880)
which date back to 1894. Talking about linguistics prior to the advent of the
junggrammatische Eichtung : " . . . lorsque cette science semble <triompher>
de sa torpeur, elle aboutisse à l'essai risible de Schleicher, qui croule sous son
propre ridicule. Tel a été le prestige de Schleicher, pour avoir simplement
essayé de dire quelque chose générale sur la langue, qu'il semble que ce soit
une figure hors pair <encore aujourd'hui> dans l'histoire des études <linguis
tiques>" (Quoted after Rudolf Engler's critical edition of the Cours [Wiesba
den: O. Harrassowitz, 1968], p . 8). Saussure was a much more frustrated and
also much more aggressive man than the reader of the 'vulgata' edited by
Bally
21
and Sechehaye might suspect.
Something like this was implied by Meillet and his collaborator Joseph
Vendryes, when they asserted, in the Preface to their joint Traité de gram
maire comparée des langues classiques (Paris: H . Champion, 1924; 4th ed.,
1966), that there had been "depuis une vingtaine d'années [i.e., since about
1900] aucune révolution comparable à celle qui a transformée la grammaire
comparée entre 1872 et 1880". I n fact, comparative-historical linguistics has
only in recent years received a new outlook owing to the introduction of
structuralist principles of language study and the admission of sociological
and psychological considerations in the explanation of language evolution,
(This may explain the renewed interest in Paul's Prinzipien of 1880, 5th ed.,
1920, which was not even mentioned once in Pedersen's (1924/1931) history
of 19th-century linguistics.)
REFERENCES*
ADAM, LUCIEN
1881 " L a linguistique, est-elle u n e science naturelle ou u n e science
h i s t o r i q u e ? " , Revue de linguistique et de philologie comparée 14: 373—95.
ARBUCKLE, JOHN
1970 " A u g u s t Schleicher a n d t h e linguistics/philology d i c h o t o m y : A
c h a p t e r in t h e h i s t o r y of linguistics'', Word 2 6 . 1 : 1 7 — 3 1 .
BECKER, CARL L.
1932 The heavenly city of the eighteenth-century philosophers (New
H a v e n , Conn.: Y a l e U n i v . Press) [35th p r i n t i n g , 1971].
BENFEY, THEODOR
1869 Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philologie
in Deutschland (Munich: J . G. C o t t a ) .
BENWARE, WILBUR A.
1974 The study of Indo-European vocalism in the 19th century; from the
beginnings to Whitney and Scherer : A critical-historical account ( A m s t e r d a m :
J . Benjamins).
BLÜMEL, WOLFGANG
1978 " Z u d e n m e t h o d i s c h e n G r u n d s ä t z e n der junggrammatischen
R i c h t u n g " , Sprachwissenschaft 3 . 1 : 83—96.
BLUMENTHAL, ARTHUR L.
1970 Language and psychology : Historical aspects of psycholinguistics
(New Y o r k : J . W i l e y a n d Sons).
BROGYANYI, BÉLA, ed.
1979 Studies in diachronic, synchronic and typological linguistics:
Festschrift for Oswald Szereményi (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins).
B R O N S T E I N , A R T H U R J., et al.
1977 Biographical dictionary of the phonetic sciences (New Y o r k : P r e s s of
L e h m a n College).
BRUGMANN, KARL
1879 " Z u r Geschichte d e r Nominalsuffixe -as-, -jas- u n d - v a s - " . Zeit~
schrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 24: 1—99.
1885 Zum heutigen Stand der Sprachwissenschaft (Strassburg: K . J .
T r ü b n e r ) [ R e p r i n t e d in W i l b u r 1977].
BUTTERFIELD, SIR HERBERT
1931 The Whig interpretation of History ( L o n d o n : G. Bell a n d Sons).
[ R e p r i n t e d 1968].
CHRISTMANN, H A N S H E L M U T ed.
1977 Sprachwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts (Darmstadt: Wissen
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
CoLLITZ, H E R M A N N
1883 " D e r g e r m a n i s c h e A b l a u t u n d sein V e r h ä l t n i s z u m indoger
m a n i s c h e n V o k a l i s m u s " , Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 15: 1—10.
1886 Die neueste Sprachforschung und die Erklärung des indogermani
schen Ablautes ( G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k a n d R u p r e c h t ) [ R e p r i n t e d in
W i l b u r 1977].
DAVIS, BOYD H. and O ' C A I N , R A Y M O N D K., eds.
1980 First person singular : Papers from the conference on an oral archive
for the history of American linguistics, C h a r l o t t e , 9—10 M a r c h 1979
(Amsterdam: J.Benjamins).
DELBRÜCK, BERTHOLD
1880 Einleitung in das Sprachstudium : Ein Beitrag zur Methodik der ver
gleichenden Sprachforschung [ L a t e r editions w e r e titled Einführung in das
* F o r reasons of e c o n o m y a n u m b e r of well-known titles h a v e n o t b e e n

included in t h e p r e s e n t b i b l i o g r a p h y ; t h e y m a y be found in K o e r n e r 1978a,
t o g e t h e r w i t h c o m m e n t s a n d references t o reviews.
Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen} (Leipzig: B r e i t k o p f a n d H ä r t e l )

[2nd ed., 1884; 4 t h ed., 1904; 6 t h r e v . a n d enl. ed., 1919].
1882 Introduction to the study of language : A critical survey of the history
and methods of comparative philology of Indo-European languages. T r a n s l .
b y E v a C h a n n i n g . I b i d . [ N e w ed., A m s t e r d a m : J . B e n j a m i n s , 1974].
DlLTHEY, WlLHELM
1883 Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften: Versuch einer Grundlegung
für das Studium der Gesellschaft und der Geschichte. E r s t e r B a n d (Leipzig:
Duncker and Humblot).
GERRITSEN, MARINEL
1979 Taalverandering in Nederlandse dialejten: Honderd jaar dialektvra-
genlijsten 1879—1979 ( M u i d e r b e r g / H o l l a n d : D . Coutinho).
HOENGSWALD, H E N R Y M.
1974 "Fallacies in t h e h i s t o r y of linguistics: N o t e s o n t h e appraisal of t h e
19th c e n t u r y " , Studies in the history of linguistics, edited b y Dell H y m e s
(Bloomington a n d L o n d o n : I n d i a n a U n i v . Press), 346—68.
1978 " T h e a n n u s mirabilis 1876 a n d p o s t e r i t y " , Transactions of the
Philological Society (Commemorative volume 'The Neogrammarians')
1978: 17—35.
1980 " A r e c o n s t r u c t i o n " , First person singular: Papers from the con
ference on an oral archive for the history of American linguistics, Charlotte,
9—10 March 1979, edited b y B o y d H . D a v i s a n d R a y m o n d K . O'Cain
( A m s t e r d a m : J . B e n j a m i n s ) , 23—28.
HOPPER, PAUL, ed.
1977 Studies in descriptive and historical linguistics: Festschrift for
Winfred P. Lehmann (Amsterdam: J . Benjamins).
HYMES, DELL, ed.
1974 Studies in the history of linguistics (Bloomington and London:
I n d i a n a U n i v . Press).
JANKOWSKY, K U R T R.
1972 The Neogrammarians : A re-evaluation of their place in the develop
ment of linguistic science (The H a g u e : M o u t o n ) .
KING, ROBERT D.
1969 Historical linguistics and generative grammar (Englewood Cliffs,
N . J.: Prentice-Hall).
KOERNER, E. F. K.
1974 "Four types of history-writing in linguistics", Historiographia Lin-
guistica 1: 1—10. [Rev. and abridged version in Koerner 1978b, 53—62].
1975a " E u r o p e a n S t r u c t u r a l i s m — early b e g i n n i n g s " , Current trends
in linguistics, edited b y T h o m a s A. Sebeok, vol. X I I I : Historiography of
Linguistics (The H a g u e : M o u t o n ) , 717—827.
1975b " Z u U r s p r u n g u n d Geschichte d e r B e s t e r n u n g in d e r historischen
Sprachwissenschaft: E i n e historiographische N o t i z " , Zeitschrift für
vergleichende Sprachforschung 89.2: 185—90. [ R e p r . in K o e r n e r 1978b,
211—16].
1976a " T o w a r d s a h i s t o r i o g r a p h y of linguistics : 19th a n d 20th c e n t u r y
p a r a d i g m s " , History of linguistic thought and contemporary linguistics,
edited b y H e r m a n P a r r e t (Berlin a n d N e w Y o r k : W . de G r u y t e r ) , 685—718.
[An earlier version a p p e a r e d in Anthropological Linguistics 14: 255—80;
r e p r i n t e d in K o e r n e r 1978b, 2 1 — 5 4 ] .
1976b "1876 as a t u r n i n g p o i n t in t h e h i s t o r y of linguistics", Journal
of Indo-European studies 4: 333—53. [ R e p r i n t e d in K o e r n e r 1978b,
189-209].
1977 " T h e H u m b o l d t i a n t r e n d in linguistics", Studies in descriptive
and historical linguistics : Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann, edited b y
P a u l J . H o p p e r ( A m s t e r d a m : J . Benjamins), 145—58.
1978a Western histories of linguistic thought, 1822—1976 : An annotated
chronological bibliography ( A m s t e r d a m : J . B e n j a m i n s ) .
1978b Toward a historiography of linguistics : Selected essays. F o r e w o r d
by R . H . Robins (Amsterdam: J . Benjamins).
1979 " L ' i m p o r t a n c e de W i l l i a m D w i g h t W h i t n e y p o u r les j e u n e s

linguistes de Leipzig e t p o u r F . de S a u s s u r e " , Studies in diachronic,
synchronic and typological linguistics: Festschrift for Oswald Szereményi,
edited b y Bela B r o g y a n y i ( A m s t e r d a m : J . B e n j a m i n s ) , 437—54.
1980 " P i l o t a n d p a r a s i t e disciplines in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of linguistic
science", Folia Linguistica Historica I / l : 213—24.
KUHN, THOMAS S.
1970 The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd enl. ed. (Chicago: U n i v . of
Chicago Press).
OSTHOFF, HERMANN
1879 Das physiologische und das psychologische Moment in der sprach
lichen Formenbildung (Berlin: C. H a b e l ) .
PAKRET, HERMAN
1976 History of linguistic thought and contemporary linguistics (Berlin
a n d N e w Y o r k : W . de G r u y t e r ) .
PEDERSEN, HOLGER
1931 Linguistic science in the nineteenth century. T r a n s l . from t h e D a n i s h
b y J o h n W e b s t e r Spargo (Cambridge, Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v . P r e s s ) .
[ R e p r i n t e d u n d e r t h e new title of The discovery of language, Blooming-
t o n , I n d . : I n d i a n a U n i v . P r e s s , 1962].
PUTSCHKE, WOLFGANG
1969 " Z u r forschungsgeschichtlichen Stellung der j u n g g r a m m a t i s c h e n
S c h u l e " , Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 36: 19—48.
RANKE, LEOPOLD von
1824 Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber; eine Beylage zu des
selben romanischen und germanischen Geschichten (Leipzig a n d Berlin:
G. R e i m e r ) .
RAUMER, RUDOLF von
1870 Geschichte der germanischen Philologie (Munich: R . Oldenbourg).
[ R e p r i n t e d N e w Y o r k : J o h n s o n , 1965].
RŮŽIČKA, RUDOLF
1977 Historie und Historizität der Junggrammatiker (Berlin: A k a d e m i e -
Verlag).
SCHLEICHER, AUGUST
1850 Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht: Linguistische
Untersuchungen (Bonn: H . B . K ö n i g ) . [New edition, A m s t e r d a m : J . Ben
j a m i n s , 1982].
1852 Formenlere [sic] der kirchenslawischen Sprache, erklärend und
vergleichend dargestellt (Bonn: H . B . K ö n i g ) .
1855 " K u r z e r Abriss d e r Geschichte der slawischen S p r a c h e " , Öster
reichische Blätter für Literatur und Kunst 19. [ R e p r . in Beiträge zur
vergleichenden Sprachforschung 1: 1—27, 1857].
1856—57 Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. 2 vols. ( P r a g u e : J . G.
Calve).
1858 Volkstümliches aus Sonneberg im Meininger Oberlande ( W e i m a r :
H . B ö h l a u ) . [2nd ed., Sonneberg: C. A l b r e c h t (in Commission), 1894].
1859 Zur Morphologie der Sprache (St. P e t e r s b u r g : E g g e r s & Co; L e i p
zig: L. Voss).
1863 Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft (Weimar:
H . Böhlau).
1876 [1860] Die deutsche Sprache. 3rd ed. ( S t u t t g a r t : J . G. C o t t a ) .
[2nd a n d 3rd ed. were p r e p a r e d b y J o h a n n e s S c h m i d t ] .
1876 [1861—62] Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indo
germanischen Sprache. 4 t h ed. p r e p a r e d b y J o h a n n e s S c h m i d t a n d A u g u s t
Leskien ( W e i m a r : H . B ö h l a u ) .
S E B E O K , T H O M A S A., ed.
1975 Current trends in linguistics, vol. X I I I (The H a g u e : M o u t o n ) .
SHAPERE, DUDLEY
1964 " T h e s t r u c t u r e of scientific r e v o l u t i o n s " , The philosophical review
73: 383—94.
VAN D E R H O R S T , J. M.
1979 " V a n organisme n a a r m e c h a n i s m e ; 1870", Taalverandering in Ne-
derlandse dialekten : Honderd jaar dialektvragenlijsten, edited b y Marinel
Gerritsen (Muiderberg/Holland: D . Coutinho), 21—35.
WEGENER, PHILIPP
1885 Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens (Halle/S.:
M. N i e m e y e r ) .
WHITNEY, WILLIAM D.
1871 " S t r i c t u r e s on t h e views of A u g u s t Schleicher respecting t h e
n a t u r e of l a n g u a g e a n d k i n d r e d s u b j e c t s " , Transactions of the American
Philological Association 2: 3 5 - - 6 4 . [ R e p r . u n d e r t h e title of " A u g u s t Schlei
cher a n d t h e p h y s i c a l t h e o r y of l a n g u a g e " , in W h i t n e y , Oriental and lin-
guistic studies, vol. 1. N e w Y o r k : Scribner, A r m s t r o n g and Co., 1873,
298—331].
W I L B U R , T E R E N C E H., ed.
1977 The "Lautgesetz" — controversy: A documentation (Amsterdam: J.
Benjamins).
THE CHOMSKYAN 'REVOLUTION' AND ITS HISTORIOGRAPHY
OBSERVATIONS OF A BYSTANDER*
It isn't hard to persuade somebody who knows very

little that he knows very much, if he is wanting in
experience. The intoxication is worth the sobriety.
Leon Wieseltier in The New Republic,
16 Nov. 1987, p.42
0.0 Introduction
0.1 In my 1973 editorial to the first issue of Historiographia Linguistica I

distinguished four kinds of history-writing in linguistics, characterizing each accord
ing to the motives behind the enterprise. I did not label all of them at the time, but
they could be described as follows: 'summing-up histories', 'partisan accounts',
Earlier versions of this paper, in English, French, and German, were drafted in Spring 1981 and
presented at the Université de Paris IV (Sorbonne) in April and the University of South Florida,
Tampa, in June of the same year. The English version was revised and expanded in Spring 1982 and
presented at the 13th International Congress of Linguists in Tokyo in late August and subsequently,
in various forms, at the Universities of Bonn, Cologne, Vienna, Florence, Pavia, and Neuchâtel in
November and December 1982 (see Koerner 1984a and 1984b for published versions). A more
detailed version, rejected by Language in short order in Fall 1982, was somewhat revised and
published as Koerner (1983). Given the fact that the same journal published what is essentially a
reply to this paper in 1986, and without an opportunity being given to me by the editor to respond
(it had already been quite irregular to print a reply to a paper that had not been published in the same
journal; in fact F. J. Newmeyer was one of the readers strongly arguing for rejection of my 1982
manuscript), I once more revised and significantly expanded my 1983 paper, submitting it to the new
editor of Language as a response to Newmeyer (1986a). However, this version too was rejected, this
time with the argument that an earlier version had already been published and that the present one
contained only ten entirely new pages; all other considerations, such as the unfair and irregular
treatment at the hands of the previous editor, and the fact that the 1983 version, published in a
journal in Britain not read by most North American linguists, had not been given comparable public
exposure, had no effect on the editor's decision. - The present paper is more of a critique of how the
recent history of American linguistics has been depicted than a sine ira et studio historical treatment;
it points to a number of areas which require careful investigation if a more adequate picture of the res
gestœ is ever to emerge.
'detached histories', and -- the subject as yet to be properly established — a principled

kind of history-writing which I term 'historiography' (Koerner 1973). Among the
summing-up histories, I counted works such as Benfey (1869), Thomsen (1927), or
Pedersen (1931), and I took Hans Arens' Problemgeschichte of 1955 (2nd ed.,
1969) as an example of the third type. As a typical partisan account I cited Berthold
Delbrück's influential Einleitung,firstpublished in 1880, whose sixth much enlarged
edition appeared in 1919. I also included Chomsky's Cartesian Linguistics among
this class of accounts which may also be called 'pro-domo history' or, more aptly,
'Whig history', which the British historian Sir Henry Butterfield (1901-1979)
characterized as a "system of immediate reference to the present day, [in] which
historical personages can easily be classed into the men who furthered progress and
the men who tried to hinder it" (Butterfield 1931:11). Chomsky's forays into the
history of linguistics have long been recognized for what they are: partisan accounts
(cf. the list of reviews and critiques of his 1966 book in Koerner & Tajima 1986:24-
27). In 1980 there was an even better example of history-writing for partisan
purposes; I'm referring to Frederick J. Newmeyer's Linguistic Theory in America:
The first quarter-century of transformational generative grammar. This 'history' has
led me to comment on a development in linguistics which is still very much with us,
in contrast with my previous pursuits usually devoted to events in the field of the less
recent past.
0.2 Speaking at the 1978 LACUS meeting, unaware that someone might already be
busying himself with the task, Dennis Peacock challenged his audience to engage in
researching and writing the history of American linguistics, especially that of the
second quarter of this century (1925-1950). No doubt he did not wish to exclude the
third quarter. Speaking for himself, Peacock (1979:538) confessed: "... if the
definitive history of American linguistics appears soon enough, I can abandon what I
fear is a nearly hopeless task; in truth, I would rather read such a history than write
it." I do not know how he received Newmeyer's 'history', which drew praise from
predictable quarters (Napoli 1981; McCawley 1981) and criticism from others
(Murray 1981; Hall 1982). Peacock's expression of despair, however, may have
come from his realization of the complexity of such a task, as a result of the large
number of participants in the 'linguistic enterprise' since the mid-1950s, the quantity
of primary material to be read, the entaglement of the discipline with various, extra-
linguistic, e.g., economic and political, matters; not to mention the absence of a well-
established framework for the conduct of serious historiographical work today,
despite various efforts by myself since 1972 and, more recently, by others (e.g.,
Grotsch 1982; Schmitter 1982).
0.3 Writing in 1980, István Bátori suggested that it was still too early to evaluate
Chomsky's contribution to linguistics in a historical perspective, largely because 'the
waves of his revolution (in the sense of Thomas Kuhn) have not yet come to a
standstill' (Bátori 1982:103). A similar sentiment has been expressed very recently
by Herbert Penzel (1987:418). However, in light of the fact that the history of the
THE CHOMSKYAN 'REVOLUTION' AND ITS HISTORIOGRAPHY 103
school associated with Noam Chomsky's name is currently being written and in a
manner far removed from an objective account, it appears to me desirable to enter the
debate at this time as to the proper method of treating the subject, before certain
misconceptions and, indeed, myths are cemented as facts. I am thinking for example
of the frequently reiterated claim that Chomsky's Syntactic Structures was 'turned
down by numerous established publishers' (as, for instance, in the "Geleitwort der
Herausgeber" to No.95 of Linguistische Berichte of February 1985, p.l).
Granted that, if we compare Delbrück's (1880) account of the junggrammatische
Richtung in their relation to the preceding generations of (historical-comparative)
linguists, for example, with Kurt Jankowsky's (1972) study of the Neogrammarians,
we may realize the beneficial effects which the passage of time and a concomitant
distance to the subject and to the dramatis personae may have on the treatment of the
events of a particular period in the history of linguistic science. In the present case,
however, I cannot recommend that we wait for two or more generations before we
write the history of linguistics in North America during the past forty years or so.
There are a number of reasons for this. For one thing, we would no longer have
access to certain sources of information, since in two generations all participants in
the field will have died off and no longer be present to be questioned on a number of
relevant points of detail which, though important, might never enter into the annals of
the discipline. I nevertheless believe that the historian should be at a certain distance
to the period and the events he is describing in the sense that he has no personal stake
in the outcome of his research but instead is guided by a desire to set the record
straight.1 Of course this is not the only prerequisite for a historian or, as I prefer to
be called, historiographer, but it seems to be one of the main conditiones sine qua
non for any historical work that the task is not approached with preconceived ideas,
with the historian trying to establish a particular point which may be of importance to
his immediate interests. In a word, we may say that a historiographer should remain
as impartial as he can be. Both distance to the subject matter and impartiality,
however, do not necessarily entail the exclusion of what Kuhn (1977:149), invoking
Bertrand Russell, called 'hypothetical sympathy'. Certainly, I am not advocating a
positivistic approach interested in little else than what Comte called 'les petites choses
vraies'. Indeed, I am not at all in favour of a one-sided preoccupation with mere
'facts', since, as was clear long ago even to empiricist theorists of linguistics such as
Hermann Paul (1880:6), we hardly ever have to do with facts without a certain
amount of - what he termed - 'speculation'. The historiographer's ideal may be
called 'broad positivism', an approach to the subject which is committed to analyse,
describe, and present historical events in line with Leopold von Ranke's (1795-1886)
program first announced in his Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen
1
It is clear from this point of view that accounts such as in mes (1972, 1974) may be
particularly vulnerable. However, if the historian states his commitments clearly, allowing the
reader to draw his own conclusions, we are still already much better served than in the partisan
accounts we have been getting in recent years.
Völker of 1824 — several years before the appearance of August Comte's (1798-
1857) 6-volume Cours de philosophie positive (Paris, 1830-42).
In the present context I would like to refer in particular to Ranke's frequently-
quoted affirmation - usually associated with his much later voluminous work --
namely, that history is neither supposed to judge the past nor instruct the present how
to act for the benefit of the future, but to depict how things really happened.2 To
some this suggestion may appear excessively conservative, but those who are
interested in the history of linguistics in the 20th century cannot escape the conclusion
that in the wake of partisan accounts published in recent years a return to basic
historiographic principles appears to be called for.
0.3 I have discussed on various other occasions the prerequisites for linguistic
historiography (e.g., Koerner 1976[1972], 1982) and do not intend to repeat them
here at length. It needs hardly be emphasized that familiarity with the particular
linguistic theories at issue is of prime importance: a historian of linguistics should
have formal training in linguistics. Less obvious perhaps but of equal importance is
general knowledge of the various extra-linguistic factors, intellectual, sociological
and possibly even political, which may have had an impact on the course of events in
a given field of scientific inquiry at particular periods of its development. Without
this knowledge of the extra-linguistic 'context of situation' it would be difficult to
understand changes of emphasis in linguistic theory or 'revolutions' in the discipline
or sub-discipline (for instance the increased importance attached to syntax, over and
above morphology and phonology in the early 1960s). It is important that we dis
tinguish between intra-linguistic developments (i.e., those specific to the particular
discipline that tend to be picked up where the preceding generation of researchers left
off, for example, often coupled with the desire to overcome the hardy problem of
dealing with semantics in an adequate manner; cf. Koerner 1970), and various extra-
linguistic factors. The latter have nothing to do with the operation of the craft, its
methodology, its specific data, or its findings per se; however, they may have, and in
many instances do have, a considerable impact on the wide-spread acceptance of a
particular framework or philosophy of science as well as on the foci of attention in
research, and this frequently with social ramifications of consequence.
0.4 So far, I have referred to general attitudes on the part of the historiographer
(i.e., that he should be capable of treating his subject matter with a certain detach
ment) and the fundamental distinction between what may be called the intra-
disciplinary requirements of and the extra-disciplinary influences on the field. For
2
Since this statement is usually quoted out of context and without proper reference to its
original source, I am supplying both in the following: "Man hat der Historie das Amt, die
Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu belehren, bey gemessen:
so hoher Aemter unterwindet sich gegenwärtiger Versuch nicht: er will bloß sagen wie es eigent
lich gewesen" (Leopold Ranke, "Vorrede", Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker
von 1494 bis 1535 (Leipzig & Berlin: G. Reimer, 1824), i-xi, on pp.v-vi; emphasis mine: KK).
anyone interested in undertaking historical research these generalities can only suffice
as the most rudimentary guidelines. The historiographer must know how to ascertain
the relevant data, material which cannot simply be obtained by consulting the
textbooks of a given period or school of thought. No doubt these texts have their
value too; they usually present the accepted doctrine in a pragmatic fashion. (For
instance, the number of editions of any such book may give an indication as to its
popularity, and the extent to which it is receiving the attention of linguistic
practitioners.) However, textbooks constitute secondary sources only, for they tend
to dilute the theoretical issues in order to make them accessible to a wide audience.
In a 1969 state-of-the-art account of the history of linguistics, Yakov Malkiel
provided a list of what he regarded as source material for the historian of linguistic
science. The list includes autobiographies, memoirs, prefaces, correspondence,
Festschriften, book reviews, summations at symposia, institutional records, and
other material (Malkiel 1969:641-643). Hymes & Fought (1981:25) added news
paper articles to the list. In addition to the material mentioned, it has recently become
more widely accepted that unpublished writings and especially correspondence
between scholars conducted without the public in mind, may well constitute
important documentary evidence for certain events. Thus Stephen Murray (1980) has
been able to establish - something which many of us had suspected but were unable
to prove beyond doubt — that Bernard Bloch, editor of the journal of the Linguistic
Society of America, Language, from 1941 until his death in 1965, played an impor
tant, if not decisive, role in the promotion of Noam Chomsky and his linguistic
theories during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Bloch's role was certainly much
more crucial than chroniclers of the 'Chomskyan paradigm' (e.g., Newmeyer 1980:
47-48) are willing to concede. Perhaps this oversight occurred simply because
writers like Newmeyer failed to consult the Bernard Bloch papers deposited at the
Sterling Library of Yale University. However, judging from more recent publi
cations (Newmeyer 1986a, 1986b), the impression made by his 1980 book, namely,
that he is not interested in presenting anything resembling history, is confirmed (cf.
Murray 1989).
One other source, where contemporary linguistic historiography is concerned,
has so far remained largely untapped. I am referring to direct interviews with
persons who participated in the events and, more generally, to what is nowadays
termed oral history (cf. Davis & O'Cain [1980] for the first such undertaking in
North-American linguistics which has become available in print). Murray (1980), a
sociologist, made extensive use of interviews as well as correspondence with both
Chomsky and his associates and with scholars not following or opposing trans
formationalist theories, whereas Newmeyer (1980) appears to have only talked to
adherents and staunch supporters of one side.3 Newmeyer (1980:xii), however,
maintains that his own participation in the events of the 1960s and early 1970s has
3
McCawley (1980:911) gives the misleading impression that Newmeyer did indeed make much
use of interviews; but then it would perhaps be unreasonable to expect more than a pro-domo
account from his pen in issues involving his own academic past.
given him "a real advantage" and that it has permitted him "an inside view of the field
that would be denied to the more displaced historian." It remains to be seen whether
a critical reading of his book bears out this claim.
1.0 The Chomskyan 'Revolution' in Linguistics
It has become common-place to talk about a 'Chomskyan Revolution' in the

study of language, with the result that few, if any, would pause to think about what
the term 'revolution' implies or is taken to imply. It is interesting to note that it is
non-linguists in particular (e.g., Sklar 1968; Searle 1972) who have been talking
about 'Chomsky's revolution in linguistics'. No such term can be found, for
example, in Bierwisch (1971), the noted linguist and very early and steadfast
proponent of transformational-generative grammar. This appears all the more sur
prising when we note that Malkiel (1969:539) spoke of Kuhn's The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions (1962) as a 'sensationally successful book'. Yet the absence
of the term in accounts of transformational theory by Chomsky's followers during
the 1960s and 1970s does not imply their rejection of the (frequently distorted) use of
the Kuhnian morphology of scientific revolutions. Bach (1965:123), interestingly
enough, refers to 'revolution' without mentioning Kuhn, whose name is also
conspicuously absent from Newmeyer's (1980) book (but see now the second
edition of 1986, pp.38-39, where explicit references to Kuhn are made). Others,
usually European-trained linguists, though with direct exposure to transformational
grammar (e.g., Meisel 1973; Anttila 1975; Weydt 1976), cast doubt on the actual
occurrence of a 'Chomskyan revolution' in the study of language in the regular sense
of the term.
1.1 A few notes on the concept of 'revolution'. Our first association with the term
'revolution' is political in nature; we think of governments being overthrown in a
coup d'état and one system of government being replaced by another. Herbert Izzo
(1976:51) has given the following characterization of what he refers to as 'successful
social revolutions':
[They] rewrite history for their own justification [...]. The Soviet example, though
not the first, is the most familiar and one of the most thorough. First the old order
must be condemned en bloc; everything about it must be shown to have been bad
to justify its overthrow and prevent its return. Then any changes of direction of the
new order must be consigned to oblivion. [...] Finally, it becomes desirable to
show that the new order is in reality not so much new as a return to the correct,
traditional ways, from which only the immediately preceding regime had been a
deviation and a usurpation. Along the way there may have been a return to many
features of that same preceding regime. These will not, however, be represented as
regressions but as new developments.
For those who have observed the history of transformational-generative linguistics

in North America unfolding during the past twenty-five or more years, Izzo's
description of a 'social revolution' appears to apply quite well to what actually

happened. (For at least some examples of TG propaganda, see below.)
1.1.1 Fashion? Hymes (1974:48-49) and others (e.g., Murray 1980) have
suggested that the so-called 'Chomskyan revolution in linguistics' may be largely
due to social factors which have little to do with the theory and its inherent value,
its 'explanatory adequacy', the 'power' of its 'generative' device, etc. Maher
(1982:3ff.) goes so far as to associate the success story of transformational
linguistics with fashion, referring to the following statement made by Bertrand
Russell — in his 1959 preface to Ernest Gellner's criticism of the Wittgensteinians
at Oxford ~ according to which "the power of fashion is great, and soon the most
cogent arguments fail to convince if they are not in line with the trend of current
opinion" (Gellner 1959:13). To support his claim Maher (1982:4) refers to
observations made more than fifty years earlier by the sociologist William Graham
Sumner (1840-1910) who noted at the beginning of this century:
Fashion is by no means trivial. It is the form of the dominance of the group over
the individual, and it is quite often as harmful as beneficial. There is no arguing
with fashion. [...] The authority of fashion is imperative as to everything which
it touches. The sanctions are ridicule and powerlessness. The dissenter hurts
himself... (Sumner 1906:194).
While a consideration of the effects of fashion in linguistics (as in any other human
affair) is not to be ignored, I believe that this aspect may cloud some of the issues
rather than illucidate them. It is certainly difficult to believe that it was only the
particular theoretical proposals of transformational-generative grammar (henceforth:
TGG) which appealed to the young students of language who entered university
during the sixties and early seventies. Newmeyer (1980:52ff.) presents statistics,
of which in particular the table concerning the growth of the membership in the
Linguistic Society of America indicates the tremendous academic population
explosion of the period: 1950: 829 members; 1960: 1,768 members, and 1970:
4,383 members, with the peak having been reached in 1971 (4,723 members). For
Newmeyer, this growth reflects the appeal and strength of the 'Chomskyan
paradigm'; however, when this development levels off and shows a decline, he
explains this as the result of the bleak employment picture in linguistics (Newmeyer
1980:53). Here one is constrained to ask 'Why not a reflection of a widespread
disenchantment with TGG?', since Newmeyer earlier (p.52) regarded the member
ship increase in the LSA as being "considerably above the average [compared to
which other discipline?], suggesting that it was the appeal of transformational
generative grammar rather than economic growth". Murray (1981:109) saw the
reasons for this dramatic expansion (in addition to the general growth of
institutions of secondary and post-secondary education) in what he describes as
the Zeitgeist of a rebellious generation coming along at the time of rapid expansion
of the academic sector in North America. The channeling of so much of the
available money to an institution [i.e., the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
in particular the Linguistics Department there] where it was astutely used by

accomplished academic warriors further enhanced the attractiveness of a perspective
in which the elders were dismissed just when generational rebellion was particularly
prominent in the general culture.
In other words, TGG would not and could not have gained in strength to the extent
that it did during the 1960s and early 1970s if there had not been other, major,
factors bringing the 'Chomskyan revolution' about.
1.1.2 Funding? We have mentioned the question of funding, which Newmeyer

(1980:52 and n.8) has reduced to a few lines in a 250-page account of the first 25
years (1955-1980) of TGG, but which, I believe, was of distinct importance in the
furtherance of the transformationalist cause. Writing about how government
spending on research and education significantly advanced the diffusion of this
particular linguistic doctrine, James McCawley, who did his doctorate with
Chomsky at M.I.T. in 1965, and who has always remained a supporter of the
'transformational paradigm' (though taking a critical point of view on particular
issues), noted the following:
I maintain that government subsidization of research and education, regardless of

how benevolently and fairly it is administered, increases the likelihood of scientific
revolutions for the worse, since it makes it possible for a subcommunity to
increase its membership drastically without demonstrating that its intellectual credit
so warrants. The kind of development that I have in mind is illustrated by the rapid
growth of American universities during the late 1950s and 1960s, stimulated by
massive spending by the federal government. This spending made is possible for
many universities to start linguistics programs that otherwise would not have been
started or would not have been started so early, or to expand existing programs
much further than they would otherwise have been expanded. Given the situation
of the early 1960s, it was inevitable that a large proportion of the new teaching
jobs in linguistics would go to transformational grammarians. In the case of new
programs, since at that time transformational grammar was the kind of linguistics
in which it was most obvious that new and interesting things were going on, many
administrators would prefer to get a transformational grammarian to organize the
new program; in the case of expansion of existing programs, even when those who
had charge of the new funds would not speculate their personal intellectual capital
on the new theory, it was to their advantage to speculate their newfound monetary
capital on it, since if the new theory was going to become influential, a department
would have to offer instruction in it if the department was to attract students in
numbers that were in keeping with its newfound riches. And with the first couple
of bunches of students turned out by the holders of these new jobs, the membership
of the transformational subcommunity swelled greatly. (McCawley 1976b:25)
Such a long quotation is justified for a number of reasons, especially since it

provides readers not familiar with the thinking and operation of North-American
university administrators with at least some insight. Naturally, the informed reader
would like to underscore particular passages in the citation, comment on certain
points of detail, and draw further conclusions from the observations made; but it
generally well characterizes both the mentality of administrators (frequently
académiques manqués eager to be seen as progressive) and the particular situation
they found themselves in, just at the time when Chomsky's ideas began to gain
notoriety, though not exclusively for reasons directly related to linguistics, as I
shall try to argue in this paper. In McCawley's account there seems to be a lurking
suspicion that the rapid growth of TGG may have had something to do with a fad
(cf. Maher's observations in section 1.1.1 above), a suspicion I had during my
graduate years in linguistics at a North American university in the late 1960s.
1.1.3 Ideology? Robert A. Hall, reviewing Newmeyer's (1980) book, mentions

another reason for the apparent success of TGG, namely, that it had more to do
with ideology and less to do with the honest attempt of a group of linguists to
provide a more adequate theory of language -- in contrast to a theory of linguistics.
Hall (1981:185) notes the particular choice of vocabulary on the part of Newmeyer
relating in chapter II titled "The Chomskyan Revolution" how this turn of events
was brought about. Expressions suggesting military and political conflict, e.g.,
'compaigner', 'old guard', 'rebellion', 'revolution', 'struggle', 'tactic', 'defend',
'confront', and 'win victories' abound, and politico-religious terms are not rare
either (e.g., 'charisma', 'convert', 'hegemony', 'win over'). Newmeyer's chapter
thus fits Maurice Cranston's (1974:196) characterization of 'ideology' very well
indeed:
It is characteristic of ideology both to exalt action and to regard action in terms

of a military analogy. Some observers have pointed out that one has only to
consider the prose style of the founders of most ideologies to be struck by the
military and warlike language that they habitually use, including words like
struggle, resist, march, victory and overcome', the literature of ideology is replete
with martial expressions. In such a view, commitment to an ideology becomes a
form of enlistment so that to become the adherent of an ideology is to become a
combatant or partisan.
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, many enthusiasts of TGG spoke of a
revolution in linguistics (cf. in addition to those mentioned at the outset of section
1.0 above: Dingwall 1971:759; Greene 1972:189; Yergin 1972). It is interesting
to note that more recent publications that maintain the same argument (e.g., Smith
& Wilson 1979:10; Newmeyer 1980:20) no longer make an explicit reference to
Kuhn's (1962) book on scientific revolutions, perhaps because the ideas therein
appear to them as a chose acquise that need no longer be demonstrated. As a matter
of fact, I suggested the existence of something like a 'Chomskyan Paradigm' as
early as 1972 (cf. Koerner 1976:703) because I was of the opinion (and still am)
that with Chomsky and his circle a definite shift of emphasis in the goals of
linguistic theory was brought about which superficially at least seemed dramatic
enough to resemble Kuhn's concepts of disciplinary 'paradigm' and 'revolution'.
These changes in the general approach to language and, concomitantly, the
philosophy of science, were probably not in all respects beneficial to linguistic
studies as a whole. Yet it cannot be denied that a number of proposals, procedures
of analysis and concepts of theoretical argument have become part of the linguist's
tool-kit and general outlook, which no one seriously interested in theory con-
struction can any longer ignore (though linguistic practitioners, i.e., those con
ducting empirical research instead of selecting data from the work of others that
might confirm their theoretical claims, may well have been able to do without
them). In other words, whether we like it or not, we will have to agree that
noticeable changes, in the linguist's attitude towards language and within the
linguistic discipline itself, did take place during the past twenty-five or so years,
changes which a number of people have likened to a 'revolution' in the Kuhnian
sense of the term (cf. Pearson 1978, for a discussion).
However, we may ask ourselves whether these changes of focus and
emphasis, this introduction of new terminology (frequently replacing traditional
terms describing the same phenomena), and this 'idealization' - which Newmeyer
(1980:250) invokes to support his (in my estimation outrageous) claim that "more
has been learned about the nature of language in the last 25 years than in the
previous 2500" - have indeed produced something like a revolution in the field
necessitating, as it were, not just a new outfitting of every linguist's operating kit
but also a relearning of the trade. In fact, a closer analysis of what was really done
by linguistic practitioners (not by arm-chair theoreticians who tend to ignore data
that could disconfirm their hypotheses) in North America and in Europe during the
the same period may well bring to light the following: (1) A number of linguistic
schools continued their existence (e.g., Tagmemics, largely associated with the
work of Kenneth Lee Pike and his collaborators, and Systemic Grammar, a neo-
Firthian approach headed by Michael A. K. Halliday, as well as Stratificational
Grammar, introduced by Sydney M. Lamb during the 1960s); indeed, several of
these schools have been thriving in recent years, suggesting not only that there has
not been one all-embracing theoretical framework operating in North-American
linguistics during the past 30 years (as Newmeyer and others want us to believe),
but also that the paradigma fostered by TGG has long since lost its attraction for,
and grip on, the minds of many present-day linguists. (2) TGG provoked to no
small degree the development of approaches to language which have tried to
account for specifically those aspects of language study (e.g., human commun
ication, social conditioning, and actual language use - Chomsky's talk about the
latter notwithstanding), which the Chomskyan model consistently eliminated from
its list of 'interesting' phenomena. Thus the revival of interest in discourse
analysis, speech pragmatics, and various sociolinguistic approaches since the late
1960s would probably not have been as pronounced had the 'Chomskyan
Paradigm' not focussed so one-sidedly on abstract 'data' (usually made up by the
analyst to support a theoretical argument) far removed from actual speech.
In short — and as will become still clearer from what follows — it seems that,
upon closer inspection, the term 'revolution' does not properly apply to TGG.
Despite many disclaimers, TGG is basically post-Saussurean structuralism — Joos
(1961:17) characterized this movement, with he associated with the work of Harris
and Chomsky, "as a heresy within the neo-Saussurean tradition rather than a
competition to it" - with an excessive concern with 'langue', the underlying gram
matical system, to the detriment of 'parole', the actual speech act; or, in other
terms, with an abstract formalism claiming to represent the essence of language

structure instead of the analysis of the function and use of human language. (It is
often forgotten that formalization by itself does not lead to new insights about the
nature of language.) However, it cannot be denied that many young men and
women in linguistics during the 1960s and 1970s believed that they were wit
nessing a revolution in the field, and it appears that this widespread belief (and the
associated enthusiasm that young people tend to generate) has been at the bottom of
the 'Chomskyan revolution'. (Some of the participants in the 'revolution' I have
talked still today get a gleam in the eye when they recount their recollections of lin
guistics in the 1960s.)
To do justice to historical fact, it should be remembered that — like Curtius,
who in 1885 felt that the Neogrammarians had embarked on a course that
constituted a break with the past (cf. Koerner 1981:168-169) - there were scholars
of the post-Bloomfieldian generation who, at least during the early 1960s,
conceived of TGG as a 'breakthrough' (Hockett 1965:196; although he associated
it with the name of Sydney M. Lamb as well!). Earlier, in 1963, Rulon S. Wells
(b.1919) expressed a similar apprehension of change when he spoke of "some
neglected opportunities in descriptive linguistics". Wells (1963:48), however,
approached the subject somewhat more cautiously:
Whether the change that actually took place -- the advent of and eager reception
of the approach called transformation-theory -- should be described as internal or
external, as a revision and rehabilitation of D[escriptive] L[inguistics] or as a
displacement of it, is no simple one, for which reason I save it for another day.
Some major change did take place; the episode ended; and the present paper is a
historian's attempt to explain the change. It does not, however, purport to explain
the advent of transformation-theory (TT), but only the reception of it. Given the
TT-approach was put forward when it was, why was it taken up in the way it was?
It would be laborious beyond the ambitions of my paper to describe this way
with any great accuracy; it must suffice to say that there arose a very widespread
belief that TT, the successor to DL, could lead linguistics to fruitful successes
where its predecessor had proved unable to do so. My own judgment as a linguist
about such a belief is that mixed in with a solid core of truth there is much that is
false, gratuitous, or misleading. But in the present paper I try to set aside my own
views as a linguist, and to speak only as a historian of linguistics, without taking
sides.
Wells, whose own paper on 'constituent analysis' of 1947 may be credited for
having gone beyond the mere descriptive stage of post-Bloomfieldian linguistics,
feels the "norm of pure description [which] was the Zeitgeist in the thirties and
forties" (p.49) was to blame for the abandonment of the merely descriptive in
favour of a more explanatory approach in the 1950s and 1960s, and the switch
from DL to TGG. Sydney M. Lamb (b.1929), a theory-oriented linguist of
Chomsky's age, found that one of the shortcomings of the post-Bloomfieldians
was their excessive concern "with trying to specify procedures of analysis" (Lamb
1967:414) - Zellig Harris' Methods in Structural Linguistics of 1951 immediately
comes to mind here. It seems however that extralinguistic matters (i.e., what may
be called changes in the intellectual climate) had more to do with the rise of TGG in
the period than the problems that beset the, at times, extreme positivist tendency of
linguistic analysis among Bloomfield's successors.
1.2 Factors contributing to the Chomskyan 'revolution. We have already referred

to the 'climate of opinion' during the 1960s and the sociological aspects of the
relationship between 'old guard' and the 'young Turks'. A conflict normally exists
between generations but can be heightened and intensified by socio-economic and
political causes. For example, the civil rights movement of the Kennedy and
Johnson years, the American involvement in the Vietnam war, and other issues
polarized the diverging views of the old and the young. These are external factors
meriting the attention of the historian of any discipline, though probably more in
the humanities and social sciences than the so-called 'hard' sciences, that is, the
natural sciences as well as mathematics (although the introduction of the 'new
math' into the educational system during the 1960s was probably not exclusively
motivated by the superiority of the new approach over the traditional one). Yet I
believe that the Geisteswissenschaften generally are more likely to be influenced by
intellectual currents of any sort than the Naturwissenschaften as Dilthey, Rickert
and others noted 100 years ago. Notwithstanding that it is impossible to map out
all these spheres of influence within the confines of one exploratory paper, these
external factors have so far been largely neglected by historians of most disciplines,
and certainly those dealing with the history of linguistics.
There is however at least one factor that can be fairly easily identified and is
related to the widespread acceptance of TGG during the 1960s and early 1970s —
the funding of university programs during that period. We have already referred to
this subject (see 1.1.2 above), and quoted from a 1976 statement made by James
McCawley concerning the impact of the National Defense Education Act (passed by
the United States government in late 1958) on linguistics (cf. also Mildenberger
1962). As a matter of fact, Newmeyer -- who now tends to downplay the role of
the large sums of money that were poured into all sorts of linguistic research during
the 1960s -- documented, in a paper done with his partner Joseph Emonds in 1971,
that these monies in effect constituted "a great shot-in-the-arm to the field of
linguistics" (p.287). (In Newmeyer's 1986 Linguistics and Politics no reference
to this quite revealing paper can be found.)
In what follows, I will try to illustrate the point with the help of just three
examples, though they could be multiplied almost ad libitum. One is the statement
made by Chomsky himself in an interview in 1971; the other two are public
acknowledgements of funding. All three suggest the extent the financial aspect
played in the expansion of linguistics in general, and the success of TGG in
particular.
Asked about the question of funding and the reason why Syntactic Structures
and many other works of his contained acknowledgements of support from
agencies of the U.S. Defense Department, Chomsky replied:
Ever since the Second World War, the Defense Department has been the main
channel for the support of the universities, because Congress and society as a
whole have been unwilling to provide adequate public funds [...]. Luckily,
Congress doesn't look too closely at the Defense Department budget, and the
Defense Department, which is a vast and complex organization, doesn't look
closely at the projects it supports ~ its right hand doesn't know what its left hand
is doing.4 Until 1969, more than half the M.I.T. budget came from the Defense
Department, but this funding at M.I.T. is a bookkeeping trick. Although I'm a
full-time teacher, M.I.T. pays only thirty or forty per cent of my salary. The rest
comesfromother sources - most of it from the Defense Department. But I get the
money through M.I.T. (Mehta 1971:193)
I am not quoting Chomsky's account to 'raise the moral index finger' (as we say in
German) but to give an idea of the tremendous non-academic involvement in the
funding of research, including work not visibly (at least to an outsider) connected
with military interests. (Newmeyer & Emonds [1971:301] noted that a "result of
the reliance on outside funding agencies is the occasional deliberate falsification of
the nature of linguistic work.") It should be remembered that one of the major
projects of the Defense Department during the 1950s was machine translation, and
that M.I.T. had a major stake in it (cf. Locke & Booth 1955). Morris Halle,
Chomsky's supporter and ally, for instance acknowledged the kind of support that
existed there at the time:
During the past eight years [i.e., since 1951: KK] it has been my great and good
fortune to be associated with the Research Laboratory of Electronics, M.I.T. This
unique research organization has been an ideal environment in which to carry on
investigations that overlap a number of traditional boundaries between disciplines.
(Halle 1959:15)
Needless to add that Halle, like Chomsky, was in a comparatively sheltered

position during the 1950s. (Who nowadays obtain a four-year fellowship with no
other strings attached than to pursue independent research, and who would be
employed, several years before completing one's Ph.D., in a similar position at
M.I.T.?) That the funds which were received by the Research Laboratory of
Electronics and later also by the Department of Linguistics, founded at M.I.T. in
1961, were used for proselytizing purposes as well, may be deduced from the
number of acknowledgements of support by workers in linguistics. That at least
part of these funds was intended to convert young students to the new faith may be
surmised from the acknowledgement printed at the bottom of Robert Lees' widely
acclaimed 'review' of Syntactic Structures (Lees 1957:375), which was written and
published while Lees was a close associate and, for all practical purposes, still a
doctoral student of Chomsky's at M.I.T. (Lees 1960 constitutes his dissertation
published shortly after its completion.) Owing to the godfatherly attitude that
4
One may doubt this assumption and instead be inclined to believe that Chomsky's reductionist
approach to language and the highly operationalist nature of his theory may have appealed to
certain administrators in the Pentagon (and elsewhere) who prefer to deal with diagrams and
program sheets rather than with the human individual.
Bernard Bloch displayed (cf. Murray 1980), Lees' propaganda piece for Chom
sky's ideas appeared in Language (still today the most widely circulated linguistics
journal in the world) almost at the same time Syntactic Structures itself was
published.5 (Under normal circumstances, a review would take two and more
years to appear in print following the publication of a book; also one may wonder if
Lees was indeed the sole author of the 'review', considering his employment
situation at the time. But even if the arguments were all Lees' own, as Chomsky
emphatically maintained in a letter to the present writer commenting on Koerner
(1984b), it can be at least assumed that Chomsky -- and probably Halle too -- had
seen and approved the text before it was sent to Bloch. (That Lees had published a
paper in Language as early as 1953, and thus established previous contact with
Bloch, cannot serve as a convincing counter-argument.)
The question of 'revolutionary rhetoric' will occupy us in section 1.3
(below); however, in the present context we may refer to Jerrold J. Katz's (1964)
apprenticeship piece in this area entitled "Mentalism in Linguistics". Together with
Paul M. Postal's Constituent Structure of the same year, it set the stage for the
transformationalists polemics against the so-called taxonomists (a term created by
Chomsky [1964:11]) or, as Voegelin & Voegelin (1963:12-13) characterized the
phenomenon, Katz's paper embarked on the 'controversal stance' with a view to
establishing the 'eclipsing stance'. Chomsky had given the signal for this kind of
attack in 1957 (cf. Voegelin 1958:229). It is interesting to note that in Katz's piece
the linguistics of the elder scholars was not attacked, but rather what Katz made out
to be their particular view of science. In other words, ideological questions appear
to have offered a more promising forum for his attack than actual linguistic
analyses of the Bloomfieldians from whom Chomsky himself had learned his
craft.6 Katz's paper, which Bloch, the Bloomfieldian stalwart, accepted for
publication in Language, though it contains little that may be termed research, has
the following acknowledgement:
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force under
Contract DA36-039-AMC-03200(E); in part by the U.S. Air Force, ESD Contract
5
Chomsky (1975:3) noted himself that "there would have been little notice in the profession if
it had not been for a provocative and extensive review article by Robert Lees that appeared almost
simultaneously with the publication of S[yntactic] S[tructures]" (emphasis added: KK). Naturally,
Chomsky does not indicate how this came about; for details, see Murray (1980:79-81, and
especially footnote 55 on p.87).
6
In this context, it is almost curious to see Chomsky's debt to Harris' work acknowledged in a
recent history of linguistics by an adherent of TGG (cf. Sampson 1980:134-138 passim). Indeed,
Chomsky himself (1975:41-45), writing on Harris' concept of 'grammatical transformation' and of
his attempts at discourse analysis, acknowledges his introduction to linguistics through Harris on
this and other occasions (e.g., Menta 1971:187-188), though always stressing the differences
between his and Harris' views. In another interview (Sklar 1968:215) Chomsky indicated that his
introduction to linguistics began by proofreading Harris' Methods of Structural Linguistics, a
manuscript edition of which was circulating at least since 1949. (It had been completed early in
1947, but it was published in Chicago only in 1951.)
AF 19(628)-2887; and in part by the National Science Foundation (Grant G-

16526), the National Institutes of Health (Grant MH-04737-03), and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant NsG-496). This paper, although
based on work sponsored in part by the U.S. Air Force, has not been approved or
disapproved by that agency. (Katz 1964:124, n.*)
In addition to public acknowledgements such as these, other documents (e.g., the

annual report of the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C.) could be
cited to show the magnitude of the financial support received by major universities
and in particular by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which can be fairly
said to have built its flourishing Linguistics Department from a rather mediocre
Department of Modern Languages on the strength of the tremendous sums of
money that flowed into its coffers during the 1960s and early 1970s. While it
would be unfair to say that money alone has made the success story of TGG
possible — to maintain such a view would mean to deny the existence of human
resourcefulness and creativity (not in the Chomskyan sense, nota bene!) -- never
theless every researcher knows the importance of funding for any project s/he
might conceive.
1.3 The rhetoric of revolution. All who have lived through the period of the
1960s and early 1970s in North American linguistics will recall instances - at
professional meetings, national or international conferences, at the linguistic
institutes sponsored by the Linguistic Society of America as well as other
associations and institutions - where propaganda of one kind or another was made
for the 'radically novel' approach to linguistic analysis provided by TGG. Indeed,
I believe that many students in linguistics, if not the majority, were glad to see what
was regarded as establishment scholars being attacked by members of the younger
generation (see below for illustration). Most students having come from Europe
during the mid- or late 1960s, usually after having completed at least their first
university diploma there, tended to embrace the new brand of theory; they could
never warm up to the models of language analysis provided by Bloch, Harris,
Trager, Smith, and others, but felt they could easily associate with ideas that
seemed to hark back to Descartes, Port-Royal, and Humboldt. I doubt that these
young Europeans regarded TGG as particularly revolutionary; indeed, many of
them soon detected that for all practical purposes the alleged 'mentalist' view of
language had little effect on the actual practice which retained much of the earlier
kind of data-manipulation in accordance with prescribed rule; to them it probably
did not really seem that much different from earlier procedures stigmatized as
'taxonomic', 'mechanistic', and 'uninteresting'. Many of them abandoned TGG a
few years after their return to Europe. The more critical attitude of many European
students suggests that, in order to understand the success story of TGG during the
1960s and 1970s, we must go beyond the technical framework of the theory and
recapture, as much as possible, the general atmosphere within which it was
proposed. (On 'linguistic rhetoric' see now Paul Postal's [1988] rather revealing
analysis.)
In order to map out this intellectual climate fully, the historiographer would
have to interview the participants in the discussions held during the period,
especially at those public meetings which were regarded as important by the
strategists of 'modern linguistics' (a term dear to TGG; cf. Smith & Wilson 1979).
These professional meetings include the Ninth International Congress of Linguists
held in Cambridge, Massachusetts in August 1962, and various other meetings in
North America thereafter, especially the semiannual meetings of the Linguistic
Society of America, which, as we know, provided handy forums for public
debates and even attacks on the views of others not bowing to the new theory.
This is admitted by adherents of the Chomsky school (cf. the references to New-
meyer's accounts below), and needs no further documentation in the present paper;
instead, I would like to raise some questions concerning the 1962 International
Congress held at Harvard and M.I.T (for the first time in the history of this
organization outside Europe). Was it really "sheer coincidence", as Newmeyer
(1980:51) claims, that the Congress was held at Cambridge, Mass., with Morris
Halle and William N. Locke, then chairman of the M.I.T.'s Modern Languages
Department, on the local arrangements committee? (In fact, Locke also held the
position of Secretary General of the Congress and Halle the post of secretary of the
Executive Committee according to Lunt [1964:v].) And what happened to Joshua
Whatmough (1897-1964) of Harvard, who "was the chief figure in securing the
invitation for the 9th International Congress to meet in the United States, and who
was instrumental in obtaining two substantial grants for support of that congress"
(as Eric P. Hamp reports in Language 42.622, 1966)?6a And why did Zellig
Harris turn down the offer to present one of the five major papers to be given at the
Congress' plenary sessions? (The other four scholars, Jerzy Kurylowicz, Emile
Benveniste, André Martinet, and Nikolaj D. Andreev, were between 52 and 66
years old.) The fact is that Chomsky, less than 35 years of age and without any
international exposure until then, was given the spot not taken by his former
teacher. It was scarcely an accident that Roman Jakobson, with whom Halle had
collaborated and completed his doctorate at Harvard, presented Chomsky at the
Congress as the rising star.7 (An indication of how much Chomsky owed
Jakobson may be gathered from his own testimony in A Tribute to Roman
Jakobson published in 1983.)
Chomsky's "Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory" presentation was by far the
longest of these five plenary papers; it was given as the fifth and last of the
6a
As a matter of fact, Whatmough, professor of comparative philology at Harvard, had
originally been selected to serve as President of the Congress, but as the 1964 Proceedings
indicate, he was replaced prior to its tenure by Einar Haugen (who at the time was still at the
University of Wisconsin). Whatmough's name does not even appear in the list of Congress parti
cipants (cf. Lunt 1964:1145-1171).
7 Professor Johann Knobloch, who participated in the 1962 Congress, told me when I gave a
paper on the present topic in 1982 at the University of Bonn, that he had felt at the time that he
was witnessing the 'inthronization' of Noam Chomsky.
plenaries (in seeming deference to the international standing of the other four
speakers), but it counted 62 pages in the printed Proceedings in comparison to
between 22 (Kurylowicz's paper) and 10 pages (for each of the three remaining
speakers). Likewise, the discussion of Chomsky's paper took up 30 pages in
contrast to between 5 and 10 pages for the four others. (Comparison of the
Preprints of the Congress — edited by no other person than Morris Halle -- with the
Proceedings edited by another former student of Jakobson's, Horace Gray Lunt
(b.1918), reveals that Chomsky was given unlimited opportunity subsequent to the
Congress to expand on his views and to answer any of the objections raised in
these discussions that he considered relevant.)7a It is interesting to note that it was
at this Congress, which was attended by some 950 scholars from all over the
world, especially from Europe,8 that Chomsky talked for the first time about
Saussure, Humboldt, and the Port-Royal grammar, all the time trying to demon
strate how much his own theory had in common with these hallowed traditions of
17th to 19th century Europe. I believe that it was at this well-orchestrated
Congress where Chomsky's appeal to a 'rationalist' tradition underlying his lin
guistic ideas first attracted the attention of many Europeans to his work. (Before
1962 — the year when Syntactic Structures was reprinted for the first time,
evidently for the International Congress — few Europeans had taken note of
Chomsky.) Murray (1980) appears to have been one of the first scholars to devote
particular attention to the socio-political manoeuvres of the TGG group around
Chomsky and his early and enduring ally, Morris Halle. It is from him (Murray
1980:88, n.85) that I took the idea of 'rhetoric of revolution', about which I would
like to say a few things in what follows. Indeed, Halle's role in the promotion of
Noam Chomsky and TGG requires thorough investigation; his talents as organizer
and administrator are acknowledged by Newmeyer (1980:39), who unfortunately
says nothing about Halle as an academic politician. However, as one visiting
fellow at M.I.T. at the time recalls, in the spring and early summer of 1962, prior
to the tenure of the International Congress (which took place on 27-31 August), he
was "watching Morris Halle plot as if he were Lenin in Zürich" (personal
communication).
We may forego here an analysis of what Murray has termed Chomsky's
'publishing woes' and the standard myth of the young Chomsky's intellectual
isolation during the 1950s, a claim he never tires of reiterating (cf. Sklar 1968:214;
7a
Note that Chomsky's paper at the Congress was by no means the only one promoting TGG;
papers by William S-Y. Wang, Samuel R. Levin, Paul M. Postal, Emmon Bach, Paul Schachter,
and others too (cf. Lunt 1964:191-202, 308-314, 346-355, 672-677, 692-692, in that order) had
their share in it.
8
Following my paper on the present subject at the Univ. of Vienna on 16 December 1982,
Prof. Wolfgang Dressier, who was the president of the 1977 International Congress, commented
that, according to his information, there had never been as much money available for a congress as
for the one held at Cambridge, Mass., in 1962, and that there would probably never again be so
much money available in the future. According to him, hundreds (!) of foreign scholars had their
travel expenses paid by the congress organizers.
Chomsky 1979:131). As a matter of fact, and contrary to what Newmeyer

(1980:34-35) and others have been saying, Murray (1980, 1981) has convincingly
established that only one paper by Chomsky was ever rejected, and this by the then
editor of Word, André Martinet (b.1908), despite a strong recommendation by the
late Uriel Weinreich (1926-1967), the journal's associate editor at the time (cf.
Murray 1980:77). But then neither the journal nor the editor subscribed to the
Bloomfieldian type of structuralism that was at the bottom of Chomsky's
linguistics. Language, the official organ of the Linguistic Society, and with it its
long-time editor, Bernard Bloch (1907-1965), supported Chomsky in every
possible way. Similar observations could be made about the publication of
Chomsky's books; consider Murray's (1980:76-77) account of the fate of The
Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, which the author released for publication
some twenty years after it had been written, although previous offers to publish it
had been made (see also Chomsky's own [1975:3] account of this). As can be
gathered from Chomsky's bibliography, he published papers in all recognized out
lets in the field, especially in Language and the International Journal ofAmertican
Linguistics (UAL) during 1954-1961 (cf. Koerner & Tajima [1986:3-13] for
details).
Another important aspect of the success story of TGG during the 1960s had
little to do with scholarship. Newmeyer (1980), who regarded it as a com
mendable feature on the part of the young adherents of TGG, describes it in the
following terms (p.50):
The missionary zeal with which "the other guys" 9 were attacked may have led
some linguists, along with Wallace Chafe (1970), to be "repelled by the arrogance
with which [the generativists'] ideas were propounded [p.2]," but overall the effect
was positive. Seeing the leaders of the field constantly on the defensive at every
professional meeting helped recruit younger linguists far more successfully and
rapidly than would have been the case if the debate had been confined to the
journals. [Robert Benjamin] Lees and [Paul Martin] Postal, in particular, became
legends as a result of their uncompromising attacks on every structuralist [i.e.,
non-TGG] -oriented paper at every meeting.
Newmeyer hints that both Chomsky and Morris Halle encouraged students to
engage in this type of polemical activity which frequently enough turned into ad-
hominem attacks; he also (pp.50-51) concedes that there may have been some
excesses:
The combative spirit may have gotten a bit out of hand at times, as even
undergraduate advocates of the theory such as Thomas Bever and James Fidelholtz
9
Sampson (1980:252, n.12) reports that the "course which Halle's and Chomsky's department
offers on non-Chomskyan linguistics [...] is popularly known, by staff and students alike as The
Bad Guys'. Obviously the name is not intended [to be taken] too seriously, but it is indicative [of
their general attitude towards the ideas of others displayed at MIT]". (I am completing here Samp
son's elliptical sentence: KK.)
got into the act, embarrassing their teachers as they ruthlessly Ht into linguists old
enough to be their grandparents.
It was in the publications and, in particular, in the public debates of the followers
of TGG that the rhetoric of revolution, the claim to novelty, 'creativity', and
originality, came to the fore, coupled with the claim of a lack of comprehension and
support on the part of the older generation of linguists. Murray (1980) has shown,
on the contrary, that support from the elder academics was indeed forthcoming.
For instance, Chomsky was invited twice, in 1958 and 1959, to expound his
theories at conferences on the structure of English held at the University of Texas at
Austin. If we are to believe Newmeyer (1980:46), however, Archibald Hill
(b.1902), the organizer and host of these conferences had invited Chomsky for the
express purpose of "confronting it [i.e., TGG] directly with the intent of snuffing it
out before any serious damage could be done [to Bloomfieldian structuralism]".
Anyone familiar with Hill as a person would find this hard to believe, and everyone
interested in verifying what happened at the 1958 conference may read the
faithfully transcribed discussion following the presentation of each paper. "Here",
according to Newmeyer (1980:35),
we can see the history documented as nowhere else - Chomsky, the enfant terrible,
taking on some of the giants of the field and making them look like rather confused
students in a beginning linguistics course.
Personally, I do not notice any 'giant' in the roster of speakers, but it is clear from
the proceedings (Hill 1962) that Chomsky was little interested in compromise;
instead, he sought ways to make his ideas look controversial, because in his
words"they go to the root of the problem and give radical answers", as he later
claimed in an interview, where he expounded on his general attitude as follows:
Even before I came to M.I.T. [i.e., 1955], I was told that my work would arouse
much less antagonism if I didn't always couple my presentation of transformational
grammar with a sweeping attack on empiricists and behaviorists and on other
linguists. A lot of kind older people who were well disposed toward me told me I
should stick to my own work and leave other people alone. But that struck me as
an anti-intellectual counsel. (Mehta 1971:190-191)
It is clear from this statement (as well as others made by Chomsky publicly and
privately) that the new theory was to be presented in a polemical fashion.
However, during the 1950s and even until the mid-1960s, most American linguists
of the older generation were well disposed not only toward Chomsky as a person
but also toward his theory. The Bloomfieldian descriptivists felt that Chomsky's
syntactic theory was extending their own endeavours, and the fact that he had done
his doctorate with Zellig Harris at Pennsylvania persuaded them to believe that he
was one of theirs. Despite the attacks on the Old Guard by Chomsky and his
associates, the fairly positive attitude of the older generation of scholars (which
included not only the 'Bloomfieldians' but the 'Sapirians' as well) did not
noticeably change until Halle and Chomsky began attacking their work in
phonology, an area typically ignored in Newmeyer's (1980) survey of TGG.10

We may refer to the exchange between Householder (1965) and Chomsky & Halle
(1965), as well as Hockett's verdict about "Chomskyan-Hallean 'phonology'",
which, in his opinion (Hockett 1968a:3), was "completely bankrupt". Hockett had
earlier (1965:187) indicated his reactions to the style of Young Turks like Lees:
We do not enjoy being told that we are fools. We can shrug off an imprecation
from a religious fanatic, because it does not particularly worry us that every such
nut is sure he holds the only key to salvation. But when a respected colleague
holds our cherished opinions up toridicule,there is always the sneaking suspicion
that he may be right.
Although Hockett was referring to Lees' review of Syntactic Structures and the
introductory remarks Lees had made in his Grammar of English Nominalizations
(1960), the real bone of contention was phonology and the phoneme concept, as
Murray (1981:110-111) has pointed out; compare Archibald A. Hill's observation:
I think that if one can speak of partial survival [in the revolution of Chomskyan
and post-Chomskyan linguistics], I have partially survived it. [...]. I could stay
with the Transformationalists pretty well, until they attacked my darling, the
phoneme. I will never be a complete transformationalist because I am still a
phonemicist. (Hill 1980:75)
Hill's statement is an important document for the historian of linguistics since it

dispels the widely accepted myth that it was the early work on syntax that had
revolutionized linguistics (and antagonized the older generation). Note Bierwisch's
(1971:45) affirmation: "When Chomsky published Syntactic Structures in 1957,
structural linguistics entered a new phase".11 Newmeyer goes a few steps further,
trying to establish the view that in fact a revolution was taking place at that time,
and that it began in 1955, when Chomsky had completed his "truly incredible work
of the highest degree of creativity", i.e., his study The Logical Structure of
Linguistic Theory (henceforth LSLT), which "completely shattered the prevailing
structuralist conception of linguistic theory" (Newmeyer 1980:35). Newmeyer
10
In the preface to his book Newmeyer (1980:xi) states: "In fact, there is no discussion of
developments in phonology since the early 1960s." Apart from one of his colleague's (at the
Univ. of Washington, Seattle) suggestion that Newmeyer would not know enough about the
subject to write about its evolution, it is a simple fact that volumes of collective articles on
'generative linguistics', at least those published during the 1970s, are heavily tilted toward
phonology, with comparatively few contributions devoted to syntax. This may have changed
somewhat since the early 1980s when the Government-and-Binding approach became popular
among the new generation of linguists trained at MIT, Amherst, UCLA, USC, and a few other
places (e.g., the University of Arizona). - The history of phonology by Anderson (1985), while
not free from generativist bias, has been judged as much more balanced that Newmeyer's (1980)
treatment of syntax (cf. Howell 1986).
11
Note that Bierwisch (1971), in contrast to later 'historians' of TGG, regards Chomsky's work
as 'structural linguistics', which indeed it is.
does not adduce much evidence to support his claim, something which would be
difficult to do since this bulky work was published only twenty years later
(Chomsky 1975). In his 1986 paper on 'the Chomskyan revolution' Newmeyer
(p.8) now concedes that Bernard Bloch, "arguably the most influential linguist of
the period, concretely abetted Chomsky and his theory in a number of ways", as
Murray (1980) had clearly documented earlier (see also Newmeyer [1980:47-48]
for an early indication of Bloch's support of TGG).
As a matter of fact, by the mid-sixties the North American linguistic scene was
much like the characterization that Sydney Lamb gave it in his review of Current
Isues in Linguistic Theory and Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Chomsky 1964,
1965):
The prevailing attitudes are of two different types. Older-generation linguists, upon
encountering some of these pages [in Chomsky 1964 and 1965], will stare with
incredulity and no little irritation at the distortions and misunderstandings of their
ideas and practices and those of their colleagues; while students who never knew
what neo-Bloomfieldian linguistics was really like, and those fromfieldsoutside
linguistics, are led to the false impression that all linguists before Chomsky
(except, of course, Humboldt, Sapir, and a few other candidates for canonization)
were hopelessly misguided bumblers, from whose inept clutches Chomsky has
heroically rescued thefieldof linguistics. (Lamb 1967:414)
No doubt the fact that a great many, if not most, of the Ph.D. students that arrived
at M.I.T. during the mid-1960s came from fields outside linguistics such as
chemistry (e.g., Lees, James A. Foley), mathematics (e.g., McCawley), and other
sciences (e.g., Terence Langendoen, S.B., M.I.T., 1961) and, as a result, had no
prior exposure to, and no previous theoretical commitments within, linguistics,
fostered this view of things as described by Lamb.
1.4 Continuity and/or discontinuity. It is interesting to note that Newmeyer, who

has tried so hard to establish something like a rupture épistémologique (Bachelard)
between Chomsky's theories and those of his immediate predecessors, refers to
two papers by Harris and Hockett published in 1954, which contain statements
which sound very 'Chomskyan' to me. According to Newmeyer (1980:37), these
statements must be regarded as uncharacteristic of the work of these two theorists.
I presume he means that they were intellectual Entgleisungen, accidental slips of the
pen, which, as Newmeyer maintains, "clashed head-on with their usual method
ological assumptions" and that therefore, "it is not surprising that they did not
develop them." While it is true that neither Harris nor Hockett developed the
generative model now associated with Chomsky's name, nevertheless the context
in which these ideas were put forward indicate clearly that they were anything but
mental lapses. It is obvious, however, that those stressing discontinuity rather than
continuity in the development of American linguistics during the later 1950s would
like to see it that way. In order to answer this question about their theoretical
outlook, let us inspect the two 1954 papers by Harris and Hockett separately as
well as earlier statements by these two scholars in view of Newmeyer's recent
attempt to push the date of the origin of TGG back to 1951, i.e., Chomsky's M.A.
Thesis (Newmeyer 1986a:5n.4). In this connection, it may be interesting to read
that George Lakoff, himself an early adherent of 'modern linguistics', regarded at
least the earlier phase of TGG as "a natural outgrowth of American structural
linguistics" (1971:267-268).
1.4.1 Harris. Zellig S. Harris' 1954 paper is entitled "Transfer Grammar". (The
terminological change from 'transfer grammar' to 'transformational grammar'
appears to me comparable to the terminological pair 'evolution theory' and
'evolutionary theory'; Wells, writing in 1963, spoke of 'transformation theory'.)
In his paper Harris was concerned with developing a model of language transfer,
i.e., the construction of methods by which phonological, morphological, and also
syntactic structures of one language could be transferred to those of another
language. In short, Harris was working on a theory of language translation which
could be used by a machine. As mentioned earlier in this paper, machine
translation was one of the major interests of theoretical linguists at the time (cf.,
e.g., Bar-Hillell 1954, Casagrande 1954, Locke 1955) and got considerable finan
cial support from various government agencies. Harris (1954a:259) believed that
one should begin the task of mechanical translation by
defining difference between languages as the number and content of the grammatical
instructions needed to generate the utterances of one language out of the utterances
of the other. (Italics mine: KK)
He subsequently defines 'grammar' as "a set of instructions which generates the

sentences of a language" (p.260), and this definition is repeated in the paper - in
other words, it was not meant to be a remark à part but a definition, at least an
operational one. Section 5 of Harris' paper (pp.267-270) is devoted to syntax, an
area which is said to have been neglected by linguists before Chomsky (cf.,
however, Bloomfield 1942a,b; Nida 1966[1943]; Bloch 1946). Interestingly,
Harris proposes a transfer of sentences from English to Modern Hebrew, a
language whose morphophonemic system occupied Chomsky for a number of
years (1949-51). (To argue, as Newmeyer [1980:34] does, that Harris never
"even looked at it [i.e., Chomsky (1951)]", is at best gratuitous.) The chart on
page 268 of Harris' paper, its explanation and the discussion deserve particular
attention, since they show quite clearly his tendency to formalization. This
penchant for mathematical formulae and algebraic expression, which characterizes
Chomsky's approach to syntax in Syntactic Structures several years later, is also
very obvious in Harris' Methods in Structural Linguistics, a book which Chomsky
read in proof form in 1947. Chomsky (1975:25) in fact acknowledged that this
reading was his "formal introduction to the field of linguistics" (Chomsky 1975:
25). In the early 1950s, Chomsky (p.29) was "firmly committed to the belief that
the procedural analysis of Harris' Methods and similar work should really provide
complete and accurate grammars if properly redefined and elaborated." But before
quoting an interesting passage from Harris' Methods, which Norman McQuown
(b.1914) called 'epoch-making' in his 1952 review (p.495), let me refer to an

important statement by Harris in his 1954 paper (which Chomsky may have seen in
manuscript a year or two prior to its publication), as it shows that Harris had a
definite purpose in mind when he distinguished between 'transfer grammar' and
'transformational grammar':
Even in the grammar of a single language by itself, it is possible to generate some

of the sentences of the language out of other sentences of the same language by
particular grammatical transformations. However the conditions for these
grammatical transformations are quite different from those that carry us from the
sentences of one language to those of another [as in transfer grammar]. (Harris
1954:260n.2)
Statements like this speak for themselves and refute suggestions that "such views
clashed head-on with (Harris') usual methodological assumptions" and that it
required Chomsky to come along and develop them (Newmeyer 1980:37). Note
also Harris' formulation of a principle of formation rules in his Methods completed
in 1947:
The work of analysis leads right up to the statements which enable anyone to
synthesize or predict utterances in the language. These statements form a deductive
system with axiomatically defined initial elements and with theorems concerning
the relations among them. The final theorems would indicate the structure of the
utterances of the language in terms of the preceding parts of the system. (Harris
1951:372-373)
That an approach like this was important for his development of the theory of
transformational grammar is acknowledged by Chomsky when he reports on his
early research:
When I began to investigate generative syntax more seriously a few years later
[i.e., after completion of Chomsky (1951)], I was able to adopt for this purpose a
new concept that had been developed by Zellig Harris and some of his students,
namely, the concept of "grammatical transformation". It was quickly apparent that
with this new concept, many of the inadequacies of the model that I had used earlier
could be overcome. (Chomsky 1975:40-41)
Seen in this light, it is no longer surprising when McQuown found Harris'

emphasis on following basic methodological assumptions to their logical
conclusion 'wholly admirable', and considered Harris' contribution to linguistics
epoch-marking in the double sense: first in that it marks the culmination of a

development of linguistic methodology AWAY from a stage of intuitionism,
frequently culture-bound; and second in that it marks the beginning of a new period,
in which the new methods will be applied ever more rigorously to ever widening
areas in human culture. (McQuown 1952:495)
Chomsky was unquestionably the most important developer of key ideas first
formulated by Harris. Regarding this we have Chomsky's own account (1975:41-
45), where he delineates (in his inimitable way) the basic lines of argument made in
Harris' 1955 Presidential Address to the Linguistic Society of America, "Trans

formation in Linguistic Structure" — published two years later with a different title
(Harris 1957). lla More or less the same ideas were published in a much later
paper (Harris 1965), by which time Chomsky's and Harris' views had visibly
diverged. However, it should not be forgotten that Chomsky was also familiar
with Harris' earlier papers on 'discourse analysis', which clearly pave the way for
the study of syntax (Harris 1952a, 1952b - mentioned only in a footnote in
Chomsky's account [1975:46n.6].) I could go back to even earlier statements by
Harris (especially his Methods whose preface [p.v] is dated 'January 1947') to
show that his concern with the subject of syntax did not only date from 1951
onwards. The contrary view would ignore the fact that the post-Bloomfieldians
had been struggling with the problem for some time, at least on the level of what
was later called 'phrase structure' (see the long article by Rulon Wells on
'immediate constituents' of 1947 as evidence of this effort). In this context it is
interesting to note that Daladier [1980:59n.l], who otherwise is at pains to show
that Chomsky and Harris are worlds apart, affirms that Chomsky took the
distinction between 'acceptability' and 'grammaticality' from Harris.
To sum up, it appears that the closer we look into the discussion going on in
American linguistics during the late 1940s and early 1950s, the more obvious it
becomes that what many people today want to call a 'revolution', namely, the
movement said to have been initiated by the publication of Chomsky's Syntactic
Structures, was at most an evolution of then current work (cf. Anders 1984). As
late as 1973, reviewing a volume of selected papers by Leonard Bloomfield, Harris
points to this continuity in American linguistics when he states (p.255):
The work of Bloomfield can be looked at as paving the way for the later methods of
transformational analysis. But his work is not only of historical relevance. It
created the apparatus for a certain type and degree of linguistic analysis, and the body
of analytic concepts which are a necessary part of any theory of grammar.
It can be seen that Newmeyer's recent attempt to establish the priority of
Chomsky over Harris (and Hockett — see 1.4.2 below) by referring to
"Chomsky's undergraduate thesis and his 1951 master's thesis" as antedating "the
[1954] Harris and Hockett papers by several years" (1986a:5n.4) simply doesn't
hold water. Indeed, in his 1980 book Newmeyer himself (p.36) mentioned Bloom-
field's 1939 paper on Menomini morphophonemics as well as Roman Jakobson's
1948 paper on Russian conjugation as exhibiting clearly the spirit "of a generative
phonology". It is therefore not surprising to find references to these two
publications in the printed version of Chomsky's Logical Structure of Linguistic
Theory (LSLT) of 1955 (Chomsky 1975:571, 572), even though a number of
other revealing references contained in the original typescript, notably those to
Hjelmslev's 1953 Prolegomena, are removed. Also noteworthy is Henry Kucera's
lla
It is interesting to note that, as late as 1964, three papers by Harris, including this LSA Pre
sidential address, were republished in a volume edited by Fodor & Katz and evidently intended to pro
mote TGG.
claim that Jakobson's "Russian Conjugation" of 1948 constitutes "a full generative
description on the morphological level" (1983:878). Its publication in Word, the
only other linguistic journal of the period, besides Language and International
Journal of American Linguistics (IJAL), makes it highly unlikely that Chomsky
was not aware of this paper by 1949. (For Chomsky's early exposure to Jakob-
son's ideas during his four years as a Junior Fellowship holder at Harvard, see
Chomsky's own account of 1983.)
At least until the 1960s, when Chomsky began introducing the concepts of
'deep' or 'underlying structure' in contrast with 'surface structure' — cf. Chomsky
[1965:198-199n.l2] for the ancestry of this distinction — the difference in
Chomsky's approach to syntax as found in LSLT and Syntactic Structures
(compared to Harris' approach in his 1954 paper for example) seems to be that
Chomsky was concerned with transfers (and transpositions) within a single
language only (e.g., Chomsky 1957:61-84 passim).
Regarding the background to his work in a more general way, it is
interesting to note that Chomsky consistently denied that it had anything to do with
"attempts to use electronic computers" (e.g., Chomsky 1964:25; cf. also Chomsky
1982:63). It seems to me, however, that Chomsky is engaged in rewriting his own
past, as he has done on various occasions, probably in an attempt to widen the
difference between his work and Harris' and to suggest discontinuity and novelty
of his own approach. Thus in a 1979 interview Chomsky tried to explain away as
simply a concession to the prevailing fashion of the times that Syntactic Structures
contained a discussion of automata (Chomsky 1982:63). Given the fact that he
was employed since the fall of 1955 at the Research Laboratory of Electronics at
M.I.T., one would indeed expect such contemporary references. Thus in a 1958
paper (conveniently ignored in Newmeyer 1980 and its revised 1986 edition),
Chomsky suggested, among other things, that
the study of this intermediate area between full scale Turing machines and
absolutely bounded automata is however quite important, not only for linguistics
(it is, in a good sense, the general theory of grammar), but also [... ] of intellectual
processes. (Chomsky 1958:437; also cited in Maher 1982:18)
That the reference to computer work cannot be discounted as a passing remark may
be gathered from a 1971 interview (Mehta 1971, cited in Maher 1982:17), in which
Chomsky said much the same. This is not at all surprising when we note that his
collaborator Morris Halle stated in the 1959 preface to the publication of the bulk of
his 1955 thesis:
I have assumed that an adequate description of a language can take the form of a set
of rules -- analogous perhaps to a program of an electronic computing machine --
which when provided with further special instructions, could in principle produce
all and only well-formed (grammatical) utterances in the language in question.
This set of rules, which we shall call the grammar of the language and of which
phonology [i.e., Halle's special interest: KK] forms a separate chapter, embodies
what one must know in order to communicate in the given language ... (Halle
1959:12-13)
Halle's statement, in which he clearly aligns himself with Chomsky's work (as is
evident from the two immediately preceding paragraphs in his foreword) leads us
back to the other important 1954 paper, namely, Charles Hockett's celebrated
"Two Models of Grammatical Description", to which Chomsky refers frequently in
his writings during 1955 and 1964.
1.4.2 Hockett. Since Newmeyer (1980:37) refers to Charles F. Hockett's "Two

Models of Grammatical Description" as one of the two 1954 papers that 'uncharac
teristically' contained the seed of generative grammar, this well-known, program
matic article merits somewhat closer inspection. Hockett (1954:210) himself said,
the "bulk of the [...] paper was written between 1949 and 1951"; but because of
the fact that he recognized, in 1951, that it gave the "erroneous impression that
there were principally just two archetypes [of grammatical description] to be dealt
with", he withheld the paper from publication for a number of years. However,
the typescript version was circulating among Hockett's colleagues as early as 1951
(cf. Voegelin & Voegelin 1963:25), and it appears that Hockett made use of it
when the editors of Word, specifically André Martinet (b.1908) asked him for a
contribution to their special volume celebrating the tenth anniversary of the journal
which they entitled "Linguistics Today". (The volume features, among others, a
paper by Benoît Mandelbrot on "Structure formelle des textes et communication",
one by Zellig Harris on "Distributional Structure", and one by Rulon Wells on
"Meaning and Use".) In his paper Hockett makes, as I read it, a strong argument
in favour of a dynamic - in his terminology 'Item and Process' (IP) ~ approach, in
contrast to the more usual 'Item and Arrangement' (IA) approach characteristic of
the most of the work done until then in North American linguistics, although, as
Hockett (1954:210-211) himself remarked, the IP model was the older, though it
had largely been confined to historical linguistics.
Hockett's paper is intended as an important theoretical statement; indeed, we
see him grappling with problems which Chomsky attacked soon after more
successfully, and it is not be difficult to see the importance the paper had for
Chomsky (cf. also his 1956 paper, whose title echoes Hockett's). In his argu
ment, Hockett makes a series of theoretical statements and definitions, first with
regard to IA analysis (211-227), giving particular attention to the problems arising
from various definitions. Then, parallel to the preceding discussion, he presents
the various definitions basic to a descriptive analysis within a process framework
(227-28), before making a comparison between the two approaches (229-232).
The final page (232-233) consists of a discussion of more general considerations in
'grammatical description'. I shall return shortly to this last-mentioned issue; be
fore doing so, however, I would like to quote one of the statements made by
Hockett with regard to IP analysis, the one pertaining to 'derived forms'. Hockett
says:
A derived form consists of one or more UNDERLYING FORMS to which a process

has been applied. The underlying forms and the process all recur (save for
occasional uniqueness) in other forms. The underlying form or forms is (or are) the
IMMEDIATE CONSTITUENT(S) of the derived form, [...] (Hockett 1954:227-228;
small capitals in the original).
When we axe told by Chomsky that his first interest in language derived from his
acquaintance during childhood with his father's historical work on classical
Hebrew and that his "original interest in generative grammar was based on a
perfectly conscious analogy to historical Semitic linguistics" (quoted in Koerner
1978:44; see also Yergin 1972:112), it is not surprising to find terms and concepts
such as 'derivation' and 'underlying form' in Chomsky's non-historical work.
Indeed, as Hockett indicates (pp.210-211), Chomsky's teacher Harris referred to
this historical analogue in his work as early as in 1944.
If the above theoretical considerations are little else than what was common
knowledge in the field at the time, a number of Hockett's general stipulations
regarding the criteria "for the evaluation of a grammatical description" were
probably not. Apart from the criteria of generality, specificity, and what he terms
'efficiency' of a model, the requirement of 'productivity' deserves particular
attention, especially since it is related to another observation to which I shall turn in
a moment:
(4) A model must be PRODUCTIVE: when applied to a given language, the results
must make possible the creation of an indefinite number of valid new utterances.
This is the analog of the 'prescriptive' criterion for descriptions. (Hockett
1954:232-233; italics added: KK)
This criterion is preceded by one of 'inclusiveness', by which Hockett means that

when a model is "applied to a given language, the results must cover all the
observed data and, by implication, at least a very high percentage of all the not-yet-
observed data." That this is not simply an unimportant passing remark is clear
from the earlier general requirement of a satisfactory grammatical description:
The description must also be prescriptive, not of course in the Fidditch sense, but
in the sense that by following the statements one must be able to generate any
number of utterances in the language, above and beyond those observed in advance
by the analyst — new utterances most, if not all, of which will pass the test of
casual acceptance by a native speaker. (Hockett 1954:232; italics mine: KK)
It is clear that Hockett means something like 'predictive' when he uses the term
'prescriptive' (see also the preceding quotation). Moreover, Hockett's 1954 paper
was the result of a number of years of reflection, especially on the importance of
'prediction' in linguistic theory. This can be shown by two other important
theoretical statements of his, published in 1948 and 1950 (ignored by Newmeyer in
his 1980 book on the history of TGG as well as its second edition of 1986). Both
papers are short; the first was reprinted in Martin Joos' 1957 Readings in
Linguistics, included in Newmeyer's (1980:263) bibliography and thus accessible
to him; the other appeared in George L. Trager's working-paper-type journal
Studies in Linguistics (1943-1973). I am tempted simply to reproduce in full

Hockett's 1948 "A Note on 'Structure'", but a few salient passages will have to
suffice here to show how much the Cornell linguist - probably the general theorist
of his generation — was ahead of his time. Outlining the 'task of the structural
linguist, as a scientist', Hockett emphasizes that it must go much beyond clas
sification and the simple accounting for all the utterances which comprise the
corpus of a language at a given time; he states,
the analysis of the linguistic SCIENTIST is to be of such a nature that the linguist
can account also for utterances which are NOT in his corpus at a given time. That
is, as a result of his examination he must be able to predict what OTHER utterances
the speakers of the language might produce ... (Hockett 1948:269; small capitals in
the original).
And as if to anticipate much of Chomsky's later argument about 'mentalism' and

the 'language acquisition device', he continues in the next paragraph:
The analytical process thus parallels what goes on in the nervous system of a
language learner, particularly, perhaps, that of a child learning his first language.
The child hears, and eventually produces, various utterances. Sooner or later, the
child produces utterances he has not previously heard from someone else. (Hockett
1948:269-270)
The essential difference between the child's acquisition of the language and the
analyst's procedure is described by Hockett in the following terms:
... the linguist has to make his analysis overtly, in communicable form, in the
shape of a set of statements which can be understood by any properly trained
person, who in turn can predict utterances not yet observed with the same degree of
accuracy as can the original analyst. The child's 'analysis' consists, on the other
hand, of a mass of various synaptic potentials in his nervous system. The child in
time comes to BEHAVE the language; the linguist must come to STATE it.
(Hockett 1948:270; small capitals in the original)
In the final analysis, a 'linguistic scientist' must "determine the structure actually
created by the speakers of the language", not impose one, for "a language is what it
is, it has the structure it has, whether studied and analyzed by a linguist or not."
(Hockett 1948:270-271)
Referring to what he believes is the unquestionable promise of 'immediate
constituent' analysis, Hockett in his 1950 paper observed that it is "not an
analytical technique, but a hypothesis about the nature of talking and hearing
language"; at the same time he admitted:
The problem is to develop techniques by which the hierarchical structure of the

utterances of a language can be revealed and stated. A child learning to speak has
such a technique; our objective techniques are as yet quite faulty, but at least they
are good enough to reveal this very important feature of linguistic structure. A
similar remark applies to attributes and heads. (Hockett 1950:56)
1.4.3 Preliminary conclusions. From what has been presented in the two preced
ing sections of this paper, it is easy to see that what is frequently described as a
'revolution' in linguistics looks, upon closer inspection of the evidence, much
more like a natural outgrowth, an 'evolution', of theoretical discussions and
methodological commitments characteristic of the period immediately following the
end of World War II. True, neither Harris nor Hockett carried through on several
of their proposals, but the further development of certain aspects of their theoretical
statements by someone else, and especially by someone who grew up within their
tradition, does not make that person's theory revolutionary -- and it certainly was
not seen that way by the generation of Harris (b.1909) and Hockett (b.1916),
neither during the 1950s, nor the early 1960s.
1.5 Rewriting the history of TGG. Parallel to the 'eclipsing stance' (Voegelin &
Voegelin 1963:12) that Chomsky and his associates had adopted fairly early in the
development of TGG, various efforts were made from the beginning of the 1960s
onwards to rewrite the history of North American linguistics. Attempts by others
(e.g., Hymes & Fought 1981 [1975]) to redress the one-sided picture were
'categorically rejected' (Newmeyer 1980:5n.4). Today we are still witnessing half-
truths manufactured through omission as well as commission being sold as truths.
I will cite just two examples from Newmeyer's account, but could refer to numer
ous other such cases of distortions of facts and misrepresentations.12
On p.46 of his 1980 book, Newmeyer states that Hockett, in his 1964
presidential address (Hockett 1965:185), "actually characterized the publication of
Syntactic Structures as one of 'only four major breakthroughs' in the history of
modern linguistics". It is clear that at the time Hockett, aware of a possible rift
separating the old and the young, was making friendly overtures towards Chomsky
and his followers. Nevertheless, in the opening paragraph to his address, he does
not say what Newmeyer is claiming he said; rather, when he comes to talking
about what he terms 'the accountability hypothesis', Hockett in fact states the
following (p. 196):
We are currently [i.e., in 1964: KK] living in the period of what I believe is our
fourth major breakthrough; it is therefore difficult to see the forest for the trees, and
requires a measure of derecthesis on my part to say anything not wholly vague.
Instead of a long list of names, I shall venture only the two of which I am sure;
and since the two are rarely linked I shall carefully put them almost a sentence
apart. I mean Noam Chomsky on the one hand and, on the other, Sydney M.
Lamb. The order is intentional: Chomsky is unquestionably the prime mover.
No doubt this statement is much more measured than what Newmeyer makes us
believe; indeed, Sydney Lamb is not mentioned only in passing in the paper but is
12
Cf. the exchange between Newmeyer and his reviewer, Stephen Murray, in Historiographia
Linguistica 9.185-186 and 187 (1982) for additional examples, and also what I say in section 1.4
(above) of the present account.
referred to several times thereafter in conjunction with Chomsky and Halle's

(morpho)phonology (cf. Hockett 1965:200). Newmeyer's affirmation quoted
earlier may simply have been the result of a young writer's impatience with the
judicious observation of an intellectual. However, when one finds several more
such extrapolations of the statements of others that tend to say more than what was
actually said, one is no longer sure whether Newmeyer's accounts can indeed be
relied upon. To cite another example from his 1980 book. When he begins talking
about the 'Chomskyan Revolution', Newmeyer, after having highlighted the
importance of Lees' 'review' of Chomsky (1957), seeks further support for his
view that a revolution in linguistics had taken place at that time by referring to a
statement made by a scholar of the older generation, Charles (or Carl) Frederick
Voegelin (1906-1986), a former pupil of Edward Sapir (not Bloomfield) and
actually a good friend of Zellig Harris. Newmeyer writes (p.19):
And C. F. Voegelin (1958), in another review, noted that even if Syntactic

Structures managed to accomplish only part of its goals, "it will have accom
plished a Copernican revolution [p.229]."
Unfortunately it is impossible to reproduce Voegelin's argument in full, something

which would be desirable in a detailed history of transformational grammar, but I
shall cite at least two passages from his two-page review, one from which
Newmeyer has lifted the phrase he cites, another giving quite a different
interpretation of Chomsky's accomplishments.
Having stated that "immediately after reading Chomsky" he "had formed a
rather strong positive impression, and developed an equally strong negative bias",
Voegelin (1958:230) noted on 'the negative side',
I would not accept the strategy of criticism adopted by Chomsky and his explicator
[i.e., Robert Lees in his 'review' of Syntactic Structures: KK] -- putting the burden
of justification on anyone who would maintain the validity of pre-transform
grammar. Some would (almost) accept this; thus, one of my western friends says
that Chomsky (almost) convinced him that morphemics was a poor old dead dog.
And if transform grammar also persuades linguists to relegate phonemics to a
preliminary stage of analysis (called 'discovery'), and to operate in final analysis
(called 'description') exclusively with morphophonemics, it will have accomplished
a Copernican revolution.
I submit that this sounds quite different from the interpretation Newmeyer tries to
foist on his readers. Indeed, it is clear for Voegelin that Zellig Harris was the
inventor of this approach and that the "application of the principle of transformation
to grammar" was "certainly not new" (Voegelin 1958:230n.l). Furthermore,
Voegelin replies to his own rhetorical question "Will they [i.e., Chomsky, Lees,
and perhaps others] start a Copernican revolution within linguistics?" with the
following footnote:
A palace revolution, perhaps, in contrast to the interdisciplinary revolutions plotted

by David Bidney, Six Copernican Revolutions, Explorations I: Studies in Culture
and Communication pp. 6-14 (1953). (Voegelin 1958:230n.2)
Little needs to be added, I believe, to suggest that Newmeyer's quotations are at

best unreliable and at worst say virtually the opposite of what the authors say.
Voegelin's reference to a 'palace revolution', however, gets us back to our theme,
namely, the attempt of adherents of the TGG school to rewrite and eventually
cement a history of American linguistics corresponding to the advantages they see
in it for their own present-day position. (See now Newmeyer's [1986a:9-10n.11]
weak defense of his 'selective' interpretation of Voegelin's review.)
We have already mentioned Noam Chomsky's reiterated claim that he had
not been understood by his elder colleagues during the 1950s. The suggestion not
to be lost of course is that a kind of Kuhnian phenomenon of incommensurability
of theoretical views about language existed which ultimately led to a 'scientific
revolution'. We have also referred to Chomsky's repeated, though less than
'candid' (to use an expression prescribed for the use of Canadian parliamentarians)
remarks about the lack of publication possibilities for his 'radical' views of
linguistic theory - note that he did not make any of his political views known to the
public before 1966 (cf. Koerner & Tajima 1986:91), after Aspects (1965) and The
Sound Pattern of English13 had in fact been written.14
At the outset of this paper, I referred to Chomsky's attempts (from 1962
onwards) to rewrite the history of TGG by claiming, for one thing, 'Cartesian'
origins for his theory of language. In regard to this let me cite just one such
example. The absence of "any discussion of mentalism in Syntactic Structures"
was pointed out to Chomsky by interviewers in 1979, but - as the published
transcripts indicate, no reply was made by Chomsky except for a reference to the
'MIT-context' and the purpose of the book (i.e., to serve as teaching material for
an undergraduate course at M.I.T.) which, one supposes Chomsky felt, sufficed to
explain the omission (see Chomsky 1982:63). However, it appears from other
sources that statements concerning the mentalism idea - touched upon in his attack
on Skinner (Chomsky 1959) — were played up only from the early 1960s onwards
(cf. Katz 1964). Yet Chomsky, intent on rewriting his intellectual development,
does not want to have others see things this way. Thus Iain Boal, a linguist (who
taught the history of science at Harvard and was later working for California
University Press), comparing the 1975 printed version of LSLT with the 1955
manuscript, in which he found "no claims about making grammars psychologically
valid", noted the following:
13
This work, though published only in 1968, had been available in typescript form by 1964,
two years after Halle (1962) had 'opened up thefield'for the inclusion of phonology in TGG. It is
not quite correct to say, as Newmeyer (1980:40) does, perhaps in hindsight, that Halle's The
Sound Pattern of Russian, published in 1959, though largely derived from his dissertation
completed under Jakobson's supervision in 1955, constitutes the "first major work of generative
phonology".
14
A recent selection of Chomsky's political writings contains only a few newspaper articles
dating from the late 1960s (see Chomsky 1980).
Indeed, in the original mimeograph he [= Chomsky] said that "the introduction of

dispositions (or mentalistic terms) [e.g., mind, belief, meaning - IAB] is either
irrelevant or trivializes the theory", and he ruled out all talk of mind for "its
obscurity and general uselessness in linguistic theory". In the version published in
1975, these passages are expunged and he writes that the "psychological analogue"
(i.e., the radical idea that a grammar models knowledge that is actually incorprated
in our heads) "is not discussed but it lay in the background of my thinking. To
raise this issue seemed to me, at the time, too audacious." This has brought from
an old colleague of Chomsky the wry comment that 'it is hard not to be skeptical
about Chomsky's claim that timidity prevented a thought of his from becoming
known.' (Boal 1984:15)
There is no doubt in my mind that a careful comparison of the 1975 publication of

LSLT with the original typescript would yield many such instances where
Chomsky has revised his intellectual past. (I have already mentioned the deletion of
all references to Hjelmslev's Prolegomena -- whose English translation appeared
in 1953 — where there are many metalinguistic considerations that we find
discussed in Chomsky's work from 1955 onwards, and I expect to discover other
such instances of deletion as well as revision in of earlier positions in LSLT.)
However, writers of partisan histories of TGG, of which Newmeyer's Linguistic
Theory in America of 1980 is the most blatant example, rely on Chomsky's
depiction of the origins and development of TGG as if his accounts could be given
face value. On other occasions, Newmeyer treats his sources much more
selectively,15 and presents one particular line of thought in American linguistics as
15
In his review of Newmeyer's book, John Fought (1982:317) noted that Newmeyer's
treatment of Harris' role in the development of TGG was insufficient and faulty. It is true that
Newmeyer, quite in line with his attempt to emphasize the 'revolutionary' nature of Chomsky's
proposals, virtually eliminates the question of Harris' influence on Chomsky, suggesting instead
that Chomsky did just what his teacher tried to persuade him not to do. Typically, we would
search in vain in Newmeyer for references to documents that could weaken the image of TGG as
the theory that was 'winning over' (Newmeyer's term) the brightest linguists of the 'revolutionary'
period. I am referring to the 1962 debate on "The Advantages and Disadvantages of Transforma
tion Grammar" held in the framework of the 13th Annual Round Table Meeting at Georgetown
University, Washington, D.C., and published in the following year (Woodworm & DiPietro
1963:3-50) as just one example. The discussion was chaired by Eric P. Hamp; Paul M. Postal
was the main speaker. (Postal, although officially enrolled at Yale for his doctorate, actually
worked at MIT's Laboratory of Electronics at the time, and served as a crusader for TGG since
1961, especially at the LSA summer and winter meetings.)
Anyone reading the 48-page proceedings of the debate will understand why Newmeyer has
conveniently overlooked this important piece of historical evidence. To be sure, this encounter
does not show TGG winning in the way that Newmeyer depicts the march of the revolution in
linguistics: On every theoretical point or claim made by Postal at the symposium, he was very
effectively knocked down by Paul Garvin - a scholar whose career never quite came off, possibly,
if not probably, because he saw too early the flaws of transformational theory and could not be
won over to the TGG camp. It is certainly not surprising that Garvin's name does not appear even
once in Newmeyer's 250-page account of American linguistics.
From the exchange between Postal and Garvin, let me present just one excerpt to illustrate how
far transformationalists may go if pressed for explanations. Postal has just outlined what a
generative grammar could do in the analysis of sentences of a given language, when Garvin states
his objections (Woodworth & DiPietro 1963:36-37):
if it reflected the entire development of the discipline. For him the paradigmatic
nature of Syntactic Structures remains in force: "A truly alternative theory with any
credibility has yet to emerge" (p.20).
A historian of linguistics, however, knows that although certain hints may be
found (usually in hindsight) in the early works of a scholar or scientist who is
important in a field, it is usually a later work that becomes a clé de voûte for
subsequent research. We might mention, for example, Bopp's Conjugations-
system of 1816, which traditional histories of linguistics regard as the beginning of
comparative linguistics (as if Schlegel's work of 1808 had not mapped out the field
in which Bopp and others were to harvest thereafter); however, it was Bopp's
Vergleichende Grammatik appearing in successive volumes from 1833 onwards
which provided the framework for the subsequent generation of comparative-
historical linguists. Similarly, it was with his Compendium der vergleichenden
Grammatik of 1861-62 (4th ed., 1876), not with his earlier books, that Schlei
cher's work became paradigmatic for linguistic research of much of the next three
and more decades (cf. Koerner 1982). In the case of Saussure, the situation is
somewhat more complicated because the Cours was published posthumously and
did not have the author's imprimatur.16 In addition, a number of factors external
(but also internal) to linguistics delayed the impact of his synchronic theory of
language.
From these observations it is not surprising that the 'revolution' in 'modern'
linguistics should be associated with Chomsky's later synthesis rather than with his
early writings. In this connection, we may refer to the opinion of James D.
McCawley. According to him (who takes Kuhn's morphology of scientific
revolutions for granted), it was Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965) rather than
MR. GARVIN: I would disagree for one very serious reason. One way of verifying the
validity of a theory is by writing a recognition routine based on this allegedly correct,
and allegedly only correct grammar, and then by seeing whether it indeed does
"recognize." I deliberately mentioned the Washington Post and Times Herald, because
to a large number of speakers of English, it contains grammatical sentences.
MR. POSTAL: Most of the sentences would not be sentences at all.
MR. GARVIN: What a preposterous claim! On behalf of the Washington Post I
protest! This is a very common brand of English.
MR. POSTAL: I would say it is a very common brand of non-English, that is, not
complete English sentences.
MR. GARVIN: Then, of course, you are in the marvelous position where whenever you
can't analyze something you simply say, "this is not English."
Observers of the linguistic scene of the 1960s and early 1970s will no doubt remember the debate
over 'gammaticality' (cf. Hill's early critique of 1961) and related notions, and realize that Garvin's
hunches were correct
16
Interestingly enough, Calvert Watkins told me that in his view scholars who do not fully
grasp the significance of Saussure's Mémoire of 1878 are unable to understand the meaning of his
Cours either. See his paper, "Remarques sur la méthode de Ferdinand de Saussure comparatiste",
Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 32.59-68 (1978).
Syntactic Structures (1957) that provided the basis for a 'revolution', for several
reasons: (1) Aspects "brought semantics out of the closet" (McCawley 1976b:6),
which "increased the inherent interest in doing transformational syntax, as well as
making it relatively easy to come up with analyses that stood a chance of being
right" (p.7); (2) its 'greater systematicity' made the theory more appealing and
"relatively easy to determine what the grosser implications of a given analysis
were" (pp.7-8), and (3) the separation of syntactic category from "various factors
that affect what co-occurs with what" (p.7) made it "relatively easy to formulate
transformational analyses in general terms without any loss of precision, and to
start dealing seriously with syntactic universals" (p.8).
No doubt McCawley had Kuhn's idea of a 'scientific paradigm' in mind
when he formulated his views on the status of Aspects, especially Kuhn's
(1970:10) suggestion concerning the relative open-endedness of those works
which "leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to
resolve". In other words, if we are going to talk about something remotely
resembling a revolution in syntax during the past twenty or more years, it should
be associated with Chomsky's work of the 1960s, and in particular with the
introduction of the concept of 'deep strucure' and associated notions, which were
absent from his earlier writings, i.e., with Aspects rather than with Syntactic
Structures, despite the impression that Chomsky and his associates have tried to
create, and which at times succeeded in impressing certain post-Bloomfieldians of
the earlier 1960s. As we may gather from the history of the neogrammarian school
(cf. Koerner 1981), the propaganda made by adherents of a particular view of
linguistic theory and the impression it produces on the minds of many of their
contemporaries is one thing; the actual story of how it was -- "wie es eigentlich
gewesen" (Ranke 1824:vi) - is quite another.
2.0 Concluding Observations
This essay suggests that we are still far removed from an adequate history of
linguistics in North America for the past fify years or so, in particular where the
sources and the development of transformational-generative grammar are con
cerned. An effort has been made to identify several issues which need to be
clarified and areas which ought to be investigated more closely. In my opinion, the
task is not an easy one for a number of reasons, including that of the vested
interests of what has been called 'institutional linguistics' in holding the camp
together and in fighting off 'heresies' as well as 'counter-revolutions' (cf.
Newmeyer's [1980:167ff.] account of the 'collapse of generative semantics'). But
there are basic problems of scholarship as well, including that of outlining an exact
chronology — which in a history of TGG is of vital importance if an accurate
picture of the on-going theoretical discussion is to be obtained — which Newmeyer,
perhaps for reasons of convenience, chooses to ignore. Anyone even the least
superficially familiar with TGG and the behaviour of transformationalist
grammarians knows, among other things, that many of their products circulate only
among members of the 'in'-group, with a number of papers never being printed or
only published after many years, by which time many positions therein defended
have long been discretely abandoned (cf. . N. Grunig's [1982:290] account of
this traditional strategy.)17 However Newmeyer (1980:xii-xiii), for his part,
stresses: "Throughout the text, I cite books and articles by the year of their first
publication, not by the year that they were written." For example, McCawley's
(1976b) edition of a significant number of papers dating from between 1960 and
1967, published under the title of Notes from the Linguistic Underground is tucked
away in Newmeyer's bibliography (1980:268) under the innocuous series title
"Syntax and Semantics", vol.7; besides, there is no indication that any of the
papers published therein has actually been used in his own twisted account of the
history of TGG.
The situation is quite frustrating for the historiographer of linguistics trying
to establish what really happened in order to present an adequate picture of the
history of linguistics in North America during the past forty or more years.
Polemics, even if written in masterly manner with the insight and humour that
Maher (1982) achieves, proves ineffective. Those who believe Maher is right do
not belong to the TGG camp, and those who belong to it, stonewall his challenge:
they will not read his (or anyone else's) work (unless it subscribes to the basic
tenets of TGG); there is a general agreement among them to keep silent about such
non-TGG work, and students are asked by their teachers to ignore it. Polemic
exchanges, it appears, are valuable when both sides are in search of truth, but there
are few signs that those who associate themselves with the 'Chomskyan Revolu
tion' are in any non-trivial way interested in that. Newmeyer certainly isn't, and
Chomsky and his associates have consistently shown themselves to only want to
win the fight, and in such a manner that no rematch will take place.18
Meanwhile 'organizational linguistics' (which is largely controlled by people
associated with Chomsky's views) makes it possible that within less than a year of
17
That this technique of referring to either still unpublished or not readily accessible papers and
dissertations (so well displayed in Chomsky's Syntactic Structures) in support of one's particular
theory or claim is still practiced among members of the TGG camp, I witnessed myself in Spring
1982, when a doctoral student from M.I.T. gave a paper at the University of Ottawa. (Indeed, a
similar event took place here as recently as November 1987 on the occasion of another paper given
by an M.I.T. Ph.D.) - For just one example from a printed source, the reader may refer to
Linguistic Theory and Natural Language 6.128 (1988), where altogether 14 references can be
found, of which 7 are to unpublished writings (mostly MIT dissertations) and an eighth - by the
author of the paper - to a forthcoming article.
18 As a typical example of the tactics employed by Chomsky's associates, one can refer to the
well-documented exchange between Uriel Weinreich and Jerrold J. Katz. The latter incorporated
many corrections to faults in his theory to which Weinreich had alerted him in his criticism,
pretending that they had been his own initiatives. Cf. Katz's "Recent Issues in Semantic Theory",
Foundations of Language 3.124-194, and Weinreich's brief response, in which he expressed his
astonishment about such a procedure, "On Arguing with Mr. Katz", ibid., 284-287 (1967).
the publication of Newmeyer's book, a glowing review (if this word is appropriate
here) appears in Language (the journal with the widest circulation of all linguistics
periodicals). The 'review' written by a colleague of Newmeyer's, and like New-
meyer serving as associate editor of the journal at the time (Napoli 1981). No
doubt the question of 'The Politics of Linguistics' needs to be addressed; but in a
manner much different from Newmeyer's recent book by that title (Newmeyer
1986b; cf. Murray 1989). In that book no attempt is made to lay bare the operation
of social networks in the manner of, for instance, Murray (1983). Newmeyer
instead published a paper defending the 'Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics'
(Newmeyer 1986a), where he argued that it occurred 'sociologically' and 'intellec
tually', while at the same time denying that there was any 'power grab' (p.9) on the
part of the TGG school, unexpectedly claiming that "their influence [in American
linguistics] is disproportionately small" (p.12). In a footnote (p.l2n.l4) New
meyer acknowledges that "Paul Chapin, the National Science Foundation Director
for linguistics, has a doctorate from MIT", but that the "1983 advisory panel
contained only one generativist". What he does not mention is the important fact
that Chapin — the seventh Ph.D. student of Chomsky's (cf. Koerner & Tajima
1986:196) — has now been in this position for well over 15 years, and that, of the
millions of dollars distributed by the agency's Linguistics Program, M.I.T. and its
branch plants have received - and I am referring to the later 1960s and early 1970s
especially — a considerable, and at times a rather disproportionate amount (as may
be gathered from the NSF's annual reports). Furthermore, what Newmeyer does
not mention in his 1986 paper is the fact that Chomsky's first (official) doctoral
student, D. Terence Langendoen, has been Secretary-Treasurer of the Linguistic
Society of America since 1984, and that he was preceded by Victoria A. Fromkin
(from 1979), who can surely be included in the TGG camp. (Indeed, if we accept
Newmeyer's own account, according to which there are "many major universities
[...] dominated by non-generativists" [1986a: 12], and where he suggests that the
number of generativists is actually fairly small, it is noticeable that they are dis-
proportionally overrepresented in the important LSA committees. For instance --
as may be gathered from the LSA Bulletin No.117 of October 1987 - the
Nominating Committee proposed two candidates for the 1988-90 Executive Com
mittee, one an M.I.T. Ph.D., the other a distinguished generativist, with a third
candidate, who did his doctorate at M.I.T. in 1976, being nominated by more than
ten LSA members.)
Unlike the LSA president (note that Chomsky's third doctoral student,
Barbara Hall Partee, was president in 1986, preceded by Victoria Fromkin in 1985,
and followed by Elizabeth Traugott, also an early associate of the TGG school, in
1987), who usually does not exercise much influence during his/her one-year
tenure, the secretary-treasurer, who is an ex officio member of most of the
important committees (e.g., those distributing travel grants, fellowships, delegate
positions), plays an important role in American linguistics; besides, we should not
forget that the LSA is by far the largest professional organization of linguists in the
world. But this question of 'organizational linguistics', i.e., the power and
influence utilized by people who, whenever an associate of the 'TGG paradigm' is

criticized, rush to his/her defence, does not stop there. It would be interesting to
find out how many other organizations that deal with fellowships and decide on
visiting appointments are effectively controlled by people who at least in a broad
sense belong to this movement; likewise, one would like to know how many of
them are in positions of political power in the universities as chairmen, deans, etc.
Besides, if there was no 'power grab', how could anyone claim that a 'revolution'
took place? Yet this is just one aspect (though probably a very crucial one) that
requires thorough investigation.
But there are any number of things that have to be done to ensure that an
adequate history of North American linguistics can one day be written, of which I
would like to mention at least three:
2.1 To begin with, I would like to urge that more interviews and
autobiographical accounts be recorded of scholars, especially those of the older
generation, similar to what was done at the 1979 Charlotte Conference (cf. Davis &
O'Cain 1980). It would be rather difficult to obtain an accurate picture of where
certain linguists got their ideas and what led to the success of TGG, if we were
only to interview those with a vested interest in the maintenance of a particular view
of the matter. So, while not wanting to exclude interviews with Chomsky, Halle,
Lees, and others on the development of linguistic ideas during the 1950s and
1960s, I believe that the frequently diverging views of those who lived through the
period, but did not uncritically subscribe to the tenets of TGG should be
documented.
2.2 Second, it appears to me that the entire intellectual and social atmosphere of
the 1950s, especially of the New England region of the United States, would have
to be reconstructed as far as possible, since linguistic ideas cannot be assumed to
have developed in a vacuum but in a particular setting and under special conditions.
In other words, it does not suffice to reread the linguistic literature preceding the
appearance of Syntactic Structures (although this would be an important part of the
job), but it is also necessary to study the literature of the period on information
theory (e.g., Shannon & Weaver 1949; cf. Hockett 1953), neurology (e.g.,
Lashley 1951), and especially work done on computing machines and related
theories and devices developed by Alan Mathison Turing (1912-1954), John von
Neumann (1903-1957), and others -- cf. the importance of machine translation
among linguists at the University of Pennsylvania (e.g., Harris 1954) and at M.I.T
(e.g., Locke 1955; Locke & Booth 1955).
2.3 Third, and this would be the most important part of the enterprise, the
findings would have to be brought together in a series of in-depth studies, by a
group of authors or individual researchers, in book form and not, for example, in
the form of reviews and minor papers appearing in linguistic journals. The reason
for this stipulation is that such writings would not be accepted by the many TGG-
controlled North American journals, 19 and that those writings are quickly forgotten
(in most instances, once the next issue of a periodical has appeared on the library
shelf). In other words, what is needed are monograph-length accounts, studied
rebuttals of current Whig histories of TGG — as books are more likely than
'revolutionary' tracts to stand the test of time.
At the present time, I have little hope that an adequate history of the
development of linguistics in 20th-century America will emerge in the near future:
on the one hand, organizational power clearly rests with those who have received
their training within the TGG paradigm' (of which Government & Binding Theory
is but another articulation) and who are quite satisfied with the Whiggish accounts
by Newmeyer and others; those in the non-TGG camp, on the other hand, have
been disunited for years and seem unable to view the development of linguistics in
North America dispassionately and without bias, something which is under
standable given these 'paradigmatic pressures', but not conducive to writing a
reasonable objective history. So my hopes for the moment are that a new
generation of linguists will emerge -- and perhaps a few scholars - who will have
no strong commitment to any of these competing schools and who will never
theless be interested in the sources of their theories and their subsequent evolution.
REFERENCES
Anders, Georg. 1984. "Feiert Chomsky, aber vergesst Harris nicht: Zur
Entwickung eines Abschnitts der neueren Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichte".
Grazer Linguistische Studien 21.5-16.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Phonology in the Twentieth Century: Theories of
rules and theories of representation. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
19
As a matter of fact, all the major linguistics journals in North America (except, at least
officially, Language, and UAL, whose coverage excludes such discussions) are controlled by
people with TGG connections, as I realized when I was trying to place a paper (Koerner 1983) in
1982, after Language, on the advice of none other person than Frederick Newmeyer himself (who
served as one of the adjudicators), had rejected the paper. - It is ironic, to say the least, that
Newmeyer was given the opportunity to respond to my paper in Language, although it had not
appeared there; that it was a reply to Murray's (1980) paper (as Newmeyer [1986b: 159n.l8] tries to
make us believe) can be easily disproven by simply counting the frequent references to my 1983
article in his 1986 paper. That he should refer to the editor of Language as being "scrupulously
fair in his handling of submissions to the journal", adding that he knows "from personal
experience that he is a model of impartiality" (Newmeyer 1986a:14n.17) suggests, I submit,
disingenuousness on his part.
Anttila, Raimo. 1975. "Revelation as Linguistic Revolution". The First LACUS

Forum ed. by Adam Makkai & Valerie Becker Makkai, 171-176. Columbia,
S.C.: Hornbeam Press.
Bach, Emmon. 1965. "Structural Linguistics and the Philosophy of Science".
Diogenes 51.11-28.
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1954. "Can Translations Be Mechanized?". American
Scientist 42.248-260.
Bátori, István. 1980. "Was bleibt von Chomsky? Chomsky und die sogenannte
traditionelle Sprachwissenschaft". Folia Linguistica 14.103-121. [Actually
published in 1982.]
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1966. Review of Lunt (1964). Germanistik 7.15-17.
-------. 1971. Modern Linguistics: Its development, methods and problems. The
Hague: Mouton. [German original appeared in 1966.]
Bloch, Bernard. 1946. "Studies in Colloquial Japanese, II: Syntax". Language
22.200-248. (Repr. in Joos 1957.154-184 - cf. also Joos' comments, ibid.,
p.185.)
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1923. Review of Saussure (1922[1916]). Modern Language
Journal 8.317-319. (Repr. in Bloomfield 1970.106-108.)
-------. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co. (Repr., with a Foreword
by Charles F. Hockett, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1984.)
-------. 1939. "Menomini Morphophonemics". Etudes phonologiques dédiées à
la mémoire de N. S. Trubetzkoy, 105-115. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de
Prague. (Repr. in Bloomfield 1970.351-362.)
-------. 1942a. "Outline of Ilocano Syntax". Language 18.193-200.
-------. 1942b. "Syntax". [= Chap.5 of]Outline of Linguistic Analysis by Bern
ard Bloch & George L[eonard] Trager. Baltimore, Md.: Linguistic Society of
America.
-------. 1970. A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. Ed. by Charles F. Hockett.
Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press.
Boal, Iain A. 1984. "Chomsky and the State of Linguistics". Unpub. typescript
(originally written for "The Atlantic Monthly"), 29 pp.
Bopp, Franz. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in
Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und
germanischen Sprache. Ed. with a foreword by Karl Joseph Windischmann.
Frankfurt/M.: Andreäische Buchhandlung.
-------. 1833. Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Send, Armenischen,
Griechischen, Lateinischen, Littauischen, Altslavischen, Gothischen und
Deutschen. Berlin: F. Dümmler. (3rd ed., 3 vols., 1868-71; repr., Bonn: F.
Dümmler, 1971.)
Casagrande, Joseph B. 1954. "The Ends of Translation". UAL 20.335-340.
Chafe, Wallace. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1951. Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. Unpubl. M.A.
thesis, Univ. of Pennsylvania. (Printed, New York: Garland Publications,
1979.)
--------. 1955. Transformational Analysis: A dissertation in linguistics. Unpubl.
Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania. (Rev. version published as chap. IX of
Chomsky 1975.)
--------. 1956. "Three Models for the Description of Language". Proceedings of
the Symposium on Information Theory, 113-124. Cambridge, Mass.: Institute of
Radio Engineers. [For information on reprints and translations of this paper, see
Koerner & Tajima 1986:5.]
-------. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. (2nd printing, with a
bib. supplement, 1962; 14th printing, 1985.)
-------. 1958. "Linguistics, Logic, Psychology, and Computers". Computer
Programming and Artificial Intelligence: An intensive course for practicing
scientists and engineers ed. by John W. Carr , 429-456. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
College of Engineering, Univ. of Michigan.
--------. 1962[1958]. "A Transformational Approach to Syntax". Proceedings of
the Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English ed.
by Archibald A. Hill, 124-158. Austin, Tex.: Univ. of Texas.
--------. 1964[1962]. "The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory". Proceedings of
the Ninth International Congress of Linguists ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 914-978
(discussion, 978-1008). The Hague: Mouton. [Also reprinted under the new title
"Current Issues in Linguistic Theory" in Fodor & Katz [1964:50-118] and
published separately in book form (The Hague: Mouton, 1964).]
---------. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
---------. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist
thought. New York & London: Harper & Row.
---------. 1975. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum
Press. [Revised and abridged version of 1955 typescript.]
---------. 1979. Language and Responsibility. (Based on conversations with
Mitsou Ronat.) Transl. from the French by John Viertel. New York: Pantheon.
---------. 1981. Radical Priorities. Ed. with an introd. by Carlos Peregrin Otero.
Montreal: Black Rose Books. (2nd enl. ed., 1984.)
--------. 1983. [Roman Jakobson]. A Tribute to Roman Jakobson, 1896-1982
ed. by Morris Halle, 81-83. Berlin - Amsterdam - New York: Mouton.
--------, and Morris Halle. 1965. "Some Controversial Questions in Phonological
Theory". Foundations of Language 1.97-138.
-------, -------. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York & London:
Harper & Row.
Comte, Auguste. 1830-42. Cours de philosophie positive. 6 vols. Paris: Borrari
& Droz.
Cranston, Maurice W[illiam]. 1974. "Ideology". Encyclopaedia Britannica 9194-
198.
Daladier, Anne. 1980. "Quelques hypothèses 'explicatives' chez Harris et chez
Chomsky". Langue Française No.46.58-72.
Davis, Boyd H[arriet] & Raymond K[enneth] O'Cain, eds. 1980. First Person
Singular: Papers from the Conference on an Oral Archive for the History of
American Linguistics. Amsterdam: J.Benjamins.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1880. Einleitung in das Sprachstudium. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Härtel. (6th rev. and enl. ed., 1919.)
Dingwall, William Orr, ed. 1971. A Survey of Linguistic Science. College Park,
Md.: Linguistics Program, Univ. of Maryland.
Ferguson, Charles A[lbert]. 1962. Review of Halle (1959). Language 38.284-298.
Fodor, Jerry A[lan] & Jerrold J[acob] Katz, eds. 1964. The Structure of Language:
Readings in the philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Fought, John. 1982. Review of Newmeyer (1980). Language in Society 11.315-
321.
Fries, Charles C[arpenter]. 1961. "The Bloomfield 'School'". Mohrmann et al.
1961.196-224.
THE CHOMSKYAN'REVOLUTION'AND ITS HISTORIOGRAPHY 141
Garvin, Paul L[ucian]. 1963. Review of Structure of Language and its

Mathematical Aspects: Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium in Applied
Mathematics ed. by Roman Jakobson (Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical
Society, 1961). Language 34:4.669-613.
Gellner, Ernest. 1959. Words and Things: A critical account of linguistic
philosophy and a study of ideology. Preface by Bertrand Russell. London: V.
Gollancz. (2nd ed., Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1968.)
Gleason, H[enry] A[llen], Jr. 1988. Theories in Conflict: North American
linguistics in the fifties and sixties. Unpubl. manuscript.
Greene, Judith. 1972. Psycholinguistics: Chomsky and psychology. Harmonds
worth, Middlesex: Penguin.
Grotsch, Klaus. 1982. Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung: Ein Beitrag zur
Kritik und zur historischen und methodologischen Selbstvergewisserung der
Disziplin. Göppingen: W. Kümmerle.
Grunig, Blanche Noëlle. 1982. "Was bindet uns an Chomsky?". Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft 1.289-300.
Hall, Robert A[nderson], Jr. 1981. Review of Newmeyer (1980). Forum
Linguisticum 6.177-188. (Repr. in Linguistics and Pseudo-Linguistics by R. A.
Hall, 103-112. Amsterdam Sc Phila-delphia: J. Benjamins, 1987.)
Halle, Morris. 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian: A linguistic and acoustical
investigation.'s-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co. (2nd printing, 1971.)
--------. 1962. "Phonology in Generative Grammar". Word 18.54-72.
Hamp, Eric P[ratt]. 1961. "General Linguistics - the United States in the fifties".
Mohrmann et al. 1961.165-195.
Harris, Zellig S[abbettai]. 1951. Methods of Structural Linguistics. Chicago: Univ.
of Chicago Press. (Repr., 1984.)
-------. 1952. "Discourse Analysis". Language 28.1-30. (Repr. in Fodor & Katz
1964.355-383.)
-------. 1954a. "Transfer Grammar". International Journal of American Lin
guistics 20.259-270.
-------. 1954b. "Distributional Structure". Word 10.146-162. (Repr. in Fodor &
Katz 1964.33-49.)
-------. 1957. "Co-Occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure".
Language 33.283-340. (Repr. in Fodor & Katz 1964.155-210.)
-------. 1965. "Transformational Theory". Language 41.363-401.
-------. 1973. Review of A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology ed. by Charles F.
Hockett (Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1970). IJAL 39.252-
255.
Hill, Archibald A[nderson]. 1961. "Grammaticality". Word 17.1-10.
--------, ed. 1962. Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in
English, May 9-12, 1958. Austin, Tex.: Univ. of Texas.
-------. 1980. "How Many Revolutions Can a Linguist Live Through?". First
Person Singular: Papers from the Conference on an Oral Archive for the History
of American Linguistics (Charlotte, N.C., 9-10 March 1979) ed. by Boyd H.
Davis & Raymond K. O'Cain, 69-76. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1953. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Transl. by
Francis J. Whitfield. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Publications in
Anthropology and Linguistics. (2nd rev. ed. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin
Press, 1961.)
Hockett, Charles F[rancis]. 1948. "A Note on 'Structure'". UAL 14.269-271.
(Repr. in Joos 1957.279-280).
--------. 1950. "Which Approach in Linguistics is 'Scientific'?". Studies in

Linguistics 8.53-57.
--------. 1953. Review of Shannon & Weaver (1949). Language 29.69-93.
(Repr. in Saporta 1961.44-67.)
--------. 1954. "Two Models of Grammatical Description". Word 10.210-231.
(Repr. in Joos 1957.386-399.)
--------. 1965. "Sound Change". Language 41.185-204.
--------.1968a. The State of the Art. The Hague: Mouton.
--------. 1968b. "Letter to the Editor". Language 44.212.
Householder, Fred W[alter]. 1965. "On Some Recent Claims in Phonological
Theory". Founda-tions of Language 1.13-34.
Howell, Kenneth J. 1986. Review of Anderson (1985). Historiographia Linguistica 13.85-92.
Hymes, Dell H[athaway]. 1972. Review article on John Lyons, Noam Chomsky
(London: Fontana/Collins, 1970). Language 48.416-427.
---------, ed. & introd. 1974. Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and
paradigms. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press.
---------. 1983. Essays in the History of Linguistic Anthropology. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
--------- & John Fought. 1981. American Structuralism. The Hague: Mouton.
[This study first appeared as an article in Current Trends in Linguistics, vol.13.
903-1176. The Hague: Mouton, 1975.]
Izzo, Herbert J[ohn]. 1976. "Transformationalist History of Linguistics and the
Renaissance". Forum Linguisticum 1.51-59.
Jakobson, Roman. 1948. "Russian Conjugation". Word 4.155-167'. (Repr. in R.
Jakobson, Selected Writings, vol.II: Word and language, 119-129. The Hague:
Mouton, 1971.)
Jankowsky, Kurt R[obert]. 1972. The Neo grammarians: A re-evaluation of their
place in the development of linguistic science. The Hague: Mouton.
Joos, Martin, ed. 1957. Readings in Linguistics [I]: The development of descrip
tive linguistics in America 1925-56. New York: American Council of Learned
Societies. (4th ed., Chicago & London: University of Chcago Press, 1966.)
--------. 1961. "Linguistic Prospects in the United States". Mohrmann et al.
1961.11-20.
Katz, Jerrold J[acob]. 1964. "Mentalism in Linguistics". Language 40.124-137.
--------. 1967. "Recent Issues in Semantic Theory". Foundations of Language
3.124-194.
Koerner, E[rnst] F[rideryk] Konrad. 1970. "Bloomfieldian Linguistics and the
Problem of 'Meaning': A chapter in the history of the theory and study of
language". Jahrbuch für Amerikastudien 15.162-183. (Repr. in Koerner
1978.155-176.)
-------. 1972a. "A Note on Transformational-Generative Grammar and the Saus-
surean Dichotomyof Synchrony versus Diachrony". Linguistische Berichte No.
13.25-32 (July 1972).
-------. 1972b. "A Note on [Björn] Collinder on Chomsky". Linguistics No.94.
37-42 (15 Dec. 1972).
-------. 1976[1972]. "Towards a Historiography of Linguistics: 19th and 20th
century paradigms". History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Lin
guistics ed. by Herman Parret, 685-718. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter.
(Repr. in Koerner 1978.21-54.) [An earlier version appeared in Anthropologi
cal Linguistics 14.155-180 (October 1972).]
------. 1973. Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and development of his linguistic

thought in western studies of language. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg. [Translated
into Spanish (Madrid: Gredos, 1982), Japanese (Tokyo: Taishukan, 1982), and
Hungarian (Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1982).]
------. 1978. Toward a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected essays.
Foreword by R. H. Robins. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
------. 1980. "L'importance de William Dwight Whitney pour les jeunes
linguistes de Leipzig et pour Ferdinand de Saussure". Lingvisticae
Investigationes 4.379-394. (Repr. in Koerner 1988.1-16.)
------. 1981. "The Neogrammarian Doctrine: Breakthrough or Extension of the
Historica 2.157-178. (Repr. as chap.7 in this volume.)
------. 1982. "The Schleicherian Paradigm in Linguistics". General Linguistics
22.1-39.
------. 1982. "Models in Linguistic Historiography". Forum Linguisticum
6:3.189-201. (Repr. as chap.5 in this volume.)
------. 1983. "The Chomskyan 'Revolution' and its Historiography: A few
critical remarks". Language & Communication 3:2.147-169.
------. 1984a. "The 'Chomskyan Revolution' and Its Historiography". Sincro
nica, diacronica e cultura: Saggi linguistici in onore diLuigi Heilmann, 153-177.
Brescia: La Scuola.
-----. 1984b. "Remarques critiques sur la linguistique américaine et son histo
riographie". Lingvisticae Investigationes 8.87-103.
-----. 1988. Saussureqn Studies / Etudes saussuriennes. Avant-propos de
Rudolf Engler. Geneva: Éditions Slatkine.
----- & Matsuji Tajima (with the collaboration of Carlos P. Otero), comps.
1986. Noam Chomsky: A personal bibliography, 1951-1986. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Kucera, Henry. 1983. "Roman Jakobson". Language 59.871-883.
Kuhn, Thomas S[amuel] 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press. (2nd enl. ed., 1970.)
------. 1977. The Essential Tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and
change. Ibid.
Lakoff, George. 1971. "On Generative Semantics". Semantics ed. by Danny D.
Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits, 232-296. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Lamb, Sydney M[acDonald]. 1967. Review of Chomsky (1964, 1965). American
Anthropologist 69.411-415.
Lashley, Karl S[pence]. 1951. "The Problem of Serial Order in Behavior".
Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior ed. by L. A. Jeffress, 112-136. New York: J.
Wiley & Sons. (Repr. in Saporta 1961.180-198.)
Lees, Robert B[enjamin]. 1953. "The Basis of Glottochronology". Language
29.113-127.
-------. 1957. Review of Chomsky (1957). Language 33.375-408.
-------. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.
(4th printing, 1966.)
Locke, William N[ash]. 1955. "Machine Translation to Date". Monograph Series
on Language and Linguistics 6.101-113. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ.
Press.
------. & A. Donald Booth, eds. 1955. Machine Translation of Languages.
Foreword by Warren Weaver. Cambridge, Mass.: The Technology Press of
MIT.
Löffler, Heinrich. 1978. "Zur junggrammatischen Tradition der generativen

Grammatik: Noam Chomsky und Hermann Paul. Linguistische Ahnenforschung
zur generativen Grammatik". Deutsche Sprache: Geschichte und Gegenwart.
Festschrift für Friedrich Maurer zum 80. Geburtstag ed. by Hugo Moser et al.,
111-126. Bern & Munich: A. Francke.
Lunt, Horace G[ray], ed. 1964. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress
of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton.
Maher, J[ohn] Peter. 1980. "The Transformational-Generative Paradigm: A silver
anniversary polemic". Forum Linguisticum 5.1-35 (1982).
Malkiel, Yakov [& Margaret Langdon]. 1969. "History and Histories of
Linguistics". Romance Philology 22.530-566[-574].
McCawley, James D[avid]. 1976a. "¡Madison Avenue, si, Pennsylvania Avenue,
no!". The Second LACUS Forum ed. by Peter A. Reich, 17-27. Columbia,
S.C.: Hornbeam Press.
-------. 1976b. "Introduction". Notes from the Linguistic Underground ed. by J.
D. McCawley, 1-19. New York: Academic Press.
-------. 1981. Review of Newmeyer (1980). Linguistics 18.911-930.
McQuown, Norman A[nthony]. 1952. Review of Harris (1951). Language
28.495-504.
Mehta, Ved. 1971. John is Easy to Please: Encounters with the written and the
spoken word. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Meisel, Jürgen M[ichael]. 1973. "Noam Chomsky's Umwälzung der Sprachwis
senschaft". Linguistische Perspektiven: Referate des VIL Linguistischen Kollo
quiums, Nijmegen, 26.-30. September 1972 ed. by Abraham P. ten Cate & Peter
Jordens, 1-20. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.
Mildenberger, Kenneth. 1962. "The National Defence Education Act and Lin
guistics". Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 13.157-164. Wash
ington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press.
Mohrmann, Christine, Alf Sommerfeit & Joshua Whatmough, eds. 1961. Trends
in European and American Linguistics, 1930-1960. Edited on the occasion of the
Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 27
August -1 September 1962 [...]. Utrecht & Antwerp: Spectrum.
Murray, Stephen O. 1980. "Gatekeepers and the 'Chomskian Revolution'".
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16.73-88.
-------. 1981. Review of Newmeyer (1980). Historiographia Linguistica 8.107-
112. [See also the exchange between Murray and Newmeyer in the same journal,
9.185-187, 1982.]
-------. 1989. Review of Newmeyer (1986b). Historio graphia Linguistica
16:1/2.
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1981. Review of Newmeyer (1980). Language 57.456-459.
Newmeyer, Frederick J[aret]. 1980. Linguistic Theory in America: The first
quarter-century of transformational generative grammar. New York: Academic
Press. (2nd rev. and enlarged ed., 1986.)
-------. 1984. Review of Terence Moore & Christine Carling, Language
Understanding: Towards a post-Chomskyan linguistics (New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1982). Language 60.123-128.
-------. 1986a. "Was There a 'Chomskyan Revolution'?". Language 62.1-18.
-------. 1986b. The Politics of Linguistics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
------- & Joseph Emonds. 1971. "The Linguist in American Society". Papers
from the Seventh Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 285-303. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Nida, Eugene A[lbert]. 1966[1943]. A Synopsis of English Syntax. 2nd ed. The
Hague: Mouton. [Written in 1943; cf. Language 47.186 (1971).]
Paul, Hermann. 1880. Principien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle/S.: M. Niemeyer. (5th
rev. ed., 1920.)
Peacock, Dennis E. 1979. "Who Didd What in American Linguistics?". The Fifth
LACUS Forum 1978 ed. by Wolfgang Wölck & Paul L. Garvin, 535-539. Colum
bus. S.C.: Hornbeam Press.
Pearson, Bruce L. 1978. "Paradigms and Revolutions in Linguistics". The Fourth
LACUS Forum 1977 ed. by Michel Paradis, 384-390. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam
Press.
Penzl, Herbert. 1987. "Hokuspokus in der Linguistik". Studies in Honour of René
Derolez ed. by A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen, 418-426. Gent: Seminarie voor Engelse
en Oud-Germaanse Taalkunde, Rijksuniversiteit de Gent.
Postal, Paul M(artin). 1964. Constituent Structure: A study of contemporary models of
syntactic description. Bloomimgton, Ind.: Research Center in Anthropology,
Folklore & Linguistics.
1988. "Advances in Linguistic Rhetoric". Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 6.129-137.
Ranke, Leopold (von). 1824. Geschichten der Romanischen und Germanischen Völker
von 1494 bis 1535. Leipzig & Berlin: G. Reimer.
Russell, Bertrand. 1959. "Preface". Words andThings by Ernest Gellner, 13-15. Lon
don: V. Gollancz. (2nd ed., Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1968.)
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1980. Schools of Linguistics: Competition and evolution. Lon
don: Hutchinson.
Saporta, Sol, ed. 1961. Psycholinguistics: A book of readings. New York: Holt,
Rinehart& Winston.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1878. Mémoire sur les système primitif des voyelles dans les
langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. (2nd ed., Paris: F. Vieweg,
1887.)
--------. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles ally & Albert
Sechehaye, avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlingen Lausanne & Paris: Payot. (3rd
corrected ed., 1931.)
Schlegel, Friedrich. 1808. Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: Ein Beitrag zur
Begründung der Altertumskunde. Heidelberg: Mohr & Zimmer. (New ed., Amster
dam: J. Benjamins, 1977.)
Schleicher, August. 1876. Compendium der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indo
germanischen Sprachen: Kurzer Abris s einer Laut- und Formenlehre der indoger
manischen Ursprache. 4th ed. prepared by August Leskien & Johannes Schmidt.
Weimar: H. Böhlau. (First ed., 2 vols., 1861-62.)
Schmitter, Peter. 1982. Untersuchungen zur Historiographie der Linguistik: Struktur -
Methodik - theoretische Fundierung. Tübingen: G. Narr.
Searle, John R. 1972. "Chomsky's Revolution in Linguistics". The New York Review
of Books (27 June 1972), pp. 16-24.
Shannon, Claude E. & Warren Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Com
munication. Urbana, Al.: Univ. of Illinois Press.
Sklar, Robert. 1968. "Chomsky's Revolution in Linguistics". The Nation (9 Sept.
1968), pp. 213-217.
Smith, Neil, & Deirdre Wilson. 1979. Modern Linguistics: The results of Chomsky's
revolution. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press.
Sumner, William Graham. 1906. Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of
usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Boston: Ginn & Co. (Repr., 1948.)
Voegelin, C[harles] F[rederick]. 1958. Review of Chomsky (1957). International

Journal of American Linguistics 24.229-231.
--------, and Florence M. Voegelin. 1963. "On the History of Structuralizing in 20th
Century America". Anthropological Linguistics 5:1.12-37.
Weaver, Richard M. 1960. "Concealed Rhetoric in Scientistic Sociology". Scientism
and Values ed. by Helmut Schoeck & James W. Wiggins, 83-99. Princeton, N.J.:
Van Nostrand.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1967. "On Arguing with Mr. Katz". Foundations of Language 3.
284-287.
Wells, Rulon S[eymour]. 1947. "Immediate Constituents". Language 23.81-117.
(Repr. in Joos 1957.186-207.)
-------. 1954. "Meaning and Use". Word 10.235-250. (Repr. in Saporta 1961.269-
283.)
-------. 1963. "Some Neglected Opportunities in Descriptive Linguistics". Anthro
pological Linguistics 5:1.38-49.
Weydt, Harald. 1976. Noam Chomskys Werk: Kritik - Kommentar - Bibliographie.
Tübingen: G. Narr.
Woodworm, Elisabeth D. & Robert J. DiPrieto, eds. 1963. Report of the Thirteenth
Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown Univ. Press.
Yergin, Daniel. 1972. "The Chomskyan Revolution". The New York Times Magazine
(3 Dec. 1972), pp. 42-43, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122-23, 125, and 127.
PART II: TRADITION AND TRANSMISSION
OF LINGUISTIC NOTIONS
OBSERVATIONS ON THE SOURCES, TRANSMISSION,
AND MEANING of 'INDO-EUROPEAN' AND RELATED
TERMS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LINGUISTICS*
0. I n t r o d u c t o r y R e m a r k s . Almost four generations ago,

Heymann Steinthal (1823-99) tried to demonstrate to his con
temporaries, in the Preface to his voluminous Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Römern, the impor
tance of writing the history of 19th-century linguistics, citing
what he believed to be a revealing example :
Wie notwendig aber eine Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft unsres
Jahrhunderts schon wäre, dafür will ich hier ein Beispiel geben. Wo
her stammt der Name "indogermanisch"? Wäre es nicht wichtig und
anziehend dies zu wissen? Gruppiert sich doch, möchte ich sagen, die
ganze neuere Sprachwissenschaft um jenen Namen? (Steinthal 1890,
p. X-XI)
Steinthal noted that accounts in linguistic books until then
had been misleading on the sources of the term 'indogermanisch',
and he wondered about its true origin, especially since other
terms had been used to group together the family of languages
for which 'Indo-European' has become the most widely accepted
term. Indeed, Steinthal also wondered about the origin of the
latter term, though he seems to believe that indogermanisch
"Indo-Germanic" is the earlier coinage. 1
Steinthal (1890, p. XII) believed that he had found the original
source in Friedrich Schmitthenner's (1796-1850) use of 'indisch-
* This chapter constitutes a reprint, with permission from both the editor and the
publisher, of a paper published in Indogermanische Forschungen 86.1-31 (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1981).
1
Thus Steinthal (1890, p. XI), with reference to the phrase "indogermanique
ou mieux indo-européen" found in Emile Egger's (1813-85) Notions élementaires
de grammaire comparée, 4th ed., Paris, A. Durand 1854, p. 6, surmised that the
latter term had been created "zur Beruhigung patriotischer Beklemmungen von
einem Franzosen".
teutsch' both in the subtitle and within the text of his Ursprach-
lehre of 1826, an observation which was soon contradicted by
Gustav Meyer (1850-1900) in an article devoted to the question
raised by Steinthal (Meyer 1893).2 Subsequent research into the
question of the origin and use of the term 'Indo-European' as
well as the various related expressions such as 'Indo-Germanic',
'Aryan', and others (e.g., Meyer 1901, Norman 1929, Siegert
1941/42) have made it clear that we have to do with a rather
complex situation. The fact that these terms were used not only
by linguists but also by writers outside the realm of the study of
language, for instance by geographers, anthropologists, and
biologists, added to the complexity.
In the present paper 3 I will first discuss the development of
the concept of 'Indo-European' and its various appellations (1.0)
and subsequently trace the origin and meaning of the three most
frequently used terms in 19th-century comparative-historical
works, namely, 'Indo-European' (2. 0), 'Indo-Germanic' or indo
germanisch (3.0), and 'Aryan' (4.0). In the conclusion (5.0) an
argument will be presented in favour of the universal use of
'Indo-European', not only outside German-speaking lands.
1.0 N o t e s on t h e D e v e l o p m e n t of t h e C o n c e p t of
'Indo-European'
As is evident from the history of any discipline, whether a
natural or a social science, inventions and discoveries often
precede the respective terms that are used to describe or refer to
them. The history of linguistics is no exception. Although it may
be important to note when and where a particular coinage was
2
Delbrück, who had earlier suggested that Klaproth might be the
originator of the term 'indogermanisch' (cf. Delbrück 1882, p. 2, . 1),
says little else in his (1894) note than defend his reliance on Stein-
thal's (1890) suggestions in the 3rd ed. of his Einleitung in das Sprach
studium, Leipzig, Breitkopf & Härtel 1893, and that he had not been
aware of Meyer's (1893) findings.
3
The present article has little in common with my paper, "The Sources,
Development and Meaning of the Term 'Indo-European'", presented
at the Third International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Ham
burg, 22-26 Aug. 1977), though its essential findings have been in
corporated here.
THE SOURCES OF 'INDO-EUROPEAN' 151
first introduced into the technical terminology—indeed, such

coinages may signal the inception of or a particular turning-
point in the professionalization of a field—we should not be
surprised to discover that the concept of a particular observation
antedates the descriptive term. Thus, we might wish to date
beginning of linguistics as an autonomous discipline from the
early 19th century, but this would not automatically suggest
that earlier findings are necessarily erroneous and 'unscientific'. 4
Since the Renaissance, when the educated classes turned their
attention to the vernaculars of Europe, many scholars and
writers have realized that there are a number of languages which
are genetically related; cf. the works by Claude Saumaise (1588-
1653), Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn (1602-1653), and others, in
which the hypothesis of a unity between certain Asian and a
number of European languages was promoted (cf. Droixhe 1978,
p. 86ff., for expatiation). This proto-language from which these
others were said to have derived was called 'Scythian' after the
name of an ancient nomadic people of southeastern Europe and
Asia of Iranian origin. From the early 18th century onwards,
especially owing to Leibniz's writings on these questions, the
term 'Japhetic' (in contradistinction to those languages t h a t
were later grouped together by the name 'Semitic') became
general currency among scholars of language. In fact, Rasmus
Kristian Rask (1787-1832) still used (Danish) japetisk in the
sense of "Indo-European" (cf. Diderichsen 1974, p. 303, n. 6,
where Rask's other appellations, e. g., gotisk for "Germanic",
are cited). 5 During the second half of the 19th century, after
Celtic had finally been admitted as a branch of the Indo-Euro
pean language family, several scholars, in recognition of the
4
We know from the history of any discipline (not only from 20th-
century linguistics!) that the understanding of 'scientific' and, of
course, 'unscientific', has been changing together with the real or al
leged 'progress' having been made been at given points in time.
5
The term 'Japhetic', so popular in the 18th and early 19th century
(cf. Klaproth 1812-14), appears to have been discredited once for all
by the absurd theories of Nikolaj Jakovlevič Marr (1865-1934) and
the disasterous consequences of their adoption as the official 'Marxist'
doctrine in Stalinist Russia (until its debunking by Stalin himself in
1950).
fact that the languages of this branch are the most western ones
in terms of geographic distribution, suggested the term 'Indo-
Celtic' (cf. Siegert 1941/42, p. 83, for details).
Still other terms were suggested to denote the Indo-European
language family. Humboldt, in a paper read before the Berlin
Academy of Sciences on 26 April 1827, suggested the term
'Sanskritisch' (Humboldt 1827, p. 18, n. = 1963, p. 129-30, n. 2),
adding the following explanation for his preference:
Dieser Ausdruck dürfte sich für die mit dem Sanskrit zusammen
hängenden Sprachen, die man neuerlich auch Indo-Germanische ge
nannt hat, nicht bloß durch seine Kürze, sondern auch durch seine
innre Angemessenheit empfehlen, da Sanskritische Sprachen, der Be
deutung des Wortes nach, Sprachen kunstreichen und zierlichen Baues
sind.6
We may gather from this argument that the question of appro

priateness was raised at a very early time in regard to the usage
of 'Indo-Germanic'. We should remember, however, that San
skrit was then still regarded by many as representing, if not
the original proto-language, the language closely resembling it.
Franz Bopp (1791-1867), who had been teaching Sanskrit to the
much older Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), avoided a gen
eral term in his earlier writings. In the preface to his Vergleichende
Grammatik des Sanskrit, Send, Armenischen, Griechischen . . .
und Deutschen (Bopp 1833, p. V) he makes a passing reference
to the 'indisch-europäischer Sprachstamm' but he does not seem
to use the term in the text. In fact, in the preface to the second
edition of his Comparative Grammar, Bopp expressed himself
against the use of 'Indo-Germanic', clearly favouring 'Indo-
European' :
Ich nenne den Sprachstamm, dessen wichtigste Glieder in diesem
Buche zu einem Ganzen vereinigt werden, den indoeuropäischen, wozu
der Umstand, daß mit Ausnahme des finnischen Sprachzweigs, sowie
des ganz vereinzelt stehenden Baskischen und des von den Arabern
6
Earlier, in the same paper, Humboldt, when speaking about the con
cept of language relationship (Verwandtschaft), refers to Asia Poly-
glotta, p. 43 (Humboldt 1827, p. 9 = 1963, p. 119, n. 2), to exactly
the same page on which Klaproth introduces the term 'Indo-Germa
nisch' for the first time in his book.
u n s hinterlassenen semitischen Idioms der Insel M a l t h a alle ü b r i g e n
europäischen S p r a c h e n . . . i h m a n g e h ö r e n . ( B o p p 1857, p . X X I V )
I t is interesting to note that the authority of the acknowledged

founder of comparative-historical grammar in Europe was not
sufficient to persuade the majority of scholars in German-
speaking lands to adopt the term 'Indo-European' (rather than
'Indo-Germanic' or another term). I t appears that the (probably
first) use of 'Indo-Germanic' in the title-page of a very influential
book of the period, namely, August Friedrich Pott's (1802-1887)
Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Indo-Germani-
schen 7 Sprachen (1833-36) had a considerable impact on the
minds of Pott's contemporaries. From the mid-19th century
onwards, 'Indo-Germanic' (indogermanisch) became the most
frequently used term in the German literature. Even 'indo-
germanique' and 'Indo-Germanic' are frequently found in the
writings of Frenchmen and Englishmen respectively, though
'Indo-European' and 'indo-européen' remained by and large the
most common expressions.
However, there was yet another term which had fairly wide
currency in the 19th century, namely, 'Aryan'. In fact, from the
early 1860s onwards, the Oxford professor of Sanskrit, Friedrich
Max Mülller (1823-1900), used 'Aryan' in lieu of 'Indo-European',
and it appears to be owing to his very popular writings on
language, philosophy, and many other subjects that this term
became widely used in the Anglo-Saxon world. Müller justified
his preference (similar to the manner in which other scholars
had justified their particular term) by saying that, if 'Aryan' is
7
N o r m a n (1929, p . 315, n. 1) writes ' i n d o g e r m a n i s c h ' w h e n referring
t o t h e title of P o t t ' s Etymologische F o r s c h u n g e n (1833-36), w h e r e in
fact P o t t used, in full a g r e e m e n t w i t h K l a p r o t h ' s o r t h o g r a p h y , ' I n d o -
G e r m a n i s c h ' . By c o n t r a s t , w h e n referring t o Y o u n g ' s t e r m , N o r m a n
(p. 317, a n d n o t e 2 on p . 318) cites ' I n d o - E u r o p e a n ' , where in fact Y o u n g
w a s using t h e t e r m w i t h o u t a h y p h e n . I t a p p e a r s t h a t h e w a s relying
h e a v i l y on s e c o n d a r y sources ( n o t a b l y Meyer 1893). N o r m a n com
m i t t e d a n u m b e r of o t h e r o r t h o g r a p h i c errors t h a t seem t o s u p p o r t
t h i s . F o r i n s t a n c e , i n s t e a d of ' J . G. R h o d e ' h e writes 'R. Kodes'
(p. 314, n . 7), a n d t h e n a m e of his c o u n t r y m a n R o b e r t G o r d o n L a t h a m
(1812-88) is c o n s t a n t l y misspelt ' L a t h o m ' , in fact 7 t i m e s on pages
318-20.
not a better term to denote the language family in question, it

is at least the shorter one (Müller 1872, p. 11). Compare Heinrich
Zimmer's (1851-1910) explanation for his use of term: ,,Ich
bediene mich des Ausdrucks arisch statt indogermanisch oder
indoeuropäisch, ohne jedoch damit sagen zu wollen, er sei richti
ger als jene; kürzer und bequemer ist er jedenfalls." (Zimmer
1876, p. 5 note)
Hermann Osthoff (1847-1909), commenting on Zimmer's usage,
replied to what he believed to be 'eine nicht zu billigende Laune'
on the part of the author in the following terms :
Nach einer einheitlichen terminologie in der benennung unseres sprach-
stammes muß nachgerade gestrebt werden und da haben vor allen
benennungen, objectiv geurteilt, doch nur entweder 'indogermanisch'
oder 'indoeuropäisch' aussicht auf dauer. Wem 'indogermanisch' zu
lang ist, kann ja, namentlich in einem druckwerke, abkürzungen ge
brauchen: 'indog.' oder gar 'idg.'. (Osthoff 1876, p. 6, note)
We now know that Osthoff was entirely correct in his predictions,

and also that his suggested abbreviations, especially the second
one, have become generally adopted by historical linguists
writing in German. We will see in the following sections of this
paper how these predictions came true, not to mention other
developments in the usage of certain terms not anticipated by
Osthoff.
2.0 On t h e O r i g i n of ' I n d o - E u r o p e a n '

Although the review article of the first two volumes of Johann
Christoph Adelung's (1732-1806) largely posthumous Mithri-
dates, oder Allgemeine Sprachenkunde (Berlin: Voss, 1806-1809) 8
appeared anonymously, it has been established that its author
was the English natural scientist and Egyptologist Thomas
Young (1773-1829), a very close contemporary of Friedrich
Schlegel (1772-1829). Apart from the ascription, which appears
to be well established (cf. Siegert 1941/42, p. 75-76, n. 4, for
8
I take this from Young's (1813, p. 254) remark, made in reference
to Adelung's claim that nearly 500 languages and dialects had been
treated in his Mithridates, that ,,number of which the publishers have
promised to complete in the third volume'' (emphasis mine), that Young
had not yet seen the third volume which appeared in 1812.
details), it seems to be generally accepted in the literature (e. g.,

Norman 1929; Rocher 1960) that Young was in effect at the
origin of the term 'Indo-European'. Indeed, in his 43-page
account of the allegedly 'nearly five hundred languages and
dialects' (which Young [1813, p . 254] reduces to a much smaller
figure) Young adopts a much more organized position than
Adelung, "more dependent on the nature and connection of the
languages themselves" (Young 1813, p. 253) than the more or
less haphazard collection of data displayed by the compiler of
the Mithridates.
I t is when discussing the various languages of the globe (their
genetic relationship as well as their geographic distribution) that
Young introduces the term 'Indo-European' :
Another ancient and extensive class of languages, united by a greater
number of resemblances than can well be altogether accidental, may
be denominated the Indoeuropean, comprehending the Indian, the West
Asiatic, and almost all the European languages. If we chose to assign
a geographic situation to the common parent of this class, we should
place it to the south and west of the supposed origin of the human
race [i.e., southeastern Europe according to theories of the day]; . . .
(Young 1813, p. 255)
In order to refute the suggestion found in the fourteenth edition

of the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1929 (vol. 12, p. 262), namely,
t h a t Young was using the term "without any remark as to its
being a new coinage", Siegert (1941/42, p. 76) quotes several
other passages from Young's review. For instance, in the lines
immediately following the above citation, Young used the phrase
'may be called' again, indicating that he was proposing a new
term or at least a particular usage:
. . . leaving the north for our third class, which we can only define
as including all the Asiatic and European languages not belonging
to the former; which may be called Atactic, or, perhaps, without
much propriety, Tataric; and which may be subdivided into five
orders, Sporadic, Caucasian, Tartarian, Siberian, and Insular.
Indeed, Young makes use of 'Indo-European' throughout his

review (e. g., p. 264, 270, 273, 281) in the sense of "common
parent (language)" and did not repeat Friedrich Schlegel's (1808,
p. 3) error of identifying this proto-language with Sanskrit. 9 I t

is true that Young did not identify all the languages belonging
to the Indo-European family, and not all of them correctly.
However, his list is fairly complete (p. 256), and includes Celtic,
for instance, which only much later was recognized as a branch
of Indo-European: "The Celtic family is a very extensive and
very interesting subdivision of the Indoeuropean class" (p. 273).
On the other hand, Young (probably following N. B. Halhed's 1 0
suggestions) included Arabic, though he further on (p. 267)
modified his view by stating that,
. . . though not intimately connected with the European languages,
it [i.e., Arabic] is well known to have afforded some words to the
Greek and Latin, and it has also some terms in common with the San
skrit though apparently fewer than either the Greek or the German.
Young shows a similar oscillation with regard to Armenian,

which he classifies (p. 256), together with Ossetic and Albanian—
which we now recognize as Indo-European languages, among
the 'Caucausian' language family, when he concedes (p. 285) that
there are sufficient connections between Armenian and Sanskrit
as well as Persian "that the coincidences may have been derived
from a common parent."
W i t h regard to the Balto-Slavic group, Young (p. 281) affirm
ed: "The connexion of the Sclavonian and Lithuanian, which
we have comprehended in the title of the Slavic family, with the
other of the Indoeuropean class, is sufficiently established." We
may summarize his general views on Indo-European by quoting
a longer passage from the same account (p. 264-65) :
The Indoeuropean languages we have to referred to as a single class,
because every one of them has too great a number of coincidences
with some of the others, to be considered as merely accidental, and
many of them in terms of relating to objects of such a nature, that
9
F . Schlegel (1819, p. 454 = 1975, p. 514) said later: "was ich in der
angegebenen früheren Schrift über Indien [i.e., Schlegel 1808] vom
Samskrit [sic] gesagt, gegen meine Absicht ist mißverstanden worden".
10
Nathaniel Brassey Halhed (1751-1830), in the preface to his Grammar
of the Bengal Language (1178), had spoken of the "similitude of
Shanscrit with those of Persian and Arabic, and even Latin and
Greek". — On Halhed's importance for Sir William Jones' (1746-94),
ideas about the Indo-European language family, s. now Rocher (1980).
they must necessarily have been original rather than adoptive. The
Sanscrit, which is confessedly the parent language of India, may
easily be shown to be intimately connected with the Greek, the Latin,
and the German, although it is a great exaggeration to assert any
thing like its identity with either of these languages.
Although neither cites the above statement, both Norman (1929,

p. 318) and Siegert (1941/42, p. 76) are convinced that Young
was at the origin of the term 'Indo-European'. The late Fred
erick Norman (1897-1968) asserted that "from the manner in
which Young introduces the word it is tolerably certain that he
coined the expression."
In view of what we will gather from the next section of the
present paper, it is interesting to note that Siegert (1941/42),
who, without having seen Norman's article, was convinced of
Young's authorship of the term, 11 asserted (p. 77): "Eine Ent
lehnung des Ausdrucks [i. ., the German equivalent 'Indo-
Europäisch', as found in P o t t 1833, p. X X X ] aus dem Engli
schen halte ich allerdings für unwahrscheinlich, da die Abhand
lung Youngs in Deutschland kaum bekannt war." If this is so,
it would mean that the German 'indo-europäisch' as well as the
French 'indo-européen' have other sources than Young's 'Indo-
european'. 12
3.0 On t h e O r i g i n of ' I n d o - G e r m a n i c '

Following Steinthal's (1890, p. X - X I I ) efforts to trace the
source of the term 'indogermanisch', several scholars have
further investigated the subject. G.Meyer (1893, p. 127-28)
quoted various passages from Julius (Heinrich von) Klaproth
(1783-1835), a German scholar who had been associated with
the Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg for a number of years.
He used both 'Indo-Germanen' and 'Indo-Germanisch' quite
frequently in his voluminous survey of the languages of Asia
(and also of other continents, notably Europe), Asia Polyglotta,
11
Cf. Siegert (1941/42, p. 76): "Dieser ganze Zusammenhang deutet
darauf hin, daß hier der Terminus "Indoeuropean" bewußt geschaffen
und nicht etwa von einem anderen übernommen wurde.
12
Norman, as we have already pointed out above (note 7) gives the,
(nowadays more usual) hyphenated form instead of Young's 'Indo-
european'.
written in German, but published in Paris in 1823 (cf. Klaproth

1823a, p. 42, 43, 56, 62, 74, 75, 84, 97, 108, 210, 244). However,
G. Meyer (p. 128) doubted that Klaproth was in effect the coiner
of these terms, and Leo Meyer (1830-1910), covering roughly
the same ground, noted several years later: ''Klaproth ge
braucht . . . den Namen 'Indo-Germanisch' wie einen ganz be
kannten" (Meyer 1901, p. 455-56).
In view of these doubts cast upon the authorship of Klaproth,
it is interesting to note, as Siegert in his well-informed article
of 1941 does, that Klaproth spoke, in the first (and only) volume
of the Archiv für asiatische Litteratur, Geschichte und Sprachen
kunde (St. Petersburg, 1810) of a "großen Indisch-Medisch-
Sclavisch-Gerrnanischen Völkerkette" (p. 81; Meyer 1893, p. 128).
This reference to a 'large chain of peoples' suggested to Siegert
(1941/42, p. 80): „Was liegt da näher als die Annahme, Klap
roth habe selbst ein solches Kompositum an dieser Stelle [i. .,
in Asia Poly gotta] zum ersten Male gekürzt."
If Siegert's hypothesis is correct, it would mean that Klaproth
used the two endpoints of the above concatenation to embrace
the large language family, and to render the rather unwieldy
expression somewhat more manageable. This suggestion would
also refute another hypothesis according to which Klaproth was
merely contracting an ad-hoc compound suggested by Friedrich
Schlegel in his review of Johann Gottlieb Rhode's (1762-1827)
78-page booklet, Über den Anfang unserer Geschichte (Schlegel
1819, p. 456, note = 1975, p . 516, note), namely "indisch
lateinisch-persisch-germanische Sprachfamilie", which Schlegel
reduced also to 'indisch-lateinisch-germanisch' in the same foot
note (cf. Meyer 1893, p . 125-126; Siegert 1941/42, p . 79). Indeed,
despite the impact of Schlegel's Über die Sprache und Weisheit
der Indier (1808) on linguistic scholarship at the beginning of
the 19th century, it is doubtful that Klaproth would have taken
note of Schlegel's review article devoted to a subject which has
little to do with language—not to mention the fact that, fol
lowing his conversion to Catholicism in 1808, Schlegel had
abandoned linguistic investigations altogether.
Before suggesting another source for 'Indo-Germanic', let us
cite the first instance in Klaproth's book in which the term is
used. In his proposed survey of the peoples of Asia according to

the languages they speak, Klaproth starts with the 'Indo-Ger
manen' 1 3 , describing the members of this family in the follow
ing terms:
Dieses ist der am weitesten verbreitete Stamm in der Welt, denn seine
Wohnsitze fangen in Zeilon an, gehen über Vorder-Indien und Per
sien, über den Kaukasus, nach Europa, welchen Erdtheil er fast ganz
inne hat, bis zu den Shetlandinseln, dem Nord-Kap und Island. Zu
ihm gehören Indier, Perser, Afghanen, Kurden, Meder, Osseten, Ar
menier, Slawen, Deutsche, Dänen, Schweden, Normänner, Engländer,
Griechen, Lateiner und alle von Lateinern abstammenden Völker
Europas. (Klaproth 1823a, p. 42)
Published seven years after Bopp's Conjugationssystem (1816),

Klaproth's list constitutes a noticeable improvement over the
one supplied by Young ten years earlier, though Klaproth ap
pears to exclude Celtic (cf. p . 43), which Young (1813, p. 256) did
count among the Indo-European languages. Interestingly enough,
in the French translation of his Reise in den Kaukasus (Halle,
1812-14), which Klaproth published in Paris in the same year
as Asia Polyglotta, Celtic is compared with Ossetic and other
Indo-European languages (Klaproth 1823b I I , p . 469ff.).
More importantly perhaps, in the linguistic portion of his
Voyage au Mont Caucase Klaproth (1823b I I , p. 437) states:
"Les Ossètes . . . appartiennent à la souche des nations indo-
germaniques en Asie." And on page 440, he affirms that "la
langue des Ossètes prouve . . . qu'ils appartiennent à la même
souche que les Mèdes et les Perses, c'est-à-dire, à l'indo-germani-
que." Siegert (1941/42, p. 80), who quotes these and other
passages (especially one, p. 449, which demonstrates beyond
any doubt t h a t Klaproth meant "Indo-European" by indo-
germanique), is persuaded to believe t h a t all "diese Tatsachen
deuten . . . darauf hin, daß die Bezeichnung von Klaproth 1823
geschaffen worden ist."
We have noted earlier that other scholars (G.Meyer 1893;
Leo Meyer 1901) doubted Klaproth's authorship of the term.
13
The fact that 'Indo-Germanen' is misspelt 'Indo-Germanien' in the
chapter heading may suggest that it was a compound of a fairly re
cent origin. (The 'Inhaltsverzeichnis', p. 1, gives 'Indo-Germanen'.)
Also Norman (1929, p. 314) suggested t h a t the fact t h a t Klaproth

"who constantly employs 'Indogermanen' and 'indogermanisch'
without explaining his terminology", might have "either used
the term in earlier work where he explained it or . . . found it in
the writings of another philologist : no such reference has as yet
appeared."
With respect to the first conjecture, we may safely assume
t h a t Klaproth did not use 'Indo-Germanisch' in his pre-1823
publications; this possibility has already been thoroughly in
vestigated by G. Meyer (1893) and confirmed by research under
taken by Siegert (1941/42). Norman's second suggestion t h a t
Klaproth took the term from another philologist must remain
an open question until all relevant writings of the period have
been inspected. I, for one, doubt it, especially in view of Shapiro's
recent findings, which suggest quite another source from which
Klaproth might have drawn. In what follows, pertinent in
formation has been taken from this paper (Shapiro 1981),
though the suggested connections are all my own.
In this review of Rhode (1819), F . Schlegel refers to the 'mosai
sche Weltkarte' in the Atlas of the 'berühmte Geograph' Malte-
Brun (Schlegel 1975, p . 480, n.*). I t is true that Rhode's book
has to do with historical-geological and geographic speculations
which explain Schlegel's reference to such a work. However, this
mention also suggests t h a t the geographer in question, the
Danish-born Frenchman Conrad Malte-Brun (1775-1826), was
indeed a well-known figure at the time. He had settled in Paris
soon after his banishment from Denmark in 1800, founded the
Annales des Voyages (1808-1814), and was one of the co-found
ers of the Société de Géographie de Paris. (It may be t h a t
Schlegel, who spent several years in Paris between 1802 and
1806, knew Malte-Brun personally, as he was acquainted with
Georges Cuvier [1769-1832], for example.)
Klaproth, the Berlin-born traveller and Orientalist, had settled
in Paris in 1815. He received, owing to an intervention of
Wilhelm von Humboldt, the title and salary of professor of
Asiatic languages and literature from the King of Prussia, with
permission to remain in Paris as long as he required for the pub
lication of his works. (As a matter of fact, Klaproth died in
Paris in 1835.) I do not know whether Klaproth made Malte-

Brun's personal acquaintance, but there is no doubt in my mind
t h a t Klaproth consulted the voluminous Précis de la géographie
universelle, which appeared in Paris from 1810 onwards (and
was completed by others in 1829), when revising the French
version of his 1812-14 report on his travels to the Caucasus and
Georgia, namely, the Voyage au Mont Caucase et en Géorgie
(Paris 1823; new ed., 1836). As we have noted above, Klaproth
used the term 'indogermanique' quite frequently, a term not
found in the German original. We may presume that, if Klaproth
did not coin the terms 'Indo-Germanisch' and 'indogermanique'
himself, he must have come across them after his departure from
Berlin in 1815. 14
In this connection, it is interesting to note (as Shapiro has
recently done) t h a t in the second volume of Malte-Brun's Précis
de la géographie universelle (Paris 1810), in which the author
attempts a general overview of the world's languages, we find
the statement: "Nous nommerons en premier lieu la famille des
langues indo-germaniques, qui règnent depuis les bords du Gange
jusqu'aux rivages de l'Islande" (Malte-Brun 1810, p . 577). (This
statement is repeated in the 1812 edition.)
Proceeding in the (at least since Schlegel's book of 1808) 'tra
ditional' fashion, Malte-Brun, in the 'livre quarante-cinquième'
of his work, begins his enumeration with Sanskrit in the east, and
ends with the 'langues germaniques' in the west, with Persian,
Greek, Latin, and 'les langues slavonnes' (and their various
modern daughter languages) in between (Malte-Brun 1810,
p. 577-78). Like Young (1813, p. 256), he excludes Armenian
and, like Klaproth (1823, p . 43), the Celtic languages from the
14
It is perhaps an indication that Klaproth might well have had per
sonal contacts with Malte-Brun, if we note that, following Malte-
Brun's death in 1826, the second series of the Annales des Voyages,
de la géographie, de l'histoire et de l'archéologie (Paris 1819-70), was
continued, during 1827-35 — i.e., until Klaproth's death — under
the -editorship of Klaproth. — The title of the first series was,
quite revealing, I believe, in view of Klaproth's important travels,
Annales des voyages, de la géographie et de l'histoire, ou, Collection
des voyages nouveaux les plus estimés, traduits de toutes les langues
européennes (Paris 1809-1814).
'langues indo-germaniques' (p. 579). There is no hint in Malte-

Brun's Précis that he was introducing a new term. Indeed, it
might be injustifiable to expect the geographer to invent such
an expression. Rather, it could be assumed t h a t Malte-Brun
drew this information from another, possibly linguistic, source. 14a
I t seems likely that Klaproth took the term from the Précis,
but the question remains where did Malte-Brun take his
term from? To this question, it appears, an answer could be
found by establishing Malte-Brun's sources, perhaps his personal
library and other books generally accessible to someone working
in Paris during the early 1800s.
The later history of the use of Tndo-Germanic' by 19th-
century and early 20th-century linguists is well established. I t
seems clear to me that Humboldt, in his 1827 paper "Über den
Dualis", was referring to (his beneficiary) Klaproth when he
made a reference to the new appellation 'Indo-Germanisch' (cf.
the quotation, p . 4 supra). Similarly, I am inclined to believe
t h a t Pott, in the preface to his Etymologische Forschungen
(1833, p. X X X ) , was thinking of Humboldt's (and probably also
to his former teacher Bopp's) objection to this term, when he
spoke of "Der Sanskritsprachstamm, — oder mag man, ihn den
Indo-Europäischen, Indo-Germanischen zu benennen, vorziehen,
— . . .", though in effect he was opting for the last of the three
terms.
I n 1840, P o t t contributed a 112-page article on 'indogermani
scher Sprachstamm' to Joh. Samuel Ersch (1766-1828) and Joh.
Gottfried Gruber's (1774-1851) Allgemeine Encyclopädie der
Wissenschaften, in which he sets out to justify his choice :
Verschiedene Benennungen jenes Stammes. Die Verlegenheit, für Völ
ker und Sprachen passende Collectivbenennungen aufzufinden, zeigt
sich in vollem Masse auch bei dem hier in Frage kommenden Sprach-
stamm, dessen von uns gewählter Name (Indogermanisch), so viel
sonst gegen seine Zweckmäßigkeit einwenden läßt, wenigstens sehr
gangbar und allgemein verständlich geworden ist. (Pott 1840, p. 1)
14a
My colleague and friend Sylvain Auroux (Paris) believes that Malte-
Brun may well have been the coiner of the term 'indo-germanique',
since his work contains a number of neologisms, including the com
pound 'Indochine' which did not only become current in France.
Somewhat later (on the same page), he expresses himself against

'Indo-European' in the following terms:
Der von Andern in Anwendung gebrachte Ausdruck: 'Indo-Euro
päisch' hält vor einer mürrischen Kritik noch weniger Stich: weit
gefehlt nämlich, daß in Ostindien (nicht einmal die diesseitige Halb
insel hat lauter sanskritische Idiome) und in Europa sämmtliche
Sprachen verwandtschaftlich unter einander und mit dem von uns
besprochenen Stamme verbunden wären, zählt vielmehr jenes Land . . .
in gleicher Weise als unser Erdteil, nicht wenig Sprachen völlig an
deren Ursprungs und Wesens, als die sind, welche man unter obigem
Ausdruck befaßt. 15
Although 'Indo-Germanic' continued to be used in the English-

speaking world until the end of the 19th century by several
scholars (cf. Norman 1929, p . 320, for relevant references), 16
there can be no doubt t h a t either 'Indo-European' or, following
Max Müller's usage, 'Aryan' were the most frequently employed
terms. I t is interesting to note t h a t Leo Meyer (1901, p . 451)
argued t h a t indeed 'Indo-Germanic' is older t h a n 'Indo-Euro
pean', especially in view of Shapiro's (1981) findings:
Die Benennung "indogermanisch" ist eben die erste, die als zusammen
fassende für den als nah zusammengehörig und wirklich verwandt er
kannten Sprachstamm gebraucht worden ist und sie faßt auch in
sehr zweckmäßiger Weise die Sprache des im fernen Osten weitaus
gedehnten indischen Gebietes und der in der Mitte Europas weitaus-
15
The same argument was made by Leo Meyer (1901, p . 451): "Wenn
Bopp der Benennung 'indoeuropäisch' einen gewissen Vorzug geben
will, wie es außerhalb Deutschlands überhaupt zu geschehen pflegt,
so ist dagegen immer wieder und gar nicht genug zu betonen, daß
die Europäer ganz und gar nicht alle zu dem selben Sprachstamm ge
hören; es werden bei solchem Gebrauch von 'indoeuropäisch' nament
lich die ugrofinnischen Sprachen in ganz ungehöriger Weise einfach
bei Seite geschoben."
18
Henry Sweet (1845-1912), for instance, used 'Indogermanic' in the
title to his review of F . de Saussure's Mémoire and Friedrich Kluge's
(1856-1926) Beiträge zur Geschichte der germanischen Conjugation,
Strassburg, K. J. Trübner 1879; see Sweet (1880). — As a matter of
fact, 'Indo-Germanic' was used in the English translation of . Malte-
Brun's Précis, Universal Geography, vol. I, Edinburgh, A. Black 1822;
Boston, Wells & Lilly 1824, i.e., 8 years before the usage attested
by Norman (1929: 318), where reference is made to an anonymous
review in the Edinburgh Review 51, p . 529ff. (July 1830).
gedehnten Germanen zusammen, um ein großes Ganzes zu bezeichnen,

das man doch nicht wohl mit Aufzählung aller seiner Hauptteile be
quem nennen konnte.
Indeed, it could have been argued, at least until Celtic had (by
the mid-19th century) become generally recognized as a branch
of Indo-European, t h a t 'Germanic' represents the group of lan
guages which has the extreme western distribution of the Indo-
European language family—something which is evident in
Malte-Brun's enumeration (supra), for instance. By 1857, when
Bopp wrote the preface to the second edition of his Vergleichende
Grammatik, the situation had changed, thus lending particular
support to his argument in favour of the use of 'Indo-European' :
Die häufig gebrauchte Benennung "indogermanisch" kann ich nicht
billigen, weil ich keinen Grund kenne, warum in dem Namen des
umfassendsten Sprachstammes gerade die Germanen als Vertreter der
urverwandten Völker unsers Erdtheils, sowohl der Vorzeit, als der
Gegenwart, hervorzuheben. (Bopp 1857, p. XXIX)
Instead, Bopp would prefer either 'indo-classisch', because Latin
and Greek had conserved the basic type of the language family
much better than any other European language, or, following
Humboldt, 'sanskritisch', since it does not emphasize a particular
nationality but a (linguistic) characteristic shared by all members
of this 'most perfect' language family. 17
Outside German-speaking countries Bopp's plea did not
remain unheard, and the French Swiss Adolphe Pictet (1799-
1875) made 'Indo-European' a viable competitor to 'Indo-
Germanic' by using it in the title of his influential work, Les
Origines indo-européennes, ou les Aryas primitifs (Paris 1859-63).
However, among German linguists of the 19th century the term
'indogermanisch' became the customary one (cf. Siegert 1941/42,
78-79, for exceptions). Neither Bopp's authority—toward the
end of his 1857 preface he had argued „ F ü r jetzt ziehe ich . . . die
Benennung Indo-Europäisch (oder Indisch-Europäisch) vor, die
auch bereits, so wie die entsprechende im Englischen und Franzö
sischen, eine große Verbreitung gewonnen h a t " — n o r the popu-
17
It appears that Bopp used 'indogermanisch' only once, namely, in a
paper read before the Berlin Academy in 1842; there, he was directly
referring to Klaproth (Siegert 1941/42, p. 78).
larity of Count Gobineau's 4-volume Essai sur l'inégalité des

races humaines (Paris, 1853-55), who criticized the appellation
'indo-germanique', appear to have had much effect on this de
velopment. In the second volume of his Essai (p. 105), Gobi
neau (1816-82) argued against the term as follows:
Si l'on voulait absolument appliquer aux groupes des langues des noms
de nations, il serait plus raisonable pourtant de qualifier le rameau
arien d'hindou-celtique. On aurait du moins ainsi la désignation des
deux extrêmes géographiques, et on indiquerait les deux faces les plus
différentes du système; mais, pour mille causes, cette dénomination
serait encore détestable.
In fact, even in Germany several scholars suggested 'Indo-

Celtic' (indokeltisch) in lieu of 'indogermanisch' (cf. already Pott
1840, p. 1) in an attempt to designate the two extreme branches
of the large Indo-European family tree (cf. Siegert 1941/42, p. 83),
but with little success. Gobineau, for his part, used 'Aryan' ; he
was promoting a 'white' or Indo-European 'supremacist' view
which had dear consequences (cf. Poliakov 1974, p. 233-37),
regardless of Pott's (1856) efforts in countering Gobineau's
outrageous speculations. 18
I n his Die Sprachen Europas, August Schleicher (1821-68),
probably the most influential mid-19th-century linguist, ex
pressed himself in favour of the use of 'indogermanisch' because
it is the most frequently used term, even though he concedes
(p. 123) t h a t it is 'nicht bezeichnend'. He rejected not only 'Indo-
European', but also 'Aryan', 'Sanskritic', and 'Japhetic', terms
also current in the past century, pleading:
. . . gönne man den germanischen Nationen die Ehre diesem Sprach-
stamme theilweise den Namen gegeben zu haben, in der dankbaren
Erinnerung, daß Deutsche es waren, welche die Zusammengehörig
keit der betreffenden Sprachen zuerst methodisch erwiesen und da
durch für die Sprachwissenschaft überhaupt eine neue Aera herbei
geführt haben. (Schleicher 1850, p. 124)
18
I believe that Poliakov (1974, p. 197) is quite unfair to Pott when he
associates him with racist views, surmising that he had helped to pro
mote Gobineau's views (p. 259). Cf. also Joan Leopold's review of
Poliakov's book in Historiographia Linguistica 4, p. 401-406 (1977),
esp. p. 404.
Schleicher might have had a good argument, but already his

own association (if not latent identification) of 'germanisch'
with 'deutsch', which in English is still much closer, namely,
'Germanic' and 'German', might already have led to an oppo
sition even on the part of scholars whose Anglo-Saxon back
ground would have included them among the Germanic branch.
Thus, the American Sanskrit scholar and general linguist William
Dwight Whitney (1827-94) noted:
. . . a few still employ the term 'Indo-Germanic', which seems to
savour of national prepossession, since no good reason can be given
why, among the western branches, the Germanic should be singled
out for representation in the general title of the family. (Whitney 1867,
p. 193; similarly also Whitney 1875, p. 180.)
Julius Jolly (1849-1932), the German translator of Whitney's

Language and the Study of Language, tried to counter Whitney's
criticism with an argument reminiscent of Schleicher's when he
stated, after having referred to other German scholars who had
in his view refuted Whitney's objection:
. . . obschon auch noch daran zu erinnern wäre, daß es von allen
Völkern unseres Stammes gerade die Inder und die Germanen sind,
die am meisten zur Entdeckung desselben beigetragen haben: dieses
Verdienst also in dem Namen des Stammes zu verewigen, wäre kein
Unrecht, wenn dies auch, wie im Texte erwähnt, keineswegs in der
Absicht der Namensschöpfer lag. Das Entscheidende aber bleibt, daß
die Benennung "indogermanisch" nun einmal allgemein in Deutschland
recipiert ist, . . . (Whitney 1874, p. 283, note)
Whatever the argument in favour of the use of 'indogermanisch',

the fact remains that, from the last quarter of the 19th century
onwards, this term has been the regular one in German-speaking
countries. Thus, beginning with volume X X I I I (1875-77),
Adalbert Kuhn's (1812-81) influential, if not the leading journal
of the period, ''Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung"
changed its subtitle from "auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen,
Griechischen und Lateinischen" to "auf dem Gebiete der indo
germanischen Sprachen". At about the same time, in 1876, a
year which appears to have been crucial in the development of
linguistics (Koerner 1976), Adalbert Bezzenberger (1851-1922)
founded the "Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Spra-
chen" (which thirty years later merged into Kuhn's Journal).

Finally, in 1891, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of
Franz Bopp's birth, Karl Brugmann (1849-1919) and Wilhelm
Streitberg (1864-1925) founded the journal ''Indogermanische
Forschungen" bearing the subtitle "Zeitschrift für indogermani
sche Sprach- und Alterthumskunde".
In this manner, we may say that the usage 'indogermanisch'
over and above any other term was cemented once and for all,
irrespective of the nationalistic or other connections that some
might have associated with 'Indo-Germanic', especially following
the founding of the German state in 1871 and during — as well
as preceding — the Third Reich. The post-World War I I period
has witnessed, especially in the western part of Germany, a
restoration of the historical-comparative tradition in Indo-
European studies, and, despite the propagandistic misuse made
of terms such as 'germanisch' and 'indogermanisch' in the past,
there exists to my knowledge no proposal to adopt 'indoeuro
päisch' in lieu of the 'traditional' term, even if it were to simply
follow the general usage outside German-speaking countries.
4.0 On t h e O r i g i n , U s e s a n d A b u s e s of ' A r y a n '

I t must have been an act of courage to write an article, as
Hans Siegert did, devoted to the history, uses and misuses of
the concept and term 'Aryan' at the height of Nazi-German
power. As was typical of the period, the subtitle of the journal
"Wörter und Sachen", founded in 1909 by the Viennese Rudolf
Meringer (1859-1931), had been changed from the neutral
"Kulturhistorische Zeitschrift für Sprach- und Sachforschung"
to the much more 'tinged' "Zeitschrift für indogermanische
Sprachwissenschaft, Volksforschung und Kulturgeschichte". The
present section is much indebted to Siegert's (1941/42, p. 84-99)
research.
In contrast to 'Indo-European' and 'Indo-Germanic' the term
'Aryan' has the advantage of having been an actual name for
a people or a group of people. Apart from that, some scholars,
notably Max Müller, argued that it was much shorter. On the
other hand, however, the fact that it had previously been used
with a precise meaning made its application to a different con-
text at best problematical. Originally, it was the word t h a t

Indo-Iranian tribes used to characterize and to distinguish them
selves from other tribes not related to them in terms of language ;
in fact, this is the only sense in which 'Aryan' is still employed
today by historical linguists, namely, as a cover term for the
Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European.
I t appears that, as a technical term, it was introduced into
European scholarship by Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron (1731—
1805), with whose work F . Schlegel obviously was familiar. Thus,
in his review of Rhode (1819), when speaking of the Zend-Avesta,
Schlegel (1975, p . 515, 518) refers to Anquetil's authority. Indeed,
it is there (but also p . 527) t h a t he speaks of the 'Aryans' arguing
that the language should be called by the name of the people,
not by any other appellation; for instance, the Greek in which
the New Testament has been written should not be called
'language of the gospels' (Evangeliumsprache). Thus it would
appear t h a t the particular use of 'Aryan' for a language group
was promoted by Friedrich Schlegel. The transfer of the term
to denote the entire language family, however, does not have
its source in Schlegel's argument; it must be found in later
19th-century linguistic scholarship.
Much ink has been spilled on the etymology of 'Aryan', which
originally meant "rightful, honourable, noble" and, as we may
note, contained already the germ of racism which was later
exploited by 19th and 20th century ideologists of various kinds.
The etymological connection that 19th-century scholars tried
to establish between 'Aryan' and 'Eire' (Ireland) turned out to
be spurious, but it served to promote the argument t h a t 'Aryan'
could be employed to refer to 'Indo-European' and, as Zimmer
(1879, p. 150) would have it, as the only correct designation (die
allein richtige Bezeichnung), a view which, according to Siegert
(p. 89), was already present in Schlegel's interpretation of the
term. However, we are less interested in the various etymologies
advanced by 19th-century philologists (cf. Siegert, pp. 84-89
passim, for details) than in the technical use made of 'Aryan'.
In the development of 'Aryan' in the sense of "Indo-European"
it appears t h a t the Norwegian-born Indo-Iranist and pupil of
August Wilhelm Schlegel (1767-1845) at Bonn, Christian Lassen
(1800-1876), played a seminal role. In a detailed footnote to

a polemics against Bopp's 'System der Sanskritsprache', Lassen
made a deliberate transfer of the term from its original, restricted
application to the entire language family, with a prominent
position among the European branches assigned to the Germanic
group. This was based, ironically enough, on an etymological
misreading of a classical t e x t :
Die Inder und die Altpersischen Völker nannten sich mit demselben
Namen, dem der Arier, der auch bei den kriegerischen Deutschen
seiner ehrenden Bedeutung nicht unwürdig erscheint: Tacit. Germ.
X L I I I : Ceterum Arii [recte: Harii] super vires, quibus enumeratos
paullo ante populos antecedunt, truces, insitae feritati arte et tempore
lenonciantur . . . (Lassen 1830, p. 71 note)
Pictet in 1837 and Pott in 1840 refer to Lassen's proposal,

though Pott did not approve of the expansion of the original
application, whereas Pietet, especially in his Les Origines indo-
européennes (1859-63), adopted the suggested usage. I t is on
the authority of Pietet t h a t Max Müller began promoting the
special use of 'Aryan' in the sense of ''Indo-European" from the
first volume of his Lectures on the Science of Language (1861)
onwards (cf. Müller 1875; 1888). However, even though he was
instrumental in making the term very popular in the Anglo-
Saxon world, he is not guilty of racism of any kind, regardless
of Poliakov's (1974, p. 213f.) accusation. For Müller, for his
part, wished to have nothing to do with what ethnologists of
his time made of the term and concept. For him, 'Aryan' was
to be regarded as a strictly linguistic term:
To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan
eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a doli
chocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar. It is worse than
a Babylonian confusion of tongues — it is downright theft. We have
our own terminology for the classification of languages : let the ethnolo
gists make their own classification of skull, and hair, and blood.
(Müller 1888, p. 120)
Pietet, for his part, made the term 'arien' (as well as 'indo-
européen') widely known in the French-speaking lands (cf.
Siegert 1941/42, p. 77, n. 2 and 95-96), and this with the latent
association between people and language. This connection, it
appears, was exploited by ethnologists who had leanings toward

Aryan supremacy, the best-known of which was undoubtedly
Gobineau. However, since racist prejudice and, worse, the per
secution of those not belonging to the 'Aryan' family of peoples
is generally associated with Germany (and Austria), I would
like to mention at least two 19th-century authors, both of them
Americans, who reflect quite nicely the ideology of 'Indo-
European' (white) supremacy, namely, Albert Pike's (1809-1891)
Lectures of the Arya (1873) and Charles Morris' (1833-1922)
The Aryan Race (1888).19 Still in 1926 V. G. Childe (1892-1957)
felt justified to use the term 'Aryan' to refer to the Indo-European
peoples, although he notes : "As a racial designation it is peculiar
to the Indo-Iranians" (p. 95).
Yet by the time Siegert (1941/42) was writing his account of
the semantic evolution of the term, 'Aryan' had become almost
exclusively a term with racial connotations. 'Aryan' in the
sense of "Caucasian of non-Jewish decent" was a central part
of Nazi-ideology, a concept which, as we know, was extended
to other minorities, including the gypsies, who by the 1840s had
become recognized as being of Indo-European, if not Aryan,
origin. When Siegert (p. 99) suggested that, because of its con
fusing usages, the term 'Aryan' should be abandoned altogether,
he was making a daring statement if we consider the historical
circumstances by which he was surrounded: at t h a t time, the
persecution of so-called 'Non-Aryans' (Nicht-Arier) was growing
fiercer and fiercer day by day.
Today, 'Aryan' is used, if at all, only to designate the Indo-
Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. Honoré
Chavée's suggestion made in 1867 (and implemented by him in
subsequent publications) to use 'aryaque' in referring to the
'langue indo-germanique primitive' or indo-germanische Grund
sprache—in contradistinction to 'arien'—was unsuccessful, for
various reasons. First, Chavée (1815-77) was considered as an
'érudit éclairé' (Meillet) but not as a professional linguist;
Interestingly enough, Poliakov, in his biased account of the German

Romanticist tradition from Herder onwards, does not mention either
of the two American ethnologists.
second, he was writing in the "Revue de Linguistique" (Paris,

1867-1916), which was shunned by many scholars of the period,
in Prance as well as abroad, because of its open subscription to
Comtean positivism (cf. Koerner 1981); and third, because it
was based on an incorrect etymology (cf. supra).
Similarly, the use of 'Ario-European', recommended by
Graziadio Isaia Ascoli (1829-1907) already in 1854 (cf. Siegert
1941/42, p . 93, n. 1), was not taken up by many scholars. The
Pole J a n Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929) appears to have
been an exception (1884). I n fact, at least among linguists, the
term 'Aryan' in the sense of "Indo-European" (cf. Bradke 1890)
became rarely used by the end of the 19th century, and there
were even fewer scholars at the beginning of the 20th century
who used the term in this sense (e.g., Jacobsohn 1922).20
Forty years ago, Siegert (1941/42, p. 99, n. 1), noting the 'Sprach
verwirrung' in the use of 'Aryan' and the many terms offered for
'indogermanisch' (e.g., "japhetisch, indoeuropäisch, indogermanisch,
sanskritisch, indokeltisch, arisch, mittelländisch, europäisch, sartisch,
kaukasisch, indisch-deutsch, ario-europäisch", a list to which other
terms, for instance 'thrakisch' could be added, cf. Johann Severin
Vater's [1771-1826] translation from Rask, 1822) suggested the crea
tion of an historical dictionary of linguistic terminology, a proposal
which I would like to repeat here, since it appears that, on the basis
of such a dictionary it would be possible to delineate much of the
development of linguistic thought. — Thus, it is curious to see that,
where the term 'Semitic' is concerned, so many scholars in the 19th
century believed that Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827) was the
creator (cf. Pott 184.0, 1; Westphal 1873, p. I X ; Steinthal 1890,
p. XII). It appears to have been Leo Meyer (1901, p. 457), who was
the first to establish once for all that the coiner was in effect August
Ludwig von Schlözer (1735-1809) in 1781. In an article, Von den
Chaldäern, published in part VIII of the Repertorium für biblische
und morgenländische Litteratur ed. by Eichhorn — hence the con
fusion, I presume—pp. 113-76, Schlözer stated (p. 161): "Vom Mittel
ländischen Meer an bis zum Eufrat hinein, und von Mesopotamien
bis nach Arabien hinunter, herrschte bekanntlich nur Eine Sprache.
Also Syrier, Babylonier, Hebräer und Araber, waren Ein Volk. Auch
Phönizier (Hamiten) redeten diese Sprache, die ich die S e m i t i s c h e
nennen möchte; sie hatten aber solche erst auf der Gränze gelernt."
On the history of 'Hamitic', see Knappert (1976).
5.0 C o n c l u d i n g R e m a r k s
By 1861, when Schleicher's Compendium der vergleichenden
Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen began appearing,
the majority of scholars in the German-speaking lands employed
'indogermanisch' rather than 'indoeuropäisch'. Karl Moritz Rapp
(1803-1883), a pupil of Bopp like his very close contemporary
A. F . Pott, was one of the few scholars of the period who con
sistently used 'Indo-European' ('indisch-europäisch' or 'indo
europäisch') in his writings; consider his 4-volume Grundriß der
Grammatik des indisch-europäischen Stammes (1853-55). Al
ready by 1880, before Brugmann had even begun working on
his Grundriß, Rapp's work was no longer referred to even in the
annals of the discipline (cf. Delbrück 1882, p. 62, where he is
simply mentioned by name together with a few others as ex
pounding an evolutionist theory of language).
Owing to the prestige of German scholarship in comparative-
historical linguistics (which included, for reasons of national pride
and, I presume, simply by habit, the regular use of 'indogerma
nisch' so deeply cherished by the Junggrammatiker), the term
'Indo-Germanic' was used even by foreign scholars. C. C.Uhlen-
beck (1866-1951), for example, still employed 'Indogermanic' in
1937, whereas, by 1941, the second-generation Neogrammarian,
Holger Pedersen (1867-1953), preferred 'indoeuropäisch'. By
that time, Germany was at war with almost every European
country, and there was no reason for a Dane to identify with
the 'Germanic' part of the term, especially since it was clearly
tinged with Teutonic overtones.
One might have thought that, with German minds having
sobered from past experience, which included the misuse of lin
guistic terminology, 'indogermanisch' would have become more
and more obsolete. But perhaps this is asking too much from
a branch of linguistic research which is as tradition-laden as
Indogermanistik. As a historian of linguistics, I would regret it
if the term were to be discontinued in the titles of periodicals
which have served many generations of researchers under this
name. But as someone aware of historical events in general, I
see no particular reasons for clinging to 'Indo-Germanic' and
related terms in present-day publications.
The pros and cons of the use of 'Indo-European' have, in a

way, already been discussed in the preceding survey. We may
summarize the reasons why this term is preferable to 'Indo-
Germanic' in the following points: 2 1 (1) I t is used regularly (and
unambiguously) by all scholars outside the German-speaking
area; (2) it is probably more vague in its original meaning and,
as a result, more easily amenable to a precise scientific definition,
and (3) 'Germanic' is too close to 'German' not to lead to possible
confusion in the minds of some people, if not to irritation t h a t
one particular branch of the European branches should be given
prominence over and above all the others (i.e., Celtic, Romance,
Slavic, etc.).
To the explanation that 'indogermanisch' describes the most
southern (Indian) and the most northern (Germanic) branch of
the Indo-European family of language, an explanation t h a t I
was given as a student in Germany some fifteen years ago (cf.
also Sowinski 1974, p. 100), I cannot but reply with Norman's
(1929, p. 313) cogent remark that it "merely attempts to define
an antiquated term in the light of present knowledge."
REFERENCES
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1884, Übersicht der slavischen Sprachen-
welt im Zusammenhang mit den anderen ario-europäischen (indo
germanischen) Sprachen, Leipzig, T. O. Weigel.
Bopp, Franz, 1833, Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Send, Ar
menischen, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Littauischen, Altslawischen,
Gothischen und Deutschen, Berlin, F. Dümmler.
— 1857, Vergleichende Grammatik . . . 2nd rev. ed., vol. I. Ibid.
Bradke, Peter von, 1890, Über Methode und Ergebnisse der arischen (in
dogermanischen) Altertumswissenschaft. Giessen, J. Ricker.
Chavée, Honoré, 1867, La science positive des langues indo-européennes,
son présent, son avenir, Revue de Linguistique et de Philologie com
parée, 1,1-35.
Childe, Vere Gordon, 1926, The Aryans: A study of Indo-European ori
gins, London, . Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. ; New York, A. A.
Knopf.
Drobin's recent article (1980) does not add anything to the discussion;
it is concerned with the reality behind the concept of 'Indo-European'
(indogermanisch), not the appropriateness of the term.
D e l b r ü c k , Berthold, 1882, I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e S t u d y of L a n g u a g e : A
critical s u r v e y of t h e h i s t o r y a n d m e t h o d s of c o m p a r a t i v e philology
of I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages. T r a n s l . b y E v a C h a n n i n g , Leipzig, Breit-
kopf & H ä r t e l . (New ed., w i t h a foreword b y E. F . K. Koerner, A m
s t e r d a m , J . Benjamins 1974.)
D e l b r ü c k , Berthold, 1894, N o c h einmal ' i n d o g e r m a n i s c h ' , Anzeiger für
i n d o g e r m a n i s c h e Sprach- u n d Altertumswissenschaft 3, p . 2 6 7 - 6 8 .
Diderichsen, P a u l , 1974, T h e F o u n d a t i o n of C o m p a r a t i v e L i n g u i s t i c s :
R e v o l u t i o n or c o n t i n u a t i o n ?, Studies in t h e H i s t o r y of Linguistics ed. b y
Dell H y m e s , p. 277-306, Bloomington & L o n d o n , I n d i a n a U n i v . P r e s s .
D r o b i n , Ulf, 1980, I n d o g e r m a n i s c h e Religion u n d K u l t u r ? Eine A n a l y s e
des Begriffes I n d o g e r m a n i s c h , Stockholm, I n s t . for C o m p a r a t i v e R e
ligion, U n i v . of S t o c k h o l m .
D r o i x h e , Daniel, L a L i n g u i s t i q u e et l'appel de l'histoire (1600-1800),
Geneva, Droz.
Gobineau, J o s e p h A r t h u r , C o m t e de, 1853-55, Essai sur l'inégalité des
races h u m a i n e s , 4 vols. P a r i s , F . D i d o t .
H a l h e d , N a t h a n i e l Brassey, 1778, A G r a m m a r of t h e Bengal L a n g u a g e ,
Bengal, P r i n t e d a t Hoogly.
H u m b o l d t , Wilhelm, F r e i h e r r v o n (1827). Ü b e r d e n Dualis. Berlin,
A k a d e m i e der Wissenschaften 1828. ( R e p r . in W . v o n H u m b o l d t ,
Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie ed. b y A n d r e a s F l i t n e r a n d Klaus
Giel, p . 113-43, D a r m s t a d t , Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1963).
J a c o b s o h n , H e r m a n n , 1922, Arier u n d Ugrofinnen, G ö t t i n g e n , V a n d e n -
hoeck & Ruprecht.
K l a p r o t h , J u l i u s Heinrich, 1810, A r c h i v für asiatische L i t t e r a t u r , Ge
schichte u n d S p r a c h k u n d e , E r s t e r B a n d . St. P e t e r s b u r g , I m A c a d e -
mischen Verlage. [No m o r e p u b l i s h e d ]
— 1812-14, Reise in den K a u k a s u s u n d Georgien in d e n J a h r e n 1807
u n d 1808, auf V e r a n s t a l t u n g der Kaiserlichen A k a d e m i e der Wissen
s c h a f t e n zu St. P e t e r s b u r g , 2 vols. Halle/S., W a i s e n h a u s .
— 1823a, Asia P o l y g l o t t a . P a r i s , A. S c h u b a r t . (2nd ed., P a r i s , Heidel-
h o f f & C a m p e 1 8 3 1 ; repr., Leipzig, Z e n t r a l a n t i q u a r i a t 1970.)
— 1823 b , V o y a g e a u Mont Caucase et en Géorgie, 2 vols. P a r i s , .
Gosselin. [ R e v . F r e n c h version of K l a p r o t h 1812-14; t h e second vol.
deals w i t h Caucasian languages.]
K n a p p e r t , J a n , 1976, Origin a n d D e v e l o p m e n t of t h e Concept of H a m i t i c :
T h e first s i x t y years, 1851-1911, Orientalia L o v a n i e n s i a Periodica 6/7,
p . 303-320.
Koerner, E. F . K o n r a d , 1976, 1876 as a T u r n i n g P o i n t in t h e H i s t o r y
of Linguisitcs. J o u r n a l of I n d o - E u r o p e a n Studies 4. p . 3 3 3 - 5 3 . ( R e p r .
in Koerner, T o w a r d a H i s t o r i o g r a p h y of Linguistics, p . 189-209,
A m s t e r d a m , J . Benjamins, 1978.)
— 1981, P o s i t i v i s m in 1 9 t h - c e n t u r y Linguistics, R i v i s t a di Filosofia
(in press).
Lassen, Christian, 1830, Ü b e r H e r r n Professor Bopps S y s t e m der Sans

k r i t s p r a c h e , Indische Bibliothek ed. b y A. W . Schlegel, 3, p . 1-113,
B o n n : E. W e b e r .
Malte-Brun, Conrad, 1810-29, Précis de la géographie universelle, ou,
Description de t o u t e s les p a r t i e s d u m o n d e , sur u n p l a n n o u v e a u ,
d ' a p r è s les g r a n d e s divisions naturelles d u globe, . . . 8 vols., P a r i s ,
F . Buisson.
— 1812, Précis de la geographie universelle, Vol. I I , 2e édition. Ibid.
(First ed. 1810.)
Meyer, G u s t a v , 1893, V o n w e m s t a m m t die Bezeichnung I n d o g e r m a n e n ?
Anzeiger für i n d o g e r m a n i s c h e Sprach- u n d A l t e r t u m s w i s s e n s c h a f t 2,
p . 125-130.
Meyer, Leo, 1901, Ü b e r d e n U r s p r u n g der N a m e n I n d o g e r m a n e n , Se
m i t e n u n d Ugrofinnen, Göttingische gelehrte N a c h r i c h t e n 1901, Phil.-
hist. Klasse, p . 448-59, G ö t t i n g e n , V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t .
Müller, F(riedrich) Max, 1861, L e c t u r e s o n t h e Science of L a n g u a g e ; de
livered a t t h e R o y a l I n s t i t u t i o n of G r e a t Britain in April, May, a n d
J u n e 1861, L o n d o n , L o n g m a n s , Green, L o n g m a n & R o b e r t s .
— 1872, Ü b e r die R e s u l t a t e der Sprachwissenschaft, 3rd. ed. S t r a s s b u r g ,
. J . T r ü b n e r .
— 1875, A r y a n s , E n c y c l o p a e d i a B r i t a n n i c a , 9th ed., vol. 2, p . 672. E d i n
b u r g h ,  & A. Black.
— 1888, Biographies of W o r d s a n d t h e H o m e of t h e A r y a s , L o n d o n ,
L o n g m a n s , Green & Co.
Morris, Charles, 1888, T h e A r y a n R a c e : I t s origin a n d its a c h i e v e m e n t s ,
Chicago, S. C. Griggs & Co.
N o r m a n , F r e d e r i c k , 1929, ' I n d o - E u r o p e a n ' a n d ' I n d o - G e r m a n i c ' . Modern
L a n g u a g e R e v i e w 24, p . 3 1 3 - 2 1 .
Osthoff, H e r m a n n , 1876, Z u r frage des u r s p r u n g s der g e r m a n i s c h e n N-
declination ( N e b s t einer theorie ü b e r die u r s p r ü n g l i c h e Unterschei
d u n g s t a r k e r u n d schwacher casus i m i n d o g e r m a n i s c h e n ) . Beiträge
z u r Geschichte der d e u t s c h e n S p r a c h e u n d L i t e r a t u r 3, p . 1-82 ( N a c h
wort, p . 82-89).
Pedersen, Holger, 1941, Tocharisch v o m G e s i c h t s p u n k t der indoeuro
p ä i s c h e n Sprachvergleichung, Copenhagen, E. M u n k s g a a r d .
P i c t e t , A d o l p h e , 1859-63, Les Origines indo-européennes, ou, les A r y a s
primitifs, 2 vols. J . Cherbuliez. (2nd rev. a n d enl. ed., Geneva, San
doz & F i s c h b a c h e r 1877.)
P i k e , Albert, 1873, L e c t u r e s of t h e A r y a , Louisville, K e n t u c k y , T h e
Standard Printing Company.
P o l i a k o v , Léon, 1974, T h e A r y a n M y t h : A h i s t o r y of racist a n d n a t i o n
alist ideas in E u r o p e . Transl. from t h e F r e n c h b y E d m u n d H o w a r d ,
L o n d o n , C h a t t o & H e i n e m a n n for Sussex U n i v . P r e s s .
P o t t , A u g u s t F r i e d r i c h , 1833-36, E t y m o l o g i s c h e F o r s c h u n g e n auf d e m
Gebiete d e r I n d o - G e r m a n i s c h e n S p r a c h e n , 2 vols. L e m g o , Meyer.
— 1840, Indogermanischer Sprachstamm. Allgemeine Encyclopädie der

Wissenschaften und Künste in alphabetischer Folge ed. by Johann
Samuel Ersch and Johann Gottfried Gruber, zweite Section (H-N),
18. Theil, p. 1-112, Leipzig, F. Gleditsch.
— 1856, Die Ungleichheit menschlicher Rassen, hauptsächlich vom
sprachwissenschaftlichen Standpunkte, unter besonderer Berücksich
tigung von des Grafen Gobineau gleichnamigen Werke, mit einem
Überblick über die Sprachverhältnisse der Völker : Ein ethnologischer
Versuch, Lemgo & Detmold, Meyer.
Rapp, Karl Moritz, 1853-55, Grundriß der Grammatik des indisch-euro
päischen Stammes, 4 vols. Stuttgart, J. G. Cotta.
Rask, Rasmus Kristian, 1822, Über die Thrakische Sprachclasse, Ver
gleichstafeln der Europäischen Stamm-Sprachen und Süd-, West-Asia
tischer, ed. by Johann Severin Vater, p. 3-182. Halle/S., Renger.
Rhode, Johann Gottlieb, 1819, Über den Anfang unserer Geschichte und
die letzte Revolution der Erde, als wahrscheinliche Wirkung eines
Kometen, Breslau, W. A. Holäufer.
Rocher, Ludo, 1960, Enkele aantekeningen bij het begrip het Indo-Euro
pees, Tijschrift van de Vrije Universiteit van Brussel 3, p. 14-33.
Rocher, Rosane, 1980, Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, Sir William Jones,
and Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, Recherches de Lin
guistique: Hommages à Maurice Leroy ed. by Jean Bingen et al.,
p. 173-80, Brussels, Editions de l'Univ. de Bruxelles.
Schlegel, Friedrich, 1808, Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: Ein
Beitrag zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde, Heidelberg, Mohr &
Zimmer. (Repr., with an introductory article by Sebastiano Timpa
naro, Amsterdam, J. Benjamins 1977.)
— 1819, Review article on Rhode 1819, Wiener Jahrbücher der Littera
tur 8, p. 413-68. (Repr. in Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe ed.
by Ernst Behler et al., vol. 8, p. 474-528. Munich-Paderborn-Vienna,
F . Schöningh.)
Schleicher, August, 1850, Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Über
sicht: Linguistische Untersuchungen, Bonn, H. B. König. (New ed.,
with an introductory article by Konrad Koerner, Amsterdam, J. Ben
jamins 1982.)
— 1861-62, Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indoger
manischen Sprachen : Kurzer Abriß einer Laut- und Formenlehre der
indogermanischen Ursprache, 2 vols. Weimar, H. Böhlau. (4th ed.,
prepared by Johannes Schmidt and August Leskien, 1876.)
Schlözer, August Ludwig von, 1781, Von den Chaldäern, Repertorium
für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur ed. by Johann Gottfried
Eichhorn, Part 8, p. 113-76, Leipzig, Weidmanns Erben & Reich.
Schmitthenner, Friedrich, 1826, Ursprachlehre : Entwurf zu einem System
der Grammatik mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Sprachen des in
disch-deutschen Stammes, Frankfurt/M., J. C. Hermann. (New ed.,
with an introduction by Herbert E. Brekle, Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt,

Frommann-Holzboog 1976.)
Shapiro, Fred R., 1981, On the Origin of the Term 'Indo-Germanic'.
Historiographia Linguistica 8, p. 165-70.
Siegert, Hans, 1941/42, Zur Geschichte der Begriffe 'Arier' und 'arisch'.
Wörter und Sachen: Zeitschrift für indogermanische Sprachwissen
schaft, Volksforschung und Kulturgeschichte 22 ( = N. F. 4), p. 73-99.
Sowinski, Bernhard, 1974, Grundlagen des Studiums der Germanistik,
2nd rev. ed. Cologne & Vienna, H. Böhlau.
Steinthal, Heymann, 1890, Vorwort zur zweiten Auflage, Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Römern, mit besonderer
Rücksicht auf die Logik, 2nd enlarged and rev. ed., vol. I, I X - X I I I .
Berlin, F . Dümmler. (Repr., Bonn, F . Dümmler 1961.)
Sweet, Henry, 1880, Recent Investigations of the Indogermanic Vowel-
System, Transactions of the Philological Society 1880-81, p. 155-62.
Uhlenbeck, Christianus Cornells, 1937, The Indogermanic Mother Lan
guage and Mother Tribes Complex, American Anthropologist 39,
p. 385-93.
Whitney, William Dwight, 1867, Language and the Study of Language.
New York, Scribner, Armstrong & Do. ; London, Trübner & Co. (3rd
ed., augmented by an analysis, 1870.)
— 1874, Die Sprachwissenschaft: W. D. Whitney's Vorlesungen über die
Prinzipien der vergleichenden Sprachforschung, für das deutsche Pub
likum bearbeitet und erweitert, by Julius Jolly, Munich, Th. Acker
mann. (Repr., Hildesheim, G. Olms 1974.)
— 1875, The Life and Growth of Language: An outline of linguistic
science, New York, D. Appleton & Co.; London, H. S. King. (Repr.,
with an introduction by Charles F . Hockett, New York, Dover Pub
lications 1979.)
[Young, Thomas], 1813, Review article on Johann Christoph Adelung,
Mithridates, oder, Allgemeine Sprachenkunde, vols. 1-2, Berlin, Voss
1806-1809. The Quarterly Review 10 [No. 19], p. 250-92 (Oct. 1813).
Zimmer, Heinrich, 1876, Die Nominalsuffixe a und â in den germanischen
Sprachen, Strassburg, K. J. Trübner.
— 1879, Arisch, Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 3,
p. 137-51.
SULLA ORIGINE E STORIA DELL'ASTERISCO
NELLA LINGUISTICA STORICA
UN CENNO S T O R I O G R A F I C O *
0. Da più di cento anni l'uso dell'asterisco davanti ad una unità morfolo

gica o fonologica riscostruita non si puó immaginare disgiunto dalla pra-
tica quotidiana del linguista storico. Solo da poco s'impiega comunemen-
te lo stesso segno anche per negare o per mettere in dubbio la grammati-
calità di una frase (cfr. la discussione di Householder 1973 su questa
prassi alquanto problematica).
Se al linguista d'oggi capita di chiedersi da dove può venire l'uso di
questo segno, il richiamo più immediato ed automatico è ad August
Schleicher. Jespersen (1921, p. 81) parlava di «ingenious device, due to
Schleicher, of denoting such [reconstructed] forms by means of a prepo-
sed asterisk to distinguish them from forms actually found », e quasi cin-
quant'anni dopo Percival (1969, pp. 417-18) ribadiva che ci si dovrebbe
ricordare «that Schleicher introduced the use of starred forms into Indo-
European linguistics ».
W. A. Benware osserva invece nel suo libro, recentemente uscito, su-
gli studi del vocalismo indo-europeo nel sec. XIX (cfr. Benware 1974, p.
37, n. 8) che l'uso dell'asterisco è chiaramente provato in alcuni altri stu
diosi ancor prima della pubblicazione del Compendium der vergleichen
den Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (1861-62) di Schleicher.
Questo cenno vuole semplicemente essere una verifica e un chiarimento
dell'affermazione di Benware di cui egli stesso, in una lettera personale,
ha precisato le fonti.
1. A quanto pare, furono i Privatgelehrte Hans Conon von der Gabe-

lent∑ (1807-74) e Julius Loebe (1805-1900) a servirsi per la prima volta
* Questa notarella e ristampata, con il permesso dei curatori, di Problemi della ricostruzione in
linguistica a cura di Raffaele Simone & Ugo Vignuzzi (Roma: Bulzoni, 1977), pp. 253-258.
di un asterisco o di una crocetta nel loro Glossarium der Gothischen

Sprache (1843) per indicare le forme non documentate. Nella premessa
Gabelentz e Loebe ponevano questi principi che avrebbero applicato nel
glossario del gotico:
«wir haben es [...] für zweckmässig erachtet, solche Wörter,

welche als (wirklich oder angeblich) gotisch von griechischen
oder römischen Schrifstellern angeführt werden, wie Azdiggs,
Ans, Gepanta, Bilageineis (Strava, Sihora) nicht wegzulassen,
sondern mit einem † zu bezeichnen» (Gabelentz & Loebe 1843,
p. vi).
Alcuni paragrafi dopo (vi-vii) aggiungevano:
« Wir fanden es bedenklich, auf solche einfache, ganz imaginäre

Würzel zurückzugehen, wie [Eberhard Gottlieb] Graff [1780-
1841] nach indischen Mustern in seinem [Althochdeutschen]
Sprachschatz [Berlin, 1834-42] aufstellt, gleichwohl konnten wir
nicht umhin, in vielen Fällen zwar für uns verlorene, aber doch
als bestehend denkbare Stammwörter, besonders Verba der so
genannten starken Conjugation, aufzustellen, aus welchen eine
Anzahl vorhandener Wörter abgeleitet erschienen, oder einfache
Wörter anzunehmen, welche nur noch in Zusammensetzung vor
kommen. Solche Wörter haben wir mit * bezeichnet.»
In conformità a quest'ultimo principio, Gabelentz e Loebe adducevano,

per citare solo due esempi, *biùdan «bid» (p. 28) e *gut «Goth» in riferi-
mento a gut-]piuda (p. 39). Per quanto riguarda l'uso dell'asterisco, è
chiaro, in questo caso, che il segno doveva servire a differenziare le for
me documentate di una certa lingua da quelle non documentate ma sicu-
ramente ricostruibili.
2. A quanto pare indipendente dalla prassi di Gabelentz e Loebe è la no

ta lapidaria che si trova nella Vollständige Grammatik der Sanskritspra
che di Theodor Benfey (1809-81) del 1852, all'inizio delia seconda parte
(«Wurzeln»): «Durch *** bezeichne ich hypothetische Formen» (Benfey
1852, p. 71, n. 1). L'impiego del tríplice asterisco invece del semplice
L'ASTERISCO NELLA LINGUISTICA STORICA 181
conferma l'opinione che il segno sia stato introdotto indipendentemente

in un senso molto vicino a quello dell'uso che ne fanno Gabelentz e Loe-
be. Nondimeno colpisce che Benfey non adoperi l'asterisco nei suoi primi
articoli pubblicati nella rivista di Kuhn (« KZ »), nonostante i frequenti ri-
mandi alla sua grammatica del sanscritto, ma lo adotta per la prima vol
ta nel saggio Einige ursprüngliche causalia aus bildungen durch sanskri
tisch p a y a («KZ», 7 [1858], pp. 50-61), dove, tra l'altro, parla del
sanscr. jal-p dal quale sarebbe derivato « durch assimilation * j a p p
dann j a p» (p.51). Nel frattempo l'asterisco era già stato introdotto nella
« Kuhns Zeitschrift» da un altro studioso.
3. In un saggio dell'anno 1857, intitolato Das suffix ka im gothischen

(«KZ», 6, pp. 1-10), l'indoeuropeista Leo Meyer (1830-1910) fa alcuni
riferimenti alla grammatica del sanscrito di Benfey e si serve del doppio
asterisco nel seguente contesto:
« Das adjectiv **b a i r g a h a, bergig, [ist abgeleitet] von dem ein

fachen *b a i r g a, m. berg, das sonst in den gothischen denk-
mälern nicht vorkommt» (p. 2).
Altri passi dello stesso saggio, dove Meyer usa anche l'asterisco semplice
(cfr. loc, cit., p p . 4 , 6, 7, ecc), nonché da altri articoli per la «Kuhns
Zeitschrift» risalenti all'incirca allo stesso periodo (cfr. «KZ», 6 [1857],
pp. 161-77, 219-23; 8 [1859], pp. 245-86, e soprattutto pp. 250, 252,
ecc.) farebbero pensare che il glossario del gotico di Gabelentz e Loebe e
anche la grammatica del sanscrito di Benfey gli siano stati cosi familiari,
da poter essere considerad come fonti dell'uso differenziato dell'asterisco
in Meyer — uso cui accennerò successivamente anche se, a quanto ne so,
non ha avuto fortuna tra i linguisti.
Nel suo saggio, Gothische doppelkonsonanz («KZ», 4 [1855], pp. 401-
13), datato « Berlino, maggio 1855 » a p. 403, si trova una nota significativa:
«Wir Bezeichnen mit * nur in Zusammensetzung vorkommende

wörter, mit ** reine theoretisch gefolgerte, mit *** solche, deren
existenz durchaus unwahrscheinlich ist».
Meyer adotta quindi l'uso dell'asterisco semplice proposto da Gabelentz

e Loebe per le forme documentate solo nelle parole composte, delia cui
esistenza nella lingua non si puô dubitare e adopera invece il tríplice aste
risco di Benfey per le forme che gli sembrano improbabili (a quanto mi
consta, Meyer non ha introdotto una forma del genere in alcun passo). Si
puô già considerare un notevole progresso rispetto alle sue fonti, il fatto
che Meyer abbia usato il doppio asterisco per le forme che indica come
« rein theoretisch gefolgerte », poiché questo principio accenna chiaramen-
te alla possibilità di ricostruzione di forme linguistiche che troverà una
prima codificazione nell'opera di Schleicher. Si deve quindi riconoscere
all'allora appena venticinquenne Leo Meyer il merito di aver differenzia-
to assai chiaramente dal punto di vista teorico Tuso dell'asterisco e di
averne discusso preventivamente le successive applicazioni.
4. In un articolo apparso nel 1859 Das gothische z d («KZ», 8 [18591,

pp. 148-52, a p. 151), il sanscritista Georg Bühler (1837-98), si serve del
l'asterisco per indicare, come egli dice, una grundform. Due anni dopo,
nel primo volume del suo Compendium, Schleicher spiega in una nota a
p.11 il suo uso dell'asterisco, che è stato generalmente accettato soltan-
to, però, per quanto riguarda il primo punto:
«* bezeichnet erschloßene formen; bei den formen der indoger

manischen ursprache haben wir dise bezeichnung als überflüßig
hinweg gelaßen» (Schleicher 1861, p.11 n. ** = 4a ediz. riveduta
del 1876, p. 12 .; l'ortografia è di Schleicher)
In effetti, la proposta di Schleicher è stata solo parzialmente accettata

nella prassi successiva: le forme dell'indoeuropeo  del proto-
indoeuropeo sono segnalate con un asterisco, benché la loro caratterizza-
zione mediante «i.e.»  «p. i. e.» rendano tale uso del tutto superfluo.
5. Da tempo negli esempi citati da Gabelentz e Loebe non si usa più l'-
sterisco, perché non viene più messa in dubbio la loro esistenza nella lin
gua. La proposta di Meyer ha trovato un seguito man mano che i lingui-
sti cominciarono dopo di lui ad usare l'asterisco per le forme che sono
L'ASTERISCO NELLA LINGUISTICA STORICA 183
teoricamente deducibili, cioè ricostruite secondo determinati principî.

L'uso coerente dell'asterisco nel Compendium, divenuto poi un manuale
diffusissimo, ha contribuito sia all'adozione generalizzata di questa pro
cedura, sia all'erronea convinzione che Schleicher ne sia stato 1'iniziatore.
Evidentemente, la linguistica tradizionale non ha sempre usato 1'aste-
risco in senso univoco, ma per indicare ora forme non documentate (in
opposizione a quelle documentate da testi tramandatici), ora forme ipote-
tiche addotte per questo  quell'argomento. La necessità di differenziare
fa si che Cowgill (1975, pp. 50, 55, 58, ecc.) ponga il segno di paragrafo
§ davanti ad una forma che, secondo certe regole, ci si sarebbe potuti
aspettare, ma non si è realizzata, mentre aggiunge un asterisco per indi
care la sua pre-forma (anche ipotetica):
«For the absolute endings [of Insular Celtic], note that the post-
consonantal shape of the additional element that these contain
was evidently *-es, not *-is. The clearest evidence for this is the
second plural beirthe, from *beretes-es via *bereδ'eëh [...]. A
§*beretes-is would probably have contracted to §*bereδ'eih >
§beirthi; cf. 2 sg. biti < *beresi-s» (Cowgill 1975, p. 58).
Tutto farebbe pensare che la proposta avanzata da Leo Meyer 120 anni
fa, benché debba essere rivista circa il campo della sua applicazione, sia
ancor oggi degna di considerazione.
RIFERIMENTI BIBLIOGRAFICI
Benware 1974 W. A. Ben ware, The Study of Indo-European Vocalism in the
19th Century, from the Beginnings to Whitney and Scherer. A
critical-historical account, Amsterdam 1974.
Cowgill 1975 W. Cowgill, The Origins of the Insular Celtic Conjunct and the
Absolute Verbal Endings, in H. Rix (a c. di), Flexion und Wort
bildung. Akten der V Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Ge
sellschaft (Ratisbona, 9-14 settembre 1973), Wies
baden 1975, pp. 40-70.
Gabe1entz-Loebe 1843 H. . von der Gabelentz e J. Loebe, Glossarium der Gothischen
Sprache (= Ulfilas: Veteris et Novi Testamenti versionis Go
thicae fragmenta quae supersunt,..., 2:1), Lipsia 1843.
Householder 1973 F. W. Householder, On Arguments from Asterisks, «Founda
tions of Language», 10 (1973), pp. 365-76.
Jespersen 1921 = O. Jespersen, Language. Its nature, origin and development,

Londra 1921 (rist. New York 1964).
Meyer 1855 = L. Meyer, Gothische doppelconsonanz, «KZ», 4 (1855), pp.
401-13.
Percival 1969 = W. K. Percival, Nineteenth-Century Origins of the Twentieth-
Century Structuralism, in Papers from the Fifth Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago 1969,
pp. 416-20.
Schleicher 1861 = A. Schleicher, Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik
der indogermanischen Sprachen,I:Kurzer Abriss einer Laut
lehre der indogermanischen Ursprache, ecc, Weimar 1861 (3a
ediz. riveduta  . di J. Schmidt e A. Leskien, 1870; 4a ediz.,
1876).
POSTSCRIPT 1988
The preceding note constitutes but a partial history of the origin and develop
ment of (the use of) the asterisk in linguistics, whose locus classicus is no doubt
August Schleicher's Compendium of 1861 although Schleicher was by no means
the inventor of the either the symbol or the concept. There is no clear indication
that H.C. von der Gabelentz and Julius Loebe introduced the asterisk into linguistic
nomenclature when they made regulur use of 'starred forms' in their Glossarium
der Gothischen Sprache of 1843. It appears much more likely that they found the
procedure to mark unattested forms with a preposed asterisk already in use in other
linguistic writings of the time, most likely in lexicographical work since recon
structions of Indo-European proto-forms à la Schleicher were not undertaken
before 1850.
This note constitutes a slightly shortened translation - prepared with the help of
Rosalma Salino-Borello and Anne Betten - of the short paper, "Zu Ursprung und
Geschichte der Besternung in der historischen Sprachwissenschaft", which first ap
peared in Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 89.185-190 (1975), and
which was reprinted in an earlier volume of collected papers, Toward a Historiog
raphy of Linguistics (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1978), pp.211-216.
AUGUST SCHLEICHER AND THE TREE IDEA
IN COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS*
Understanding
We are still far from fully understanding the general intel
lectual climate of the nineteenth century, although it is clear that the twentieth
century has built on the nineteenth to a considerable extent. In linguistic histo
riography, the subject of "influence" has remained an elusive one, frequently
used differently by different authors. Perhaps even the distinction between
"direct" and "indirect" influence, or what may be ascribed to the general "cli
mate of opinion" of a given period, has not proved sufficiently useful in the
debate. But it is clear that fledgling fields of study, such as linguistics in the
nineteenth century, have always tended to borrow from fields (not always adja
cent or related) that in the eyes of the informed public had already attained a
high degree of scientific elaboration, with regard to both their methods and
their findings. It is now widely accepted that nineteenth-century historical-
comparative linguistics was profoundly inspired by the natural sciences, in
particular botany, comparative anatomy, and pre-Darwinian evolutionary biol
ogy (see Koerner 1980). This does not exclude the influence, acknowledged
or not, of philology on linguistics. In fact, one would expect there to be such
influence, since linguistics had its most immediate source in the much older
field of philology, with many nineteenth-century linguists not only having re
ceived their training with well-established philologists, but also continuing
to contribute to philology even after their major concerns had shifted to
linguistics.
In my view, August Schleicher was the most important nineteenth-cen
tury linguist, so it is justified to pay so much attention to his background and
general interests as well as to his scholarly achievements (Hoenigswald 1963,
* Reprinted, with permission of the editors and the publisher, from Biological Metaphor
and Cladistic Classification ed. by Henry M. Hoenigswald & Linda F. Wiener (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987), pp. 109-113. - For a full appraisal of Schleicher, see
chap. 20 (below).
1974, 1975). It appears to me now that differing views on the background

sources of Schleicher's linguistic theories can to a considerable extent be
reconciled.
Misunderstanding
In a monograph-length study on what I termed the "early beginnings
of structuralism" in linguistics, completed in early 1972, I argued against
Hoenigswald's (1963, p. 5) opinion that it was Schleicher's philological train
ing under Friedrich Ritschl (1806-1876), which included the establishment
of stemmata depicting the relationship of manuscripts and their possible
descent from a common source, that led Schleicher to the family-tree idea,
arguing instead that this suggestion must remain an open question "since
Schleicher never referred to the analog" (Koerner 1975, p. 755 n. 62). I main
tained this position as late as 1981, when I expanded on my views of the
"Schleicherian paradigm" of the early 1870s (see Koerner 1982, p. 31, n.
24). I admit that this sounds like bad methodology on my part, and in contra
diction to statements of method made elsewhere (e.g., Koerner 1976), ac
cording to which the educational background of a scholar, including family
tradition, should be taken into account when writing on the history of lin
guistics. Indeed, although Schleicher did his doctorate under Ritschl on a
philological subject which may have included stemmatics, I am surprised that
his biographer Joachim Dietze (1966, p. 18) affirms: "Die Keime zu seiner
[i.e., Schleicher's] späteren den Naturwissenschaften ähnlichen Forschungs-
methode hat Ritschl gelegt" (the seeds for his [i.e., Schleicher's] later re
search method, which was similar to that of the natural sciences, had been
sowed by Ritschl).
Dietze did not expatiate on this observation, and in personal correspon
dence he stated that he deduced this from a statement made in the dictionary
entry of 1890 by Schleicher's pupil Johannes Schmidt (1843-1901). Dietze's
reference to Schleicher's later research method as inspired by the natural sci
ences is somewhat misleading; it implies that Schleicher had developed and
subsequently abandoned an earlier method. Besides, it is tantalizing to imag
ine that Ritschl the philologist should have instilled in Schleicher an orienta
tion derived from the natural sciences, since this would combine two what I
believe to be distinct sources of Schleicher's inspiration. If I did not embrace
Hoenigswald's suggestion concerning the probable source of Schleicher's fam
ily trees in historical linguistics, it was not to deny that Schleicher was famil
iar with the philological methods developed by Karl Lachmann (1793-1851)
and others from the late 1810s onward, but that the establishment of stemmata
SCHLEICHER AND THE TREE IDEA 187
was a much less suggestive source for Schleicher's familiar concrete trees as
depicted from 1853 on (see Priestly 1975, pp. 301, 302).
More important—and this appears to be the main reason for a misun
derstanding—Schleicher does not appear to have used tree diagrams of the in
verted kind typically used by Lachmann, Ritschl, and others (see Timpanaro
1971, pp. 46, 48, and elsewhere), with the supposed source on top and the
later manuscripts, copies, and so on, branching downwards (see the various
trees in Schleicher's Die deutsche Sprache [1860], which are quite different
even from Darwin's diagram in Origin of Species, of which he took note only
in 1863). Furthermore, Schleicher used his tree model to depict relationships
between languages—with respect to each other and to the parent language,
not between individual forms, akin to what we refer to as the triangulation
technique of the comparative method. As far as I can see, the use of an in
verted tree diagram in his method of reconstruction (and Schleicher was a pio
neer in historical reconstruction in linguistics) was implicit but nowhere stated.
If Hoenigswald refers to the method of reconstruction when he speaks of the
analogue between this technique and that of the philologists, he may well be
right, but if this model is supposed to be the immediate source of Schleicher's
genealogical trees, I still believe I should contradict him.
Intellectual Biography
Schleicher's father was a medical doctor, and it was in his early youth that
Schleicher took a strong interest in nature, in particular botany. Various bio
graphical accounts point to this interest of Schleicher's and his spectacular
successes in plant breeding. In addition, Schleicher himself refers to this in
terest in his writings, in particular his well-known "open letter" of 1863 to the
apostle of Darwinism in Germany, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), in which he
also shows that he is quite familiar with Darwin's predecessors. Indeed, since
the publication of J. P. Maher's paper (1966), we should desist from calling
Schleicher a Darwinian. He never became one, but remained a pre-Darwinian
evolutionist all his life (see Koerner 1982, pp. 5 - 8 , for details).
In a 1967 paper, "Zur Geschichte der Stammbaum-Darstellungen,"
Georg Uschmann, who at the time did not yet know of Schleicher's family
trees, traced early statements concerning "arbres généalogiques" back to the
second half of the eighteenth century, though it appears that the earliest depic
tions of tree diagrams in a scientific work promoting the idea of evolution are
to be found in Lamarck's voluminous Philosophie zoologique of 1809 (see
Uschmann 1967, p. 13). As early as 1766, French botanist Antoine Nicolas
Duchesne (1747-1827) used the term arbre généalogique in his Histoire
naturelle des fraisiers (Paris: Didot le Jeune). In the same year the German
naturalist Peter Simon Pallas (1741 - 1 8 1 1 ) , who is best known to linguists as
editor of the Russian enterprise with the Latin title Linguarum totius orbis
vocabularia comparativa (St. Petersburg, 1787-1789), suggested in his
Elenchos zoophytorum (see Uschmann 1967, p. 11):
Unter allen übrigen bildlichen Vorstellungen des Systems der organischen Körper
würde es aber wohl die beste sein, wenn man an einen Baum dächte, welcher gleich
von der Wurzel an einen doppelten, aus den allereinfachsten Pflanzen und Tieren
bestehenden, also einen tierischen und vegetabilischen, aber doch verschiedentlich
aneinanderkommenden Stamm hätte. (It would probably be the best of all figurative
conceptions of the system of organic bodies, if one was to think of a tree which had,
already from the root onwards, a double, albeit by different means connected, stem
consisting of the simplest plants and animals, respectively.)
There is no reason to believe that Schleicher was familiar with this work, but
his own statement of 1853, introducing his genealogical tree of the Indo-
European language family, appears to echo Pallas' suggestion: "Diese Annah
men, logisch folgend aus den Ergebnissen der bisherigen Forschung, lassen
sich am besten unter dem Bilde eines sich verästelnden Baumes anschaulich
machen" (these assumptions [i.e., of an IE language family], deduced logi
cally from the results of previous research, can best be depicted by the image
of a branching tree) (Schleicher 1853, p. 787). Given Schleicher's long
standing penchant for the natural sciences and his early struggle for a science
of language independent of and in strong contrast to philology (see Schleicher
1850, pp. 1 - 5 ) , it is more likely that Schleicher allowed himself to be guided
by principles developed by the natural scientists much more than by those due
to the philologists of his time. This does not exclude a much more subtle "in
fluence" on him by the latter.
References
Dietze, J. 1966. August Schleicher als Slawist: Sein Leben und sein Werk in der Sicht
der Indogermanistik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Hoenigswald, H. M. 1963. "On the History of the Comparative Method." Anthro
pological Linguistics 5, 1: 1-11.
-----------. 1974. "Fallacies in the History of Linguistics: Notes on the Appraisal of the
Nineteenth Century." In Studies in the History of Linguistics, ed. Dell Hymes,
pp. 346-360. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.
----------. 1975. "Schleicher's Tree and Its Trunk." In Ut Videam: Contributions to an
SCHLEICHER AND THE TREE IDEA 189
Understanding of Linguistics: For Pieter A. Verburg . . . , ed. Werner Abraham

et al., pp. 157-160. Lisse and Holland: P. de Ridder Press.
Koerner, E. F. K. 1975. "European Structuralism: Early Beginnings." In Current
Trends in Linguistics, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. 13: Historiography of Lin
guistics, pp. 717-827. The Hague: Mouton.
---------. 1976. "Towards a Historiography of Linguistics: 19th and 20th Century Para
digms." In History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Linguistics, ed.
Herman Parret, pp. 685-718. Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter.
---------. 1980. "Pilot and Parasite Disciplines in the History of Linguistic Science."
Folia Linguistica Historica l: 213-224.
---------. 1982. "The Schleicherian Paradigm in Linguistics." General Linguistics 22:
1-39.
Maher, J. P. 1966. "More on the History of the Comparative Method: The Tradition of
Darwinism in August Schleicher's Work." Anthropological Linguistics 8, 3:
1-11.
Priestly, T. M. S. 1975. "Schleicher, Celakovsky, and the Family-Tree Diagram: A
Puzzle in the History of Linguistics." Historiographia Linguistica 2: 299-333.
Schleicher, A. 1850. Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht. Bonn: H. B.
König. New edition, with introduction by Konrad Koerner. Amsterdam: J. Ben
jamins, 1983.
----------. 1853. "Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes." Allgemeine
Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und Literatur, 1853, pp. 786-787.
----------. 1860. Die deutsche Sprache. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta.
----------. 1863. Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft: Offenes Send
schreiben an Herrn Dr. Ernst Häckel.... Weimar: H. Böhlau.
Schmidt, J. 1890. "Schleicher, August." Allgemeine deutsche Biographie 31: 402-
416. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Timpanaro, S. 1963. La genesi del metodo del Lachmann. Florence: F. Le Monnier.
----------. 1971. Die Entstehung der Lachmannschen Methode. Translated into German
by Dieter Irmer. Hamburg: H. Buske.
Uschmann, G. 1967. "Zur Geschichte der Stammbaum-Darstellungen." In Gesam
melte Vorträge über moderne Probleme der Abstammungslehre, ed. Manfred
Gersch, vol. 2, pp. 9-30. Jena: Universität Jena.
Reproduction of the Indo-European tree diagram from August Schleicher's article "Die ersten
Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes", published in Allgemeine Monatsschrift für
Wissenschaft und Literatur (Kiel, Sept. 1853), p.787.
POSITIVISM IN 19TH AND
20TH CENTURY LINGUISTICS*
Introductory Remarks
1. At the beginning of this century, historical-comparative linguists,

especially in Germany and Italy, were accused by an emerging group of
'idealist' scholars of being 'positivists'. The 'idealists' felt that linguists
of the preceding decades were practicing a 'soulless' and materialist
approach to language concerned with what Auguste Comte (1798-1857)
had called the 'petites choses vraies'. Their own interest lay in bringing
into the focus of attention aspects such as culture, national identity and
'spirit' as reflected especially in the literary languages of a people. Since
that time, we find the general accusation of 'positivism' or 'atomism'
repeated in linguistic textbooks and histories of linguistics. This blanket
criticism of the Neogrammarians and their adherents by later generations
of linguists is, curiously enough, invariably made without the term
'positivism' being defined. Indeed, there is hardly a textbook in which
the name of Comte, usually regarded as the originator of the term and
concept of 'positivism', is mentioned. There are indications that 'positiv
ism' has become an emotion-laden term with little other than negative
connotations, quite in contrast to what the term itself originally im
plied. 'Positivism' has become a label used at various times by philos
ophers, epistemologists, social scientists, and others largely for polemic
purposes, frequently without qualification.
2. Although several linguists have noted the influx of positivist ideas
into the science of language by the mid-19th century 1 , few have at
tempted to trace this development, which was in fact quite in line with
* This chapter constitutes a reprint, with permission from the editor and the publisher, of a paper
first published in Sprachwissenschaft 7:3/4.359-377 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1982).
1
e.g., Willy Bal, Introduction aux études de linguistique romane, avec considération spéciale
de la linguistique française, Paris 1966; Maurice Leroy, Main Trends in Modem Linguistics.
Transl. by Glanville Price, Oxford, Berkeley, Los Angeles 1967; Kurt R. Jankowsky, The Neo-
grammarians. A re-evaluation of their place in the development of linguistic science, The Hague
1972.
what was happening in other emerging disciplines of the period such as

sociology and psychology. In fact, as far as I have been able to ascertain,
hardly any scholar has supplied the reason why linguists in the past
century were particularly receptive to a 'positivist' approach to their
object of investigation. Nor did they try to indicate the positive results
the assimilation of an approach practiced by the natural sciences led to
in the development of linguistics. The present paper is an attempt to
explore to what extent the notion of 'positivism' is applicable to lin
guistic theory and practice, past and present. It argues that a wide inter
pretation of the term is required in order to account for its variations
in the form of 'materialism', 'determinism', 'scientism', etc. Finally, it
traces positivist underpinnings in 20th-century linguistic currents usually
labeled 'anti-mentalist', 'mechanist', 'operationalist', and the like.
I. Positivism in Linguistics: The state of research
1. I know of only three articles written in recent years which address

themselves to the question of positivism in linguistics, though none of
them to a satisfactory degree. Thus Rebecca Posner, reviewing a cri
tique by Robert A. Hall of the Neolinguists in Italy of roughly the years
1925-1955, refers to Hall's view of scientific method in historical lin
guistics as 'positivist', without any explication of what she meant by
the term except for a passing assertation that Hall 'firmly equates our
field [i.e., linguistics] with physics' 2 .
Posner may be said to refer to a 'neo-positivist' position which she
discerns in Hall's stand on scientific method. We may recall that the
heyday of positivism, in linguistics as in other disciplines, was the
period between the 1840s and the 1880s. Indeed, there appear to have
been two positivist cycles in European thought, one occuring in the
mid-19th century which had subsided only by the turn of the century,
the other beginning with the 1920s, and continuing particularly strong
ly in the English-speaking world from the 1930s through the 1950s,
with behaviorism representing one of the major intellectual currents in
the social sciences, especially sociology, psychology, and linguistics.
Rebecca Posner, Positivism in Historical Linguistics, Romance Philology 20 (1967) S. 321-

331.
POSITIVISM IN LINGUISTICS 193
Another paper3 constitutes by and large a modern reinterpretation of

Comte's conception of language both biological and sociological. The
writer says little about Comte's positivism apart from a few introduc
tory, albeit sweeping, remarks about this 'scientisme optimiste et élé
mentaire' which is said to be at the basis of his philosophical system 4 .
In fact, Rey's intention is to show that Comte's work foreshadowed a
semiotic conception of language that we normally associate with sug
gestions made by Saussure, and not to delineate the development of
positivism in linguistics.
A third paper , though directly addressing itself to the subject, makes
only a few general observations, including the one that Edmund Hus-
serl's(1859-1938) Phänomenologie was very much indebted to Comtean
positivism. It contains no elaboration on any of these remarks. Seidel
stresses the desirability of accounting for the influence of Comte's
philosophy of science on linguistics, but he does little to advance its
study.
2. However, as mentioned above, there are several other recent publi
cations in which linguists have given a few hints about the connection
between linguistics and a positivist philosophy of science. Boretzky 6 ,
for example, investigates to what extent the characterization of the lin
guistic theories of August Schleicher and those of the next generation
of scholars as being 'positivist' is adequate. Médina7 argues that Schlei
cher's position would have been disavowed by Comte; Schleicher's his-
toricism, he believes (p. 9) was in effect radicalized by the Neogrammar-
ians. While Boretzky makes an effort to return to the sources of positiv
ism, Médina seems to assume that everyone knows what the meaning of
the term is. Neither gives a definition that might help us decide if lin
guistics has been, at one time or another, a definitely positivistic disci
pline, or, if not, to what extent did linguists adopt a theoretical position
that could be regarded as akin to Comtean philosophy of science.
We may well ask ourselves whether linguists in the 19th century, in
particular in the German-speaking lands in which the science of language
progressed the most, were acquainted with Comte's work. According to
Alain Rey, La théorie positiviste des langages. Auguste Comte et la sémiotique, Semiotica 4
(1971) S. 52-74.
4
Alain Rey, Semioitica 4 (1971) S. 5 3-54.
Eugen Seidel, Der Positivismus in der Sprachwissenschaft, Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprach
wissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 29 (1976) S. 503-505.
Norbert Boretzky, Einführung in die historische Linguistik, Reinbeck 1977, S. 30-34.
José Ramón Médina, Les difficultés théoriques de la constitution d'une linguistique générale
comme science autonome, Langages 49 (1978) S. 6-10.
my own findings there are few indications suggesting that he had a real
impact on the development of linguistics, and those scholars in France
who advocated an approach to the science of language inspired by
Comte were largely ignored by their contemporaries. This may not be
true of the lexicological work of Emile Littré (1801-1881), who was
the strongest advocate of Comte's philosophy in France, but certainly
of the writings of Julien Girard de Rialle (1841-1904), Honoré Chavée
(1815-1877), Abel Hovelacque (1843-1896), and others who were
snubbed by the professional historical-comparative linguists of the late
19th century.
If, therefore, we seem to recognize positivistic traits in the work of
linguists, past and present, it is probably more correct to assume that
'positivism' represented an essential part of the general intellectual
climate of a given period. (Indeed, it could be shown that Comte's
philosophy of science is part of a long tradition and, at the same time,
a synthesis of intellectual currents of the early 19th century.) In other
words, if we associate 'positivism' with Comte's particular definition,
we might be forced to abandon the term to describe certain trends in
linguistic theory. It appears, therefore, that we must look for an under
standing of the term that would allow us to include a certain approach
to language which is not directly inspired by Comte's work.
3. As hinted earlier, historians of linguistics have made use of expres
sions such as 'positive method', 'positivist conceptions', etc. 8 without,
however, mentioning Comte. Indeed, it appears that 'positivism' is a
term used by later scholars to describe a certain intellectual attitude of
previous generations of linguists or of opposing schools of thought. In
other words, 'positivism' was not the term by which the Neogram-
marians or their predecessors for instance described their own outlook
on language or their method of linguistic analysis, but a term used post
rem by others to characterize a philosophy of science which most of
them disagreed with. As a result, the only definition of 'positivism' in
linguistics found in the literature is that by a scholar who widely agreed
with the idealist stance in linguistics taken by Karl Vossler (1872-1949)
at the beginning of this century. I am referring to the general linguist
and Indo-Europeanist Walter Porzig, who in 1928 gave the following
definition:
By positivism we understand ... that scientific attitude which, taking
the individual fact (fait) as the basic entity, considers the function of
science to be the unequivocal co-ordination (ordre) of all such facts.
8
cf. Maurice Leroy, Main Trends in Modern Linguistics, S. 30, 34; Kurt R. Jankowsky, The
Neogrammarians, S. 78, 171, etc.
Idealism, on the other hand, looks upon the world as a structure of

meaningful units, whose nature is determined by their function within
the whole. Individual phenomena have their value in the positivist's
eyes, because they exist; for the idealist, because they have meaning 9 .
During the 19th century, however, no such dichotomy was contem
plated by linguists. Although, particularly in the first half of the past
century, there were differing lines of linguistic thought (commonly as
sociated with the names of Bopp, Grimm, and Humboldt, respectively),
it is interesting to note that they all were opposed to the speculative,
deductive and excessively philosophical approach characteristic of
previous centuries. The next section is devoted to an analysis of lin
guistic views which I regard as representative of the 19th century, es
pecially of the second half, when the science of language become an
autonomous, professionalized discipline.
II. 'Positivist' Trends in 19th-century Linguistics
1. It appears that a given period is imbued with a certain way of think

ing when one finds its expression in places where one might not expect
to find it. For example, in his posthumously published lectures dating
from 1840 onwards, the classical philologist Friedrich Haase (1808-
1867) attacks the work of his predecessors since they have been con
ceived under the influence of Kantian concepts and Hegelian philoso
phy. Thus he criticized the famous Gottfried Hermann (1772-1848) in
the following terms:
Der Irrtum ist ausgegangen von dem Kantischen Standpunkte Her
mann's ... Dadurch haben die Idiomata oder Figuren einen bloß negati
ven Sinn bekommen, den Sinn der Gesetzwidrigkeit, während sie in der
Walter Porzig, Sprachform und Sprach bedeutung, Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 12 (1928) S.

2-3. Since the above translation (adapted from the one in Iorgu Iordan, An Introduction to
Romance Linguistics, its schools and scholars. Revised, transl. and in parts recast by John Orr,
London 1937, S. 87n [2nd ed., with a supplement by Rebecca Posner, Oxford 1970]) might
not be an entirely satisfactory rendering of Porzig's statement, I would like to cite the original
text (also found in Kurt R. Jankowsky, The Neogrammarians, S. 228): 'Unter Positivismus
verstehen wir also diejenige wissenschaftliche Haltung, die, von der Einzeltatsache (fait) als
letzter Gegebenheit ausgehend, die Aufgabe der Wissenschaft in der eindeutigen Zuordnung
(ordre) aller Einzeltatsachen erblickt. Dagegen begreift der Idealismus die Welt als ein Gefüge
von Sinneinheiten (Gestalten), deren Wesen erst durch ihre Funktion innerhalb des Ganzen
bestimmt wird. Das einzelne Phänomen gilt dem Positivismus, weil es ist, dem Idealismus, weil
es einen Sinn hat.'
That lebendige Gesetze der Sprache sind, aus ihrem Geiste geboren. Sie
sind also in etwas Positives umzuwandeln, und wo sie nichts Positives
enthalten, wegzuwerfen 10 .
We may gather from this criticism that, by the mid-19th century at
least, a 'positivist', 'data-oriented' and empirically inclined approach to
language had become generally accepted. Kant's philosophical system
had cleared the way to a thorough understanding of the nature of scien
tific inquiry; his influence on 19th-century thought was all-pervasive
and, as a result, it was no longer recognized as Kantian. By contrast,
Hegel's Naturphilosophie had a definite impact on the minds of many
19th-century thinkers, both in the natural and the social sciences; Karl
Marx's economic theory is but one example.
2. Because we associate the linguistic work of Jacob Grimm (1785-
1863) with the Romanticist movement in Germany, we might object to
Jankowsky's 11 characterization of his approach to language as 'empiri-
cal-positivistic', especially when reference us made to the first volume
of his Germanic Grammar (1819), and not, for instance, to his volumi
nous Wörterbuch, which was completed only a century after he and his
brother had started to work on this project. However, if we take a
closer look at Grimm's œuvre, we will quickly recognize his opposition
to a philosophical, logicistic and aprioristic approach and his advocacy
of a treatment of language which is based on linguistic form. Indeed, in
the Preface to the first edition of his Deutsche Grammatik, Grimm
stated explicitly:
Wird man sparsamer und fester die Verhältnisse der einzelnen Sprachen
ergründen und stufenweise zu allgemeineren Vergleichungen fortschrei
ten, so ist zu erwarten, daß bei der großen Menge unsern Forschern of
fener Materialien einmal Entdeckungen zustande gebracht werden kön
nen, neben denen an Sicherheit, Neuheit und Reiz etwa nur die ver
gleichende Anatomie in der Naturgeschichte stehen 12 .
Grimm's reference to Comparative Anatomy is not new; we find explic
it statements suggesting that linguists should adopt the comparative
anatomist's method in the work of Friedrich Schlegel, Ueber die Spra
che und Weisheit der Indier, published more than ten years before the
Friedrich Haase, Vorlesungen über lateinische Sprachwissenschaft, gehalten ab 1840. Vol.

I: Einleitung und Bedeutungslehre. Ed. posthumously by Friedrich August Eckstein, Leipzig
1874, S. 202.
Kurt R. Jankowsky, The Neogrammarians, S. 78.
12
Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik. Part I, Göttingen 1819, XII.
first volume of Grimm's Grammar 13 . But, unlike Schlegel (1772-1829),

who was familiar with Cuvier's work, Grimm seems to be expressing
little else than what appears to have been 'in the air', namely, that cer
tain fields in the natural sciences had developed methods that could be
adapted in some way by the linguistic researcher. The above quotation
indicates that Grimm advocates an inductive, step-by-step approach
based on a large amount of data.
In the Preface to the second edition of volume I of his Deutsche Gram
matik 14 , Grimm made an explicit reference to Linnaeus' work in bot
any, to the extent that his reviewer, Georg Friedrich Benecke (1762-
1844), urges other linguists to follow Grimm's example, 'in order to
deserve well of the science of language as the followers of Linnaeus had
done in the natural sciences' 15 . The attempt to imitate the natural
sciences and, possibly, compete with their scientific rigour is evident
from other passages in Benecke's review, for instance, when he says,
commenting on this first volume of Grimm's Grammar, which is quite
significantly devoted to phonology and morphology:
Eine solche Darstellung läßt sich nicht geben ohne die sorgfältigste
und genaueste Untersuchung der ersten und einfachsten Best and theile.
Dieser Theil der Naturgeschichte - denn so haben wir nun die Gramma
tik ansehen gelernt - hat seine Anatomie, seine Physiologie, seine chemi
sche Analyse, so gut wie die übrigen 16 .
Grimm and Benecke appear to have been expressing little else than
what was widely accepted in the early 19th century when the study of
language was developing towards an autonomous discipline distinct
from the study of literature, pedagogy, rhetoric, logic and other fields.
'Historische Grammatik' is regarded as nothing but 'Naturgeschichte',
the development of language through time.
Franz Bopp (1791-1867), the acknowledged founder of Comparative
Linguistics, wrote in his review of the second volume of Grimm's Deut
sche Grammatik 17 :
Die Sprachen sind ... als organische Naturkörper anzusehen, die nach
bestimmten Gesetzen sich bilden, ein inneres Lebensprinzip in sich tra-
E(rnst) F(rideryk) K(onrad) Koerner, Pilot and Parasite Disciplines in the Development of
Linguistic Science, Folia Linguistica Historica 1 (1980) S. 215-216, for relative quotations.
14
Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik. Part I, 2nd rev. ed. Göttingen 1822.
Georg Friedrich Benecke, Review of Grimm 1822, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 201.
Stück (19 December 1822) S. 2007f.
Georg Friedrich Benecke, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 201. Stück (19 December 1822)
S. 2002f.
17
Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik. Part II, Göttingen 1826.
gend sich entwickeln, und nach und nach absterben... Eine Grammatik
in höherm, wissenschaftlichem Sinne soll eine Geschichte oder Naturbe
schreibung der Sprache sein; sie soll ... besonders aber naturhistorisch
die Gesetze verfolgen, nach welchen ihre Entwicklung ... vor sich gegan
gen 18 .
Bopp, like Grimm and most of their contemporaries, shunned theory
and only from time to time made a statement of a general nature. It is
clear, however, that these founding fathers of comparative-historical
linguistics were concerned with establishing the study of language as an
independent discipline and that they were, in doing so, advocating a
model for scientific research inspired by the natural sciences, in particu
lar botany and comparative anatomy, especially in the form of osteology
and paleontology 1 .
3. While the generation of Bopp, Grimm, Rask and others followed
the natural scientists' example only to a small extent, the most influen
tial linguist of the next generation, August Schleicher (1821-1868), ex
ploited the possible analogies in theory and method to a considerable,
at times seemingly crude and unsophisticated, degree - at least from our
present vantage point.
Nowadays we associate Schleicher with a biological view of language
that was repudiated by the Neogrammarians during the 1870s and with
theories many modern linguists have regarded as absurd. However, those
exposing Schleicher to ridicule have neither made an effort to under
stand why he held the views he did nor realized that, despite certain
premises that we now find unacceptable (and which many of his con
temporaries did not agree with), it was he who established the methodo
logical bases of historical-comparative linguistics on which the Neogram
marians and all generations following them have built 20 .
It is true that Schleicher was more of a synthesizer of prevailing modes
of thought than an original thinker. However, it is clearly due to his
synthesizing efforts that terms and concepts such as 'sound law', 'assim
ilation', 'dissimilation', 'family tree', etc. (which all have a definitely
naturalistic ring about them) have become a part of the linguist's tech
nical language. And where the method of reconstruction is concerned,
Franz Bopp, Review of Grimm 1826. Jahrbuch für wissenschaftliche Kritik 1827 (February)
S. 251-303, (May) S. 725-759, S. 251.
19
F o r the naturalistic views of Rask, cf. Paul Diderichsen, Rasmus Rasks Auffassung der
Sprachentwicklung und der Sprachstruktur. Ganzheit und Struktur, Ausgewählte sprachwissen
schaftliche Abhandlungen by P. Diderichsen, München 1976, S. 261-266, passim.
20
cf. E(mst) F(rideryk) K(onrad) Koerner, The Neogrammarian Doctrine: Breakthrough or
Extension of the Schleicherian Paradigm. A problem in linguistic historiography, Folia Li
it is safe to say that it was Schleicher (and not the Neogrammarians, for
instance) who developed this important tool of comparative-historical
linguistics 21 .
In the present paper, our interest lies in his philosophy of science, the
reasoning that led him to establish historical linguistics on a sure foot
ing, not in the details of his system, and, of course, in the sources of his
theoretical inspiration.
By 1850, when he was 29, Schleicher had firmly adopted the view that
linguistics was not a 'historical' but a 'natural' science, the reason being
that language was the product of evolution, of a development following
natural laws, independent of the human will:
Wie die Naturwissenschaften, so hat auch die Linguistik die Erfor
schung eines Gebiets zur Aufgabe, in welchem das Walten unabänder
licher natürlicher Gesetze erkennbar ist, an denen der Wille und die
Willkür des Menschen Nichts zu ändern vermögen 22 .
In contrast to Philologie, an historical (and what we would term a
social or 'geisteswissenschaftlich') discipline, Linguistik - and Schleicher
seems to use the latter term for its morphological similarity with 'Bota
nik', 'Physik', and 'Mathematik' - is a natural science having to do with
the observation, analysis, and comparison of living languages: the so-
called 'dead' languages, such as Greek or Latin, are merely 'Petrefacten
der Linguistik' in Schleicher's opinion.
Schleicher identifies phonology and morphology as the central areas
of the linguist's concern. The development of language on these levels
is subject to 'laws' independent of the speaker. Syntax and especially
stylistics involve the conscious involvement of the human mind and, as
a result, are relegated to the periphery of the linguist's attention. In
deed, stylistics belongs entirely to Philology in Schleicher's view.
Although he recognizes the existence of a semantic component in each
morphological element, Schleicher clearly directs his concern to the
formal, structural part of language 23 . Indeed, the classification of lan
guages on the basis of morphological criteria (already proposed by
Friedrich Schlegel, his brother August Wilhelm as well as Wilhelm von
Humboldt many years earlier) is one of Schleicher's major goals. In his
cf. E(rnst) F(rideryk) K(onrad) Koerner, The Schleicherian Paradigm in Linguistics. Introd.
article to A. Schleicher, Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht 1982 [Revised
version in General Linguistics 22 (1982) S. 1-39], for a detailed account of Schleicher's contri
bution.
22
August Schleicher, Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht, Bonn 1850, S. 3
(New ed., with on introd. article by Konrad Koemer, Amsterdam 1982).
23
August Schleicher, Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht, S. 6-7.
Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht he offers a classifi

cation of all languages found on that Continent along morphological
lines, arguing at the same time for a development of 'monosyllabic' to
'agglutinative', and of 'agglutinative' to 'inflectional' ones. In a program
matic essay 24 , he introduced the term 'morphology' into linguistics and
established a system of mathematical formulae to account for the vari
ations within each of the three basic classes as noted in his (often first-
hand) observations of language structure. William Dwight Whitney
(1827-1894) lauded Schleicher's 'noteworthy attempt' 2 5 , whereas H.
Steinthal (1823-1899), a Humboldtian 'mentalist' (as we may call him
today), objected to this 'Mathematisierung der Sprachwissenschaft'26.
Already in his book of 1850, it is clear that Schleicher takes an empir
icist position; observation and facts based on observation only are valid.
While we may not subscribe to such an exclusive position nowadays,
current practice by many modern linguists to rely on second- if not
third-hand information may make the following remark by Schleicher27
a welcome antidote:
Wer selbst linguistische oder überhaupt naturwissenschaftliche Studien
gemacht hat, wird gewiss oft genug erfahren haben, dass alles Wissen
ohne eigene Beobachtung, d.i. in der Linguistik ohne selbständiges Stu
dium der betreffenden Sprachen, keinen Werth hat.
In his subsequent writings, including his attempt of 1860 to popular
ize the study of language among the educated classes, Schleicher does
little more than reiterate his views. The linguist, now called 'Glottiker'
(glottologist), is mainly interested in the 'organism' of language, its
structure and its evolution, and not in its use. Like a Hegelian dialectic,
Schleicher sees no essential difference between what he refers to as the
'Nebeneinander des Systems' and the 'Nacheinander der Geschichte' 28 .
Already in his first book published in 1848, Schleicher had taken the
view that there is a 'material identity between history and system', and
that the basic difference between the two is one of perspective or of
presentation only 29 .
24
A u g u s t Schleicher, Zur Morphologie der Sprache, St. Petersburg, Riga, Leipzig 1859.
25
William Dwight Whitney, Language and the Study of Language New York, London 1867,
S. 364-367 (3rd. ed., augmented by an analysis, 1870).
26
Heymann Steinthal, Mathematische Sprachwissenschaft, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie
und Sprachwissenschaft 1 (1860) S. 432-435.
27
A u g u s t Schleicher, Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht, S. 21n.
28
A u g u s t Schleicher, Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht, S. 15; August
Schleicher, Die Deutsche Sprache, Stuttgart 1860, S. 33 und 47 (2nd ed., prepared by Johannes
Schmidt, 1869; 3rd ed., 1874).
29
August Schleicher, Zur vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte, Bonn 1848, S. 4-5.
If we note Schleicher's emphasis on phonology and morphology, to

the neglect of syntax - his 2-volume Compendium der vergleichenden
Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen of 1861-1862 treats only
the first-mentioned levels of language - not to mention what he has to
say about the study of the lexicon 30 , we may describe his treatment of
language as 'materialistic' and 'positivistic', even though Schleicher31
denies the first characterization, and never mentions the second term in
his writings. However, he is unabashed when it comes to expressing his
scientific credo:
Die allerdings einseitige wissenschaftliche betrachtung der sprachlaute
und sprachlichen formen, die ich mir zur lebensaufgabe gemacht habe, -
... - berührt nichts desto weniger das tief innerste wesen der sprache 32 .
Schleicher argues that sound and form are most easily accessible and
should form the foundation on which linguistic analysis may progress
and investigate the function of these sounds and forms.
If we read Schleicher's work written before the appearance of the Ger
man translation of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) in 1860, we will
realize that Schleicher did not need Darwin to develop his naturalistic
views of language and its development. Apart from the tradition in lin
guistics, especially the one connected with Bopp, of which he was very
conscious, Schleicher - although it is not quite correct to say that he
had 'first been trained as a botanist' 33 - had a life-time interest in the
non-theoretical, 'descriptive', natural sciences and had acquired a good
knowledge of scientific method from the work of the botanist Matthias
Schleiden 34 . Indeed, in his 1863 essay, written in response to a sug-
e.g. August Schleicher, Die Deutsche Sprache, S. 125-126. - In a paper entitled 'Das ansich-
sein in der sprache' of 1862 (Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 3, S. 282-288),
Schleicher argues that, in his view, 'der gegensatz von inhalt und form, wesen und erscheinung,
geist und materie [ist] ein nur in der auffassungsweise bestehender, kein wirklich vorhandener'.
A year later, Schleicher characterized this view as 'monism': 'Die Richtung des Denkens', he
affirms in his 'open letter' to Haeckel, 'läuft unverkennbar auf Monismus hinaus' (August
Schleicher, Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft: Offenes Sendschreiben an
Dr. Ernst Häckel... Weimar 1863, S. 8), an argument subsequently exploited by Haeckel and
his Darwinistic followers.
August Schleicher, Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft: Offenes Send
schreiben an Dr. Ernst Häckel... Weimar 1863, S. 8 (Repr. in Nova Acta Leopoldina N.F., No.
218, 377/378-393, 1975).
32
August Schleicher, Zur morphologie der sprachen, Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprach
forschung 2 (1861) S. 460.
Maurice Leroy, Main Trends in Modern Linguistics, S. 15.
34
cf. August Schleicher, Kurzer Abriss der Geschichte der slawischen Sprache, Oesterreichi-
sche Blätter für Literatur und Kunst 19, 7 May 1855 (Rev. version in Beiträge zur vergleichen
den Sprachforschung 1, 1856, S. 1-27).
gestion by his colleague at Jena, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), that he

read Darwin's work, Schleicher indicates that he had learned the mean
ing of 'Entwickelungsgeschichte' from Schleiden and others, and that
he regards Darwin's theory as clearly indebted to Charles Lyell's theory
of geology and as 'ein rechtes und echtes Kind unseres Jahrhunderts',
indeed a necessary conclusion of previous work in the sciences 35 . When
he states that 'observation is the basis of knowledge' and expresses his
opposition to 'everything constructed in an a priori fashion' 36 , he is
reiterating nothing but long-held convictions.
4. If I spent a considerable amount of time on a expose of Schleicher's
views, it is because his contribution to the development of linguistics is
usually minimized and his theory of language (and the accompanying
philosophy of science) distorted. Schleicher died too early to defend
himself and to claim his priority, and the Neo-grammarians had no inter
est in acknowledging their debt to his work. Indeed, as I have shown
elsewhere 37 , what is frequently associated in the literature with the
work of the Junggrammatiker is by and large an extension of what I
have called the 'Schleicherian Paradigm', a further articulation and ex
ploitation of this theories, especially those connected with the so-called
'Stammbaum' and the principles of reconstruction of unattested proto-
forms in comparative-historical linguistics, including the systematic use
of 'starred forms'. When Schleicher wrote a fable in Indo-European, an
entirely reconstructed hypothetical Ursprache, he was not simply offer
ing a joke, as later generations of linguists have surmised, but was simply
carrying his principles, his comparative method, to its logical conclu
sion 38 .
The 'positivism' traditionally associated with the Neogrammarians39
should first and foremost be connected with the work of Schleicher, as
Bal 40 suggests. Indeed, genera linguistic theory was not -pace Hermann
Paul (1846-1921), the acknowledged theorist of the junggrammatische
August Schleicher, Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft, S. 10.

August Schleicher, Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft, S. 9.
E(rnst) F(rideryk) K(onrad) Koerner, Folia Linguistica Historica 2 (1981) S. 157-178;
E(rnst) F(rideryk) K(onrad) Koerner, Introd. article to A. Schleicher, Die Sprachen Europas in
systematischer Uebersicht, 1982.
38
c f . August Schleicher, Eine fabel in indogermanischer Ursprache, Beiträge zur vergleichen
den Sprachforschung 5 (1868) S. 206-208.
39
e . g . , Maurice Leroy, Main Trends in Modern Linguistics, S. 84; Kurt R. Jankowsky, The
Neogrammarians, S. 196f.
40
Willy Bai, Introduction aux études de linguistique romane, S. 37-39.
Richtung - was not the area in which the Neogrammarians excelled.

Bal 41 notes on their theories:
Mais la pratique des néogrammairiens différait considérablement de
leurs théories et souvent contredisait même celles-ci. En fait, cette école
marchait principalement sur les traces d'A. Schleicher et ses recherches
sont marquées d'un esprit positiviste, mécaniste.
Bal refers to their emphasis on the 'sound laws', a principle developed
especially by Schleicher 42 , and their scant use of 'analogy' (which has
to do with psychological rather than seemingly physical forces) as the
'ultimum refugium'. But the same could be said of many other positions
the Neogrammarians took as representing a new departure. Thus, in
their famous manifesto of 1878 - note that they called their new jour
nal 'Morphologische Untersuchungen' and not 'syntactic' or 'etymologi
cal' or 'semantic investigations' - Osthoff and Brugmann argued in favour
of the study of the living languages (something practiced by Schleicher
for example on many occasions), but in their practice they remained
within 'the hypotheses-beclouded atmosphere of the workshop in which
the original Indo-European forms are forged' 43 that they attacked.
They continued to work on the basis of written forms and investigated
the planes of phonology and morphology but scarcely syntax, and they
ignored semantics as Schleicher had done.
In short, the neogrammarian movement constitutes little more than a
continuation of the path established by Schleicher, even though they
began to acknowledge the workings of psychological factors in language
change. But the principle of 'analogy' had not been overlooked by
Schleicher 44 ; indeed, he supervised a thesis by Jan Baudouin de Cour-
tenay (1845-1929) devoted to this phenomenon in Polish 45 , for which
Baudouin received a doctorate from the University of Leipzig in 1870.
If we investigate the work of the Neogrammarians closely, we would
be justified, especially with regard to their methods of research as ap-
41
Willy Bal, Introduction aux études de linguistique romane, S. 4 1 .
42
S c h l e i c h e r , in his Compendium (August Schleicher, Compendium der vergleichenden
Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Weimar 1861-1862 I, S. 15-16 [3rd ed., revised by
Johannes Schmitt und August Leskien, 1870; 4th ed. 1876]) stated very explicitly that he,
Curtius, and others subscribed to the principle of 'strict adherence to sound laws' (cf. Winfred
P. Lehmann, A Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics, Bloom-
ington & London 1967, S. 87).
43
Winfred P. Lehmann, A Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics,
S. 202.
44
August Schleicher, Die Deutsche Sprache, S. 60-61, 171.
45
Baudouin de Courtenay, Einige Fälle der Analogie in der polnischen Deklination. (Adalbert
Kuhn and August Schleicher's) Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 6 (1869) S. 19-88.
plied to Indo-European, to characterize it as 'positivistic'. The rigour

with which they sought to analyse linguistic change, the 'extionless-
ness' which they claimed (especially in the early phase of their 'school')
for the 'sound laws', the neglect of semantic studies, the disregard for
spoken language and dialectology, etc., these all suggest that their atti
tude toward language was that of a narrow empiricism, indeed that of a
'physicalism', an extreme reliance on form and mechanistic principles.
Jankowsky 46 speaks of 'positivism in methodology', but we may ex
tend this label to the Neogrammarians' philosophy of science as well.
5. I have not found a single reference to Comte in the work of the
Neogrammarians. This may not be surprising if we gather that a work of
some 384 pages devoted to the impact of Comte's positivism in 19th-
century Europe has only one single mention of the study of language,
namely a statement to the effect that 'the so-called 'positivist' move
ment in German aesthetics and philology had nothing to do with Comte;
it was merely a quest for objective laws in reaction against metaphysical
teleology' 47 . There is no mention of any 19th-century linguist or school
of linguistics.
However, there was a group of scholars in France which not only fol
lowed Schleicher's theory of language but also tried to incorporate
Comte's philosophy of science. They created a journal, 'Revue de Lin
guistique et de Philologie comparée', in 1867, whose subtitle ran (at least
until 1871) 'Recueil trimestriel de documents pour servir à la science
positive des langues, à l'ethnographie, à la mythologie et à l'histoire'. It
ceased publication only in 1916.I mentioned the names of several mem
bers of this group at the beginning of this paper and refer the reader to
a section in another paper of mine 48 for further details. Needless to add
that it would be of interest to the historian of linguistics, especially in
the light of recent developments in biology and neurology, to investiga
te what Schleicher and, following him, Abel Hovelacque 49 had to say
about the relationship between language development and the evolution
of the human brain.
46
Kurt R. Jankowsky, The Neogrammarians, S. 192.
47
Walter M. Simon, European Positivism in the Nineteenth Century; An essay in intellectual
history, Ithaca, N.Y. 1963, S. 250.
48
E(rnst) F(rideryk) K(onrad) Koerner, Positivism in 19th-century Linguistics, Rivista di
Filosofía 73 (1981) [in press], sect. 1.5.
49
Abel Hovelacque, La Linguistique. Bibliothèque des Sciences contemporaines, 2, Paris
1876, chap. 2 (2nd rev. ed., 1877; 4th ed., n. d. [1888]; 5th ed., 1922).
III. Pendulum Swings in Linguistic Theory
1. Linguistics, especially during the 19th century when scholars tried

to establish the study of language as an autonomous discipline, has
traditionally been influenced by the particular intellectual climate of a
given period. The past century illustrates this very well. For instance,
during the period roughly between 1800 and 1860, botany, compara
tive anatomy, and geology served as pilot sciences, and many of the first
two generations of comparative-historical linguists regarded them as
models to imitate, especially with respect to methodological questions.
Since these other sciences were empirical, deductive and 'positivistic' in
approach, it can be expected that linguistics had a similar outlook.
Later, from the 1860s onwards, disciplines such as sociology, psychol
ogy, and political economy became established fields of scientific in
quiry. Since these disciplines developed during about the same period
as linguistics, it is not surprising that they too had been under the in
fluence of the natural sciences and adopted a fairly positivistic, materi
alist and mechanist, outlook. However, under the influence of philoso
phy, which attacked the all-pervasiveness of 'positivism' - cf. the volumi
nous inquiry of 1879-1884 by Ernst Laas (1837-1885) -the awareness
grew among late-19th century scholars in many fields that there were in
fact two large classes of sciences, the natural sciences and the human,
social or intellectual sciences, and that they differed both in terms of
the nature of the object of inquiry and the method of analysis.
Frequently, the clear distinction between the Geisteswissenschaften
and the Naturwissenschaften is associated with the work of Wilhelm
Dilthey (1833-1911) of 1884, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften.
However, at least where linguistics is concerned, it could be shown that
a number of 19th-century scholars never subscribed to the view that
linguistics was a natural science and that the linguist should confine
himself to questions of structure and its change. Once this strand of
linguistic thought, which I have called the 'Humboldtian tradition' 50 ,
becomes more prominent because of a general change in the intellectual
climate, we note the occurence of what I term a 'pendulum swing' 51 .
50
E(mst) F(rideryk) K(onrad) Koerner, The Humboldtian Trend in Linguistics. Studies in
Descriptive and Historical Linguistics, Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann, Amsterdam 1977,
S. 145-158.
Such a change in the climate of opinion does not come about over
night. There are 'hold-outs' as well as those who try to compromise
between two opposing views of science. The French linguist Lucien
Adam (1833-1918), who was associated with the group of scholars con
nected with the 'Revue de Linguistique' (see II.5 supra), for instance,
offered such a compromise by stating that linguistics, by virtue of its
object, was an 'historical' (i.e., a social and intellectual) science, but a
natural science with respect to its methodology 52 .
For Hermann Paul, author of the Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte,
which ran through five editions between 1880 and 1920, linguistics was
a cultural and social discipline, even though he advocated a clearly em
pirical approach to language analysis. Berthold Delbrück, another asso
ciate of the neogrammarian circle, held similar views in his Einleitung in
das Sprachstudium, which had in fact six editions during the same
period. Curiously enough, their positions concerning the place of lin
guistics and the methods of inquiry had little effect on the day-to-day
research of their colleagues who continued the one-sided, form-oriented
tradition established by Schleicher and his generation.
That this positivistic orientation in comparative-historical linguistics
had gone dry by the turn of the century may be gathered from two
sides, from within and from without. Antoine Meillet (1866-1936), the
most distinguished French comparativist, expressed already in 1903 that
linguistics 'seems to have come to a point beyond which no further pro
gress is possible' 53 . From 1902 onwards the neogrammarian school
came under attack from a generation of scholars who disagreed with the
one-sided treatment of language and the neglect of meaning and func
tion of language. They revived in a way the Humboldtian tradition with
its emphasis on literary, creative language. Their leaders were Benedetto
Croce (1866-1952) in Italy and Karl Vossler (1872-1949) in Germany.
Croce, a philosopher, argued that the centre of linguistic research should
be aesthetics, the expressive side of language use; Vossler, a Romance
scholar, wanted to embed the study of language in an overall study of
culture and literature, areas traditionally neglected by historical lin
guists.
51
cf. E(mst) F(rideryk) K(onrad) Koerner, Models in Linguistic Historiography, Forum Lin-
guisticum 5 (1981) [in press].
52
Lucien Adam, La linguistique est-elle une science naturelle ou une science historique, Revue
de Linguistique et de Philologie comparée 14 (1881) S. 373-395, S. 395.
Maurice Leroy, Main Trends in Modern Linguistics, S. 34.
Croce's Estetica come scienza dell'espressione e linguistica generale 54

and Vossler's writings from 1904 onwards paved the way for schools of
thought in Germany and Italy which were particularly influential in the
period between the two world wars 5 5 .
2. Despite the heavy attacks on 'positivism' in the work of the Neo-
grammarians by Vossler56 and others, historical-comparative linguists
continued to work within the framework established during the 19th
century, though post-Saussurean structuralist principles began to infil
trate the field. Yet structuralism in its narrow form is hardly less posi-
tivistic as we may gather from the schools of Hjelmslev in Europe and
Bloomfield in America.
Although there is little indication that the Neo-Positivism of the Vien
na Circle of the 1920s and 1930s had a direct and immediate impact on
linguistics, the work of several of its associates could not have remained
unnoticed especially since it concerned itself with language 57 , albeit a
restricted, logical type of language. Perhaps the most important contri
butions of the Vienna Circle lay in the philosophy of science and the
attention they paid to questions of scientific or meta-language, activities
which have had a wide-spread influence both in Europe and, from the
late 1930s onwards, in North America.
But positivism in various forms had already taken root in North Ame
rican science, in physics as well as in psychology for instance, compare
John Broadus Watson's (1878-1958) behaviorism58 or Albert Paul Weiss
(1879-1931) brand of it in psychology 59 , and Percy William Bridgman's
(1882-1961) operationalism 60 , which, though independent of the Vien
na Circle, takes a fairly similar positivistic view of physical concepts and
theories.
54
Benedetto Croce, Estetica come szienza dell'espressione e linguistica generale, Milan 1902
(4th rev. ed., 1912).
55
For a detailed account, see Iorgu Iordan, An Introduction to Romance Linguistics, S. 86-
143; Hans Helmut Christmann, Idealistische Philologie und moderne Sprachwissenschaft,
München 1972.
56
KarlVossler, Positivismus und Idealismus in der Sprachwissenschaft. Eine sprachphiloso
phische Untersuchung, Heidelberg 1904.
57
e . g . , Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Introduction by Bertrand Rus
sel, London 1922.
58
J o h n Broadus Watson, Behavior. An introduction to comparative psychology, New York
1914.
59
c f . Albert Paul Weiss, A Theoretical Basis of Human Behavior, 2nd ed. Columbus, Ohio,
1929 (1st ed., 1925).
60
Percy William Bridgman, The Logic of Modern Physics, New York 1927 (Repr., 1951).
It is generally known that Leonard Bloomfield (1887-1949) subscribed

to Weissian behaviorism from the mid-1920s onwards (after having ap
plied Wundtian psychology in his first introduction to linguistics of
1914 61 ). We may also remember that he had received his training in
Indo-European historical linguistics at the University of Leipzig, and
thus had absorbed the positivistic method of the Neogrammarians
which, by the way, he never abandoned 62 . In 1939, he contributed an
essay on linguistics to the International Encyclopedia of Unified
Science, a forum established by emigré members of the Vienna Circle
during the late 1930s. In short, Bloomfield adhered to a philosophy of
science that was definitely positivistic.
In contrast to the school of linguistic thought established by Edward
Sapir (1884-1939), the followers of Bloomfield followed an approach
to language much in line with Bloomfield's synthesis of 1939. Indeed,
the work of many of his pupils and followers exhibits a much narrower
view of language, to the extent that little, if any, attention is given to
syntax, and, especially during the 1940s and 1950s, hardly more to
questions of semantics. In a way similar to the work of Schleicher and
the Neogrammarians, almost exclusive attention is given to questions of
phonology and morphology, with the added feature that historical con
siderations are replaced by ahistorical, structural ones, thus narrowing
down the scope of scientific investigation even further 63 .
3. With Bloomfieldians dominating the field (and the Sapirians repre
senting the competing, but much less powerful undercurrent), we could
imagine that in some point in time the pendulum would swing in an
other direction, not only in linguistics but also in other disciplines, in
cluding psychology and even physics.
The mechanist-behaviorist vogue in psychology and linguistics was an
American phenomenon; Europeans never participated in it, and those
who had moved to North America before, during or after the Second
World War sowed the seed for its replacement by 'mentalist' conceptions
of language. It would be incorrect to say that this was done by Chom
sky's attack on Skinner in 1959, but the impact it had on the minds of
many contemporaries may be taken as an indication that there was a
61
Leonard Bloomfield, An Introduction to the Study of Language, New York 1914 (New ed.,
with an introduction by Joseph F. Kess, Amsterdam 1983).
62
cf. Leonard Bloomfield, Language, New York 1933, S. 281ff.
63
cf. E(rnst) F(rideryk) K(onrad) Koerner, Bloomfieldian Linguistics and the Problem of
'Meaning'. A chapter in the history of the theory and study of language, Jahrbuch für Amerika
studien 15 (1970) S. 162-183 [Repr. in E. F. K. Koerner, Toward a Historiography of Linguis
tics, Amsterdam 1978, S. 155-176], for an historical account of the Bloomfieldian tradition.
wide-spread feeling that Chomsky's polemics was entirely justified:

human behaviour and, especially, language is a much more complex
phenomenon than had been thought of by many American scholars for
several decades.
IV. Concluding Remarks
The present paper, especially the third section concerned with the
20th century, is but a preliminary sketch of positivist conceptions in
linguistics. We have noted that there has been little influence of Comte's
philosophy of science on 19th-century linguistics, at least in a direct
way. But in as far as Comte expressed and synthesized a general intel
lectual trend in 19th-century thought, we may be justified in using 'po
sitivism' as a cover term for attitudes of scientists and scholars which,
in a minute analysis, we might identify as 'scientism', 'materialism',
'historicism', and 'empiricism' in the 19th, and 'mechanism', 'objecti
vism', 'operationalism', 'instrumentalism', or 'behaviorism' in the 20th
century.
All these 'isms' have in common an excessive reliance on 'observation',
on 'facts', and a tendency to mistake (rigorous) methodology for the
ory. They all share a distrust in a deductive approach which starts from
hypotheses rather than from observation and inductive generalizations.
In linguistics, the distinction between these two contrasting positions
cannot always be drawn neatly; it appears that most linguists are either
not interested in or quite incapable of rendering an account of what
they are doing. Yet even if they do, one may discover inconsistencies,
not to say discrepancies, between what they say they are doing and
what they are really doing. Thus an impartial analyst of the work in
transformational-generative grammar may well detect many mechanistic
features in practice which have been denied to exist in theory.
Darwinsche Theorie
und
die Sprachwissenschaft.
Offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Dr. Ernst Häckel, . . Pro
fessor der Zoologie und Director des zoologischen
Museums an der Universität
von
Aug. Schleicher.
Hermann B ö h l a u
1863.
SCHLEICHERS EINFLUSS AUF HAECKEL
SCHLAGLICHTER AUF DIE ABHÄNGIGKEIT ZWISCHEN
LINGUISTISCHEN UND BIOLOGISCHEN
THEORIEN IM 19. JAHRHUNDERT*
"Übrigens glaube ich, daß über die Persönlichkeit

Schleichers, vor allem in bezug auf sein Verhältnis
zu Haeckel noch viel Wissenswertes erforscht
werden kann.
Eugen Seidel**
1. Vorbemerkung
In den wissenschaftsgeschichtlichen Darstellungen der Sprach

wissenschaft und speziellen historischen Abhandlungen zur Ent
wicklung der Sprachtheorie im 19. Jh., die seit August Schleichers
Tod (1868) erschienen sind (vgl. Benfey 1869, Delbrück 1919,
Pedersen 1931, Ivic 1965, Leroy 1971 u.a.m.) bleibt der Name
des Biologen Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) unerwähnt, abgesehen von
dessen Nennung im Untertitel, den Schleicher seiner Abhand
lung Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft (1863) bei
gegeben hat: „Offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Dr. Ernst Häckel,
.. Professor der Zoologie und Director des zoologischen Museums
an der Universität J e n a " (vgl. Arens 1969:251; Jankowsky
1972: 104, mit falscher Jahreszahl; s. auch S. 251).
Dabei geht schon aus dem Text der ersten Seiten dieses „offenen
Sendschreibens" hervor, daß die beiden Gelehrten eng miteinander
befreundet waren und Haeckel den Botaniker und erfolgreichen
Blumenzüchter Schleicher nachdrücklich ermuntert hatte, die 1860
erschienene deutsche Übersetzung von Charles Darwins (1809-82)
Origin of Species (1859) zu lesen. Haeckel selbst hatte sich schon
in seinem ersten Buch, Die Radiolarien (1862:231-32, Anm.),
* Wiederabdruck, mit freundlicher Erlaubnis der Herausgeber und des Verlags, eines
Aufsatzes, der erstmalig in der Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 95.1-21
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) erschienen ist.
** Siehe Eugen Seidel, „Die Persönlichkeit Schleichers", Synchronischer
und diachronischer Sprachvergleich: Bericht ... zu Ehren des 150. Geburtstages
von August Schleicher, hrsg. von Harry Spitzbardt (Jena: Friedrich-Schiller-Univ., 1972),
8-17; hier S. 15.
zu Darwins Lehre bekannt, offenbar zu einer Zeit, als Schleicher

und er — nicht zuletzt durch ihre gemeinsame aktive Mitglied
schaft im Turnverein der Universität Jena — sich schon näher
kennengelernt hatten (vgl. Uschmann 1972a: 62). Haeckel war
nämlich im Frühsommer 1861 als 27-jähriger Privatdozent von
Berlin nach Jena gekommen, wo Schleicher seit 1857 eine außer
ordentliche Professur für indogermanische Sprachen und Litera
turen innehatte.
Selbst Gelehrte wie der Biograph Schleichers, Joachim Dietze
(1966 : 53), und der sonst sehr belesene Historiker der Sprach
wissenschaft, Paul Diderichsen (1976a: 217; 1976b : 275), er
wähnen Haeckel ausschließlich im Zusammenhang mit dem oft
zitierten „Sendschreiben". Es scheint daher zumindest auf den
ersten Blick verwunderlich, daß es Naturwissenschaftler waren, die
in jüngster Zeit auf das Verhältnis dieser beiden bedeutenden
Männer aufmerksam machten (s. Uschmann 1972 a; Scharf 1973:
947-48). Demjenigen jedoch, der sich bemüht, die Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaft zu einer ernstzunehmenden Teildisziplin inner
halb der Sprachwissenschaft zu machen, ist es beinahe alltägliche
Erfahrung, daß die üblichen Darstellungen der Entwicklung
dieses Fachs wenigstens drei Kardinalsünden begehen, die die
Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Linguistik bisher zu einem frag
würdigen Unternehmen machten: Erstens ist man bisher zumeist
(stillschweigend) davon ausgegangen, daß die Theorien der Sprache
bzw. ihrer Wissenschaft sich gradlinig und schrittweise entwickeln
und neuere die alten ersetzen, weil sie besser und zutreffender
scheinen. Zweitens haben viele sog. Historiker der Sprachwissen
schaft die Mühen gescheut, die eine Lektüre der Originalwerke
mit sich bringen könnte, und sich allzu gern auf Darstellungen
ihrer Vorgänger verlassen. Drittens hat man sich bisher zumeist
damit begnügt, mehr oder minder ausschließlich sprachwissen
schaftliche Ideen chronologisch darzustellen und extra-linguistische
Entwicklungen desselben Zeitraums, die eine bestimmte Sprach
theorie hätten einsichtig machen können, unberücksichtigt ge
lassen.
I m Falle von Schleicher hat dieses unkritische Verfahren dazu
geführt, daß in den sog. Geschichten der Sprachwissenschaft etwa
folgendes Klischee weitergetragen wird : I n der Jugend ein glühen
der Anhänger Hegels, ist Schleicher in seinen späteren Jahren
zum Darwinisten geworden, für den die Sprache nichts anderes
als ein vom Sprecher losgelöster lebender Organismus ist, der wie
SCHLEICHERS EINFLUSS AUF HAECKEL 213
eine Pflanze sich entwickelt, zur Blüte kommt und endlich abstirbt.
Aus seinem historischen Kontext gerissen, erscheint Schleicher in
der Tat für den heutigen Sprachwissenschaftler als bloßer Ma
terialist, und die junggrammatische Propaganda scheint so erfolg
reich gewesen zu sein, daß der Eindruck entstanden ist, die Ge
neration der Sprachforscher nach Schleicher habe ihm wenig zu
verdanken. Dabei hat gerade Schleicher mit seinen biologistischen
Anschauungen für die historisch-komparatistische Sprachwissen
schaft so wichtige Folgerungen und theoretische Erkenntnisse ge
wonnen, daß der Erfolg der ,,junggrammatischen Richtung" in
den siebziger und achtziger Jahren ohne sie kaum denkbar ist.
Statt dessen ist man bemüht gewesen, den Eindruck zu erwecken,
daß Schleichers metatheoretische Voraussetzungen unhaltbar und
daher die Schlüsse, die er für die Sprachforschung zog, wertlos seien.
Sein Versuch, eine Fabel in einer nach damaligen wissenschaftlichen
Erkenntnissen rekonstruierten indogermanischen Ursprache wieder
zugeben, wurde der Lächerlichkeit preisgegeben (vgl. King 1971 :
199) 1 ).
2. Schleicher und die Naturwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts
Ich habe an anderer Stelle (vgl. Koerner 1975: 745-59; 1976:

692-99) ausführlich die wichtigsten Aspekte der Sprachtheorie
Schleichers dargestellt und möchte hier nur auf einige seiner
sprachtheoretischen und wissenschaftsphilosophischen Ideen ver
weisen, die im Zusammenhang mit dem Thema dieses Aufsatzes
von Wichtigkeit sein dürften.
Zunächst erscheint es nicht unangebracht, mit dem traditionellen
Bild aufzuräumen, daß Schleicher erst durch die Lektüre der von
Georg Heinrich Bronn (1800-62) besorgten Übersetzung von
Darwins Origin of Species, Über die Entstehung der Arten im Thier-
und Pflanzenreich durch natürliche Züchtung (1860; 2. Aufl., 1863)
zu einer biologistischen Auffassung der Sprache und ihrer Ent
wicklungsgesetze gekommen sei. I n Wahrheit weist Schleicher
1
) Herman Hirt (1865-1936) jedoch hat, zwei Generationen später, Schlei
chers Fabel auf den damaligen Stand des Wissens gebracht; vgl. seine post-
humnen Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft (Halle/S.:
M. Nim, 1939), S. 114-15. In jüngster Zeit haben Winfred P. Lehmann
und Ladislav Zgusta diesen Versuch wiederaufgenommen in ,,Schleicher's
Tale after a Century", in: Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic, and Typological
Linguistics: Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi, hrsg. von Bela Brogyanyi
(Amsterdam: J.Benjamins, 1979), 455-66, besonders S. 462.
selbst in seinem berühmten ,,Offenen Sendschreiben" an Haeckel

darauf hin, daß er aus Büchern wie Matthias Jacob Schleidens
(1804-81) Botanik als induktive Wissenschaft (1843) und Carl Vogts
(1817-95) Physiologischen Briefen für Gebildete alle Stände (1845-
47) „zuerst erfahren" habe, „was Entwickelungsgeschichte ist"
(Schleicher 1863 : 6). Über Darwins Buch, das er sorgfältig studiert
hat (ebda., S. 3), sagt er, daß es ihm ,,durch die Geistesrichtung
unserer Tage bedingt zu sein [scheint], abgesehen von jener Stelle
([Darwin 21863,] S. 487flg.), wo der Verfasser der bekannten Be
schränktheit seiner Landsleute in Glaubenssachen das wenig folge
richtige Zugeständnis macht, daß sich mit seiner Ansicht dennoch
der Begriff der Schöpfung vereinigen lasse."(Schleicher 1863: 7).
Ein wenig später fügt Schleicher — unter Hinweis auf Charles
Lyells (1797-1875) Principles of Geology, being an attempt to ex
plain the former changes of the earth's surface by references to cause
now in operation (1830-32; 12. Aufl., 1875), wohlgemerkt — hinzu:
Darwins Lehre scheint mir [. . .] in der That nur eine nothwendige Folge
der heute zu Tage in der Naturwissenschaft geltenden Grundsätze zu sein.
Sie beruht auf Beobachtung und ist wesentlich ein Versuch einer Ent
wickelungsgeschichte. Was Lyell für die Lebensgeschichte der Erde, das
hat Darwin für die Lebensgeschichte der Bewohner dieser Erde ausgeführt.
Darwins Lehre ist also keine zufällige Erscheinung, [. . .], sondern ein
echtes und rechtes Kind unseres Jahrhunderts. (Schleicher 1863:11-12).
Aus diesem Zitat wird deutlich, daß Schleicher mit der natur
wissenschaftlichen Literatur seiner Zeit wohl vertraut war. Brigit
Benes (1958:81) meint sogar, daß Schleicher „oft geradezu als
das Sprachrohr des Zeitgeistes, als der Mann, der die jedesmal
aktuellen Tendenzen in klare Formulierungen bringt" erscheint.
Es ließe sich zeigen, daß Schleicher eine Reihe von Parallelen
zwischen der Entwicklung natürlicher Organismen und der der
Sprache gesehen hat, von den einfachsten „Zellen", den Wurzeln,
zu den kompliziertesten morphologischen Gebilden. Auch glaubt
Schleicher, daß die Sprachorganismen bestimmten Gesetzen der
Entwicklung unterliegen, und ordnet die Sprachwissenschaft oder
Glottik l a ), wie er sie — wohl in Anlehnung an Botanik — nennt,
la
) In seinem Compendium (2. Aufl., 1866, S. 1, Anm.) sagt Schleicher
hierzu: „Dises gute wort, das dem übel gebildeten ,linguistik' entschieden
vor zu ziehen ist, ist nicht von mir gemacht. Ich verdanke es der hiesigen
Universitätsbibliothek, wo es längst im gebrauche ist." — Es wäre wissens
wert zu erfahren, wer diesen Terminus in der Universitätsbibliothek Jena
zuerst benutzt hat. Vgl. auch Schleichers Notiz, „Sprachwissenschaft,
Glottik", Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 2:1.127-28 (1860).
den Naturwissenschaften zu, im Gegensatz zur Philologie, die

nach Schleicher (1850 : 1-5 passim) eine historische Disziplin ist.
Diese Ansichten über die Sprache und ihre wissenschaftliche Er
forschung treten bei Schleicher nicht erst in dem „offenen Send
schreiben" an Haeckel auf, sondern wurden seit 1848 in seinen ver
schiedenen Schriften immer eindringlicher vertreten (vgl. Koerner
1975 : 749-54). Vor allem in seinem Buche Die Sprachen Europas
in systematischer Uebersicht (Bonn, 1850) entwickelte Schleicher —
9 Jahre vor Erscheinen von Darwins Origin of Species nota bene —
seine sprachtheoretischen Vorstellungen, denenzufolge die Sprach
wissenschaft hinsichtlich ihrer Methode den Naturwissenschaften
hinzuzurechnen sei, da auch bei Sprache ,,das Walten unabänder
licher natürlicher Gesetze" (Schleicher 1850 : 3) beobachtet werden
könne. Schon in diesem Werk werden Wörter mit Naturorganismen
gleichgesetzt und Sprachen nach Mechanismen ihrer morpho
logischen Verbindungen (vgl. S.7-10) klassifiziert, und zwar in
„einsylbige", „agglutinirende" und „flectirende". Die Methode des
Sprachwissenschaftlers ist nach Schleicher (1852: VII) der des Ver
gleichenden Anatomen analog, der aus fossilen Überbleibseln nach
bestimmten (von Cuvier erstmalig formulierten) Gesetzen die
fehlenden Teile rekonstruiert und so den Bau des gesamten Organis
mus erschließt (vgl. auch Schleicher 1850 : 21ff., wo er von Genus
und Species, Art und Unterart, Stamm und dgl. mehr im Zusammen
hang mit Sprachen spricht).
Auch anhand seines als populäre Einführung in die Sprach
wissenschaft gedachten Werkes Die Deutsche Sprache (1860), das
abgeschlossen war, bevor Schleicher von Darwins Origin of Species
hätte Notiz nehmen können (vgl. Schleicher 1863: 4, Anm. 1), das
ja erstmalig im November 1859 erschien, ließe es sich ein für alle
mal nachweisen, daß Schleicher Darwins Buch nicht nötig hatte, um
seine eigenen, von zeitgenössischen naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften
inspirierten, Theorien zu entwickeln. Vielmehr scheint Schleicher
in seinen Anschauungen im wesentlichen ein prä-darwinistischer
Evolutionist geblieben zu sein (cf. Maher 1966). Schleicher zieht
zwar eine Reihe von Parallelen zwischen Sprachentwicklung und
den Prinzipien (z.B. ,,allmähliche Differenzierung", ,,Kampf ums
Dasein" u. a.), die Darwin für die Tier- und Pflanzenwelt auf
gestellt hat, stellt jedoch gegen Ende seines ,,offenen Send
schreibens (1863: 31) fest: ,,Das Reich der Sprachen ist von dem
der Pflanzen und Thiere zu verschieden, als dass die Gesammtheit
der Darwinschen Ausführungen mit ihren Einzelheiten für das

selbe Geltung haben könnten".
Auch wenn die Junggrammatiker immer mehr von Schleichers
Biologismus Abstand genommen haben, ja in ihrer patriziden Ge
schichtsschreibung (vgl. Delbrück 1919: 97ff.; Pedersen 1931:
242ff., 265ff.) den Eindruck zu erwecken bemüht waren, daß ihre
Wissenschaft mit der Schleichers wenig gemein habe, so kann man
doch mit Fug und Recht sagen, daß die sprachwissenschaftliche
Methode der Indogermanisten bis zum heutigen Tage den Im
pulsen Schleichers verpflichtet geblieben ist. Denn Schleicher
hat nicht nur das Rekonstruktionsverfahren in der historischen
Sprachwissenschaft auf eine feste Basis gestellt (vgl. Pedersen
1931: 267) — und dabei dem Asteriskus seinen theoretischen
Status zugewiesen —, sondern auch seine Stammbaumtheorie ist
trotz mancher Modifikation Grundbestand der indogermanistischen
Sprachforschung geblieben (vgl. Hoenigswald 1975). Trotz seiner be
deutenden Einzeluntersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der Slavistik
(vgl. Dietze 1966 : 89-159) und der Phonologie und Morphologie
indogermanischer und anderer Sprachen — um von seinen bahn
brechenden Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete der Märchen- und Dialekt
forschung (bes. Schleicher 1858) nicht zu reden — ist Schleicher
vor allem als bedeutender Systematiker, um nicht zu sagen : Sprach
theoretiker hervorgetreten. Hierzu gehört nicht allein, daß er es
unternahm, Vorstellungen wie Lautgesetz und Analogie in das all
gemeine Rüstzeug des Sprachforschers einzubringen, sondern auch
Begriffe wie Assimilation (wohl von Bopp erstmalig verwendet) und
Dissimilation (von Pott in seinen Etymologischen Forschungen ein
geführt) fest im Vokabular der Sprachwissenschaft zu verankern
(vgl. Schleicher 1848 passim). Diese obigen Termini deuten auf
naturwissenschaftliche Herkunft hin; Schleicher (1859) führte den
Begriff der Morphologie in die sprachwissenschaftliche Nomen
klatur ein.
Es kann also kein Zweifel daran bestehen, daß der Einfluß der
Naturwissenschaften auf Schleichers sprachtheoretische Über
legungen beträchtlich gewesen ist. Daß der Linguist Schleicher
seinerseits auf den Biologen Haeckel einen nicht unbedeutenden
Einfluß ausgeübt haben mag, scheint hingegen noch nicht Gegen
stand historiographischer Untersuchung in der Sprachwissenschaft
gewesen zu sein. Stam (1976: 245, 247) ist m.W. der einzige
wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Forscher innerhalb der Linguistik, der
auf Haeckels sprachwissenschaftliche Interessen, insbesondere
Haeckels Vorwort zur Untersuchung seines Vetters, Wilhelm Hein

rich Immanuel Bleek (1827-75), Über den Ursprung der Sprache
(Weimar, 1868), aufmerksam gemacht hat.
3. Wissenschaftsbiographischer Abriß Ernst Haeckels

Da wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Darstellungen der Sprach
wissenschaft keine Auskünfte über Haeckel, den Adressaten von
Schleichers ,,offenem Sendschreiben", vermitteln, erscheint es hier
angebracht, ein paar biographische Daten einzuflechten, die man
in naturwissenschaftlich orientierten Schriften (vgl. Uschmann
1959:34-40 u.ö.; 1972b) leicht findet. So ist es interessant zu
erfahren, daß Haeckel, ähnlich wie Schleicher, schon in der Jugend
ein starkes Interesse an der Botanik entwickelte, einer Disziplin,
die seit dem 18. Jh., vor allem durch Linnés Werk, stark klassi-
fikatorisch und taxonomisch, d. h. systematisch und ahistorisch aus
gerichtet war. Zwar studierte Haeckel auf Wunsch seiner Eltern
Medizin, und zwar vor allem in Würzburg unter Rudolf Virchow
(1821-1902) und in Berlin unter Johannes Müller (1801-58). Nach
dem er in Würzburg in den Jahren 1857-58 seine medizinischen
Examina abgelegt hatte, beabsichtigte Haeckel jedoch, bei dem
Physiologen Müller in Berlin weiterzuarbeiten. Da dieses Vorhaben
durch den frühen Tod dieses (auch für die Sprachforschung) be
deutenden Gelehrten vereitelt wurde, gelang es dem Jenenser
Anatomen Carl Gegenbaur (1826-1903), Haeckel zu überreden,
das Gebiet seiner wissenschaftlichen Arbeit auf die Biologie zu
verlegen. Obgleich Haeckel in Berlin weiterarbeitete, legte er im
Januar 1861, im Alter von knapp 27 Jahren, seine Habilitations
schrift in Jena unter dem Dekanat Schleidens vor. Schon ein J a h r
darauf wurde Haeckel zum außerordentlichen Professor für Zoo
logie und Vergleichende Anatomie ernannt und im selben J a h r
auch zum Direktor des Zoologischen Museums in Jena. Es ist be
kannt, daß Haeckel ein guter Zeichner war, und es scheint, daß
er von schneller Auffassungsgabe und mit einer Neigung zum
Systematisieren begabt war 2 ). Er hatte zwar schon in Sommer 1860
2
) Haeckels Geschicklichkeit und flinke Aufnahmefähigkeit läßt sich auf
künstlerischem Gebiet z.B. an seinen im Vorderen Orient angefertigten
Aquarellen ablesen, die deutlich den Ölbildern seines ihn 1873 auf einer
Kleinasienexkursion begleitenden Maler-Freundes Ernst Koerner (1846-
1927) nachempfunden sind. Fünf Gemälde Koerners und etliche Aquarelle
Haeckels sind noch heute im Ernst-Haeckel-Haus in Jena zu sehen.
Vgl. auch den Beitrag Ernst Koerners, „Exzellenz Ernst Haeckel als
Maler", in Was wir Ernst Haeckel verdanken: Ein Buch der Verehrung und
von Bronns Übersetzung von Darwins Origin of Species Kenntnis

genommen, aber erst ab Herbst 1861 begann er, dieses Werk auf
merksamer zu studieren, und las ab Winter-Semester 1862/63 „pub
lice Darwinii theoriam de organismorum affinitate" (Uschmann
1959 : 43). Die Vergleichende Anatomie wurde ihm die Grundlage
für eine Allgemeine Zoologie, und neben Darwin waren ihm vor
allem Linné und Cuvier die großen Leitbilder. Seine zweibändige
Generelle Morphologie der Organismen von mehr als eintausend
Seiten enthalt, wie Uschmann (1972b) hervorhebt, alle wesent
lichen Auffassungen Haeckels. Das 1866 erschienene Werk trägt
den Untertitel „Allgemeine Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch be
gründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte [sic] Deszendenz-
Theorie"; Band I behandelt die Allgemeine Anatomie, Band I I
die Allgemeine Entwicklungsgeschichte der Organismen, d.h.
Haeckel unterscheidet deutlich zwischen einem deskriptiven und
einem historischen Teil.
4. Berührungspunkte zwischen Schleichers und Haeckels

biologistischen Ideen
Etwa zur gleichen Zeit, als Schleicher sein am 25. Oktober 1863
Haeckel persönlich überreichtes ,,offenes Sendschreiben", Die Dar
winsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft, abfaßte, redigierte
Haeckel seinen am 19. September 1863 anläßlich der Versammlung
deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte in Stettin gehaltenen Vortrag,
,,Ueber die Entwickelungstheorie Darwin's". In ihm referierte
Haeckel die wesentlichen Grundgedanken der Deszendenztheorie
in der Hoffnung, die Zuhörerschaft von der Richtigkeit der Lehre
Darwins zu überzeugen. Die von ihm verwendete Terminologie,
nicht unbedingt sein wissenschaftliches Credo, scheint mir hier
von Interesse zu sein.
So nimmt Haeckel beispielsweise an, daß sich möglicherweise
Flora und Fauna aus ,,einer einzigen ursprünglichen Stammform"
entwickelt haben könnten, und zwar durch Vererbungs- und An
passungsprozesse (Haeckel 1863 : 20 = 1902 : 11 ; Kursivierung von
mir: E F K K ) . Der Ausdruck „Stammform", der in diesem Zu
sammenhang eher überrascht — „Zelle" oder Goethes „Urform"
Dankbarkeit, im Auftrag des Deutschen Monistenbundes herausgegeben von
Heinrich Schmidt (Leipzig: Verlag Unesma, 1914), Bd. 2, S. 68-72. Die
Festschrift enthält außerdem 6 Kupfertiefdrucke nach Aquarellen, die
Koerner 1873 im Vorderen Orient gemalt hatte (vgl. I, S. 225 u. 289; I I ,
S. 69, 289, 305 u. 369).
wäre vielleicht passender gewesen — kommt in Haeckels Vortrag

mehrmals vor (vgl. 1863: 17,26 = 1902: 4,24). Noch stärker an
Schleicher erinnert etwa folgende Passage aus demselben Vortrag:
Das ganze natürliche System der Pflanzen erscheint von diesem Ge
sichtspunkte [d.h., dem der Deszendenzlehre] aus als ein grosser S t a m m
b a u m , und lässt sich eine jede genealogische Tabelle, am anschaulichsten
unter dem Bilde eines weit verzweigten Baumes darstellen, dessen ganz
einfache Wurzel in der fernsten Vergangenheit verborgen liegt. (Haeckel
1863:20 = 1902:11; Sperrdruck im Original)
Im folgenden malt Haeckel die Metapher vom Stammbaum,

seinen ,,grünen Blättchen", ,,Jüngeren, frischeren Zweige[n]" und
,,abgestorbenen Aesten" weiter aus. Der Ausdruck „Stammbaum"
kommt noch mehrmals in diesem Vortrag vor (vgl. 1863 : 22 =
1902:16) oder als ,weitverzweigter Lebensbaum" (1863:28 =
1902 : 30). Von nun an ist sowohl das Bild als auch der Begriff
des Stammbaums immer wieder in Haeckels Schriften anzutreffen
(vgl. etwa die Abbildungen in Uschmann 1967 : 18, 20 u. 21).
Darwin selbst hatte in Origin of Species (1859 : 70-71) nur ein
eher abstraktes Schema gegeben (vgl. Uschmann 1967 : 16), das
die allmähliche Transformation von Arten verbildlichen sollte.
Dagegen hat Schleicher schon im Jahre 1853 an zwei verschiedenen
Orten Stammbäume der indoeuropäischen Sprachenfamilie ver
öffentlicht, von denen der eine mit folgenden Worten eingeleitet
wurde: ,,Diese Annahmen [über die ,,ersten Spaltungen des indo
germanischen Urvolkes"], [. . .], lassen sich am besten unter
dem Bilde eines sich verästelnden Baumes anschaulich machen"
(Schleicher 1853b: 787):
Abb. 1
Taf. VIII
Abb. 2:
Tafel 8 aus E. Haeckel, Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (1866)
Hierbei scheint mir vor allem die Ähnlichkeit zwischen Haeckels

und Schleichers Formulierung doch sehr auffallend und nicht zu
fälliger Natur zu sein. Zwar ist die Geschichte der Stammbaum-
Darstellungen in der Biologie recht alt, und es muß angenommen
werden, daß Haeckel beispielsweise die graphischen Skizzen in
Lamarcks Werk kannte, aber es scheint mir unzweifelhaft, daß
die acht Tafeln mit verschiedenen Stammbäumen, die Haeckel am
Ende des zweiten Bandes seiner Generellen Morphologie (1866) an
gehängt hat 3 ), wenigstens teilweise auf Anregungen Schleichers zu
rückgehen. Man vergleiche etwa die 8. Tafel aus der Generellen
Morphologie mit dem auf S. 9 abgebildeten Stammbaum.
Neben dem oben abgebildeten Stammbaum hat Schleicher noch
etliche weitere, wenngleich immer mehr schematisierende, ver
öffentlicht (vgl. Schleicher 1853a: 331; 1860:28, 59, 82, 94) 4 ),
und dies nicht erst als Anhang zu seinem ,,offenen Sendschreiben''
d. J . 1863, wie in der linguistischen Literatur oft angenommen
wird.
Obschon Schleicher nicht der einzige Linguist war, der einen
Stammbaum abbildete, um historische Verzweigungen einer
Sprachfamilie zu illustrieren 5 ), so sprechen schon allein biogra
phische Fakten dafür, daß Haeckel hier von Schleichers Werk
beeinflußt war. Haeckels Formulierungen in dem oben erwähnten
Vortrag d. J. 1863 scheinen diese Vermutungen zu unterstützen,
wenn er anläßlich der Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen nicht
nur auf die ,,neuere Geologie'' (etwa Lyell 1863) und die ,,Alter-
umsforschung" als Informationsquellen verweist, sondern „ganz
besonders die neueren Entdeckungen auf dem Gebiete der ver-
3
) Uschmann 1967, der S. 20 Tafel 8 aus Haeckel, „Stammbaum der
Säugetiere mit Inbegriff des Menschen, entworfen und gezeichnet von
Ernst Haeckel. Jena, 1866", abdruckt, erwähnt Schleichers Stammbäume
mit keiner Silbe.
4
) Etliche Stammbäume Schleichers sind abgebildet in Priestly 1975:301,
302 u. 315; Scharf 1975b: 333, 334. — Siehe auch Schleicher 1861-62 I
(1861), S. 7.
5
) Priestly 1975 nennt vor allem Frantisek Ladislav Čelakovskýs (1799-
1852) posthume Vorlesungen an der Prager Universität über Vergleichende
Grammatik des Slavischen, Čteni o srovnavací mluvnici slovanské (Prag:
F. Rivnáč, 1853), worin (S. 3) sich ein Stammbaumdiagramm befindet
(Priestly, S. 303), das möglicherweise Schleicher zu seinen Stammbäumen
inspirierte. A. Morpurgo Davies (1975:636, Anm. 53) verweist darauf, daß
schon Julius von Klaproth (1783-1835) in seinem (auf deutsch geschriebenen)
Werk, Asia polyglotta (Paris: A. Schubart, 1823), „near p. 217", eine
Sprachentafel aufgestellt habe.
gleichenden Sprachforschung" hervorhebt (p. 27 = 1902 : 28).

Hier führt Haeckel (27-28 = 1902:28-29) im einzelnen a u s :
Auch die Sprache trat nicht mit einem Male plötzlich und unvermittelt
als der vielgliedrige Organismus auf, [. . .]. Vielmehr entstand auch die
Sprache erst allmählig aus den wenigen einfachen thierischen, rohen Lauten,
die zur Bezeichnung der nächstliegenden Gegenstände und Bedürfnisse
dienten. In wenig vollkommnerer Form verharrt die Sprache auch heute
noch bei einigen Naturvölkern niederen Ranges.
Auf diese phantasievolle und im einzelnen sicherlich nicht auf

Schleicher zurückzuführende Darstellung über Ursprung und Ent
wicklung der Sprachen folgt ein wenig später die an Schleicher
gemahnende Feststellung :
Wie lange aber mag es gedauert haben, ehe sich aus dieser einen oder
diesen wenigen einfachen Ursprachen durch fortschreitende Entwickelung
und Differenzirung die vielfach verschiedenen Sprachstämme und Zweige
entwickelten, welche die vergleichenden Linguisten nach ihrer näheren und
entfernten Verwandtschaft, ebenso in ein b a u m f ö r m i g verzweigtes
System ordnen, wie dies die Zoologen und Botaniker in den Familien
der Thiere und Pflanzen thun. Wie die Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der
letzteren, sind auch die der Sprachen nur aus dem Princip der gemein
samen A b s t a m m u n g und der f o r t s c h r e i t e n d e n E n t w i c k e l u n g zu
erklären und zu verstehen. (Haeckel 1863:28 = 1902:29; Sperrung im
Original).
Haeckel nennt in seinem Vortrag weder Naturforscher, die

Stammbäume aufgestellt haben, noch erwähnt er Schleicher in
diesem Zusammenhang. E s ließen sich jedoch unschwer nahezu
wörtliche Übereinstimmungen in Argument und Formulierung
zwischen Haeckels Vortrag und Schleichers „offenem Sendschreiben"
in bezug auf die Entwicklung der Sprachen aufzeigen (vgl.
Schleicher 1863: 12ff.)6).
Auch in seiner Generellen Morphologie der Organismen (1866)
nennt Haeckel Schleicher nicht im Zusammenhang mit seinen
Stammbaum-Darstellungen, die er dem 2. Band beigegeben hat 7 ).
Ein ausdrücklicher Verweis auf Schleicher findet sich jedoch in
6
) Vgl. den von Professor J.-H. Scharf besorgten Wiederabdruck dieser
Schrift in Nova Acta Leopoldina N.F., Bd. 42, №. 218, S. 377-93 (1975).
7
) Giulio C. Lepschy zitiert ausführlich aus Haeckels obigem Werk
(S. 181) in seinem sehr kenntnisreichen Aufsatz, ,,Osservazioni sul termine
Strutture", Annale della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Abtlg. Lettere,
Storia e Filosofia 31:3/4.173-97 (1962) ; er erwähnt sogar Schleichers „offenes
Sendschreiben" an Haeckel (S. 187, Anm. 96) und zitiert ausführlich aus
Schleichers Werk (187-90), ohne jedoch eine Verbindung zwischen diesen
beiden Gelehrten herzustellen.
Haeckels Schrift Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (1868), worin er

u. a. ausführt:
Dieser interessante Parallelismus in der divergenten Entwicklung der
Sprachformen und der Organismen-Formen ist in sehr einleuchtender Weise
von einem unserer ersten vergleichenden Sprachforscher erörtert worden,
von dem genialen A u g u s t S c h l e i c h e r , der namentlich den Stammbaum
der indogermanischen Sprachen in der scharfsinnigsten Weise phylogenetisch
entwickelt hat. (Haeckel 1868a, zitiert nach 4 1873:96) 8 ).
Im gleichen Werk referiert Haeckel etliche andere Ideen Schlei

chers, ohne sogleich auf seine Quelle hinzuweisen; so etwa auf
S. 596 (der 4. Aufl.), wo er auf die notwendige Differenzierung
und Evolution des Gehirns als die Grundvoraussetzung für die
Herausbildung des ,,genus homo" aufmerksam macht, eine These,
die Schleicher drei Jahre zuvor in seiner kleinen Abhandlung,
Über die Bedeutung der Sprache für die Naturgeschichte des Menschen
(1865 : 16-21 passim) aufgestellt hatte. Zwei Seiten spåter verweist
Haeckel dann auch auf diese Schrift, und zwar in demselben Zu
sammenhang.
5. Die Frage nach dem Einfluß Schleichers auf Haeckel
Man muß sich vor Augen halten, daß Schleicher auf der Höhe
seines internationalen Ansehens stand, als er und der 27-jährige
Haeckel einander kennenlernten. Es verwundert daher nicht, daß
der vielseitig interessierte Haeckel gern von einer Autorität wie
Schleicher, zumal dieser auf dem Gebiete der Botanik äußerst
bewandert war, bestimmte Ansichten übernahm. Die obigen Aus
führungen haben deutlich gemacht, wie stark sich der junge Haeckel
von den sprachtheoretischen Überlegungen Schleichers inspirieren
ließ. Es bliebe im folgenden zu untersuchen, ob sich dieser Ein
fluß des Sprachforschers auf den Biologen nur auf die Entwicklungs
theorie beschränkte (der freilich ohne Darwins Origin of Species
kaum denkbar wäre).
In einem Brief an Thomas Huxley (1825-95) vom 11. November
1865 (vgl. Uschmann 1959: 45) teilte Haeckel mit, daß sein
nächstes Werk eine ,,generelle Morphologie" werde, die Ordnung
in das ,,empirische Chaos der Zoologie'' bringen werde und in der
er ,,Logik und Konsequenz" in die vorherrschenden Richtungen
8
) Sperrdruck im Original; in der Anm. auf derselben Seite verweist
Haeckel auf Schleicher 1863.
des rohen Empirismus bringen wolle. I n seiner Generellen Mor

phologie (1866 I, S. 6, 36 u.ö.) bezieht sich Haeckel ausdrücklich
auf Julius Victor Carus' Buch System der thierischen Morphologie
(1853). Der schon 1800 von Karl Friedrich Burdach (1776-1847)
in die naturwissenschaftliche Nomenklatur eingeführte Begriff der
Morphologie (wie auch der Biologie; vgl. Schmid 1935: 605), der
so etwas wie (vergleichende) Lehre von den Formverhältnissen
meinte, ist nach Inhalt und Form Haeckel durch seine wissen
schaftliche Ausbildung geläufig gewesen. Mir scheint jedoch, daß
die in Haeckels Werk deutlich zutage tretende Verbindung zwischen
der traditionell statisch und taxonomisch konzipierten Morphologie
und einer dynamisch aufgefaßten Genealogie oder einem „natür
lichen Stammbaum" der Organismen über die übliche Auffassung
(auch die von Carus) hinausgeht (vgl. Haeckel 1866 I, S. 11ff., 37ff.).
Schleicher hatte 1858 den Begriff der Morphologie in die Sprach
wissenschaft eingeführt, und auch wenn er in dieser programma
tischen Arbeit (Schleicher 1859 : 37) die Morphologie nur als eine
auf der Grundlage des Wortes vorgenommene Klassifikation der
Sprachen verstanden wissen will, so hat er an anderer Stelle,
namentlich in seinem Buch Die Deutsche Sprache (1860) den Ver
such unternommen (wie es schon Pott u.a. vor ihm getan hatten),
die Entwicklung der Sprache am Wandel von einsilbigen zu mehr
silbigen, agglutinierenden und inkorporierenden Systemen analog
der Entwicklung von einzelligen zu immer differenzierter werdenden
mehr- und vielzelligen Organismen der Biologie darzustellen. I n
der Tat scheint es denkbar, daß Schleichers Auffassung von der
substantiellen Identität von einem „Nebeneinander des Systems"
und dem „Nacheinander der Geschichte" (Schleicher 1848: 6, 22,
23 u.ö.: 1850 : 15; 1860 : 47) — die Schleicher (1848 : 5) mit Hilfe
„eines formellen Umgießens" zu vermitteln hoffte — noch ohne
Einfluß auf Haeckel geblieben ist. Es wäre jedoch interessant zu
untersuchen, ob Schleicher bei der Formulierung des sog. „Bio
genetischen Grundgesetzes" durch Haeckel eine Rolle gespielt
hat 9 ), zumal Schleicher sich auch mit Kindersprache beschäftigte
(1861/65). Haeckel führte diesen Terminus erst i. J . 1872 ein
(vgl. Uschmann 1972b : 8), jedoch in seiner Antrittsvorlesung d. J .
1869 formulierte er (S. 364 = 1902 I I , 19): „. . . die Individual-
9
) Haeckel war jedoch (wie mir Prof. Uschmann, Jena, mitteilt) nicht
der Entdecker dieses „Grundgesetzes"; solche Feststellungen finden sich
u.a. schon in der Schrift Fritz (alias Johann Friedrich Theodor) Müllers
(1822-97), Für Darwin (Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1864).
geschickte, die Ontogenie, ist eine kurze und schnelle, durch die
Gesetze der Vererbung und Anpassung bedingte Wiederholung der
Stammesgeschichte, der Phylogenie" 1 0 ).
Das oben Vorgetragene muß vorerst Vermutung bleiben; auf
viel sicherem Boden sind wir, wenn wir einen anderen, von dem
obigen durchaus nicht gänzlich unabhängigen Aspekt in Haeckels
Denkgebäude herausgreifen, nämlich seine monistische Weltan
schauung, die ihm noch in unseren Tagen (Gasman 1971) harte
Kritik eingebracht hat.
In seinem ,,offenen Sendschreiben" an Haeckel hatte Schleicher
(1863: 8) vermerkt:
Die Richtung des Denkens der Neuzeit läuft unverkennbar auf Monis
mus hinaus. Der Dualismus, fasse man ihn nun als Gegensatz von Geist
und Natur, Inhalt und Form, Wesen und Erscheinung, oder wie man ihn
sonst bezeichnen mag, ist für die naturwissenschaftliche Anschauung unserer
Tage ein vollkommen überwundener Standpunkt. Für diese gibt es keine
Materie ohne Geist (ohne die sie bestimmende Nothwendigkeit), aber eben so
wenig auch Geist ohne Materie. Oder vielmehr es gibt weder Geist noch Ma
terie im gewöhnlichen Sinn, sondern nur noch eines, das beides zugleich ist.
Haeckel (1866 I, S. 105) zitiert diese Passage und dankt

Schleicher in einer Anmerkung (ebda., S. 105-06), zugleich dessen
Ansichten, vor allem in bezug auf die Anwendung der Deszendenz
lehre Darwins auf die Entwicklung der Sprachen, den Natur
wissenschaftlern seiner Zeit anempfehlend. Auf den folgenden
Seiten (S. 106-08) erhebt Haeckel den Monismus zum Sammel
begriff seiner naturwissenschaftlichen Grundanschauungen, die er
den ,,dualistischen" Dogmen der zeitgenössischen anti-darwi-
nistischen Naturauffassungen (Vitalismus, Teleologie, Materialis
mus 11 ) usf.) gegenüberstellt. Nach ihm solle der Gegensatz zwischen
Philosopohie und Naturwissenschaft aufgehoben werden, da ,,der
Monismus als philosophisches System nichts Anderes, als das
reinste und allgemeinste Resultat unserer allgemeinen wissen
schaftlichen Weltanschauung, unserer gesammten Natur-Erkennt
nis ist" (ebda., S. 107).
10
) Interessanterweise stammen von Haeckel nicht nur die Bezeichnungen
Ontogenese und Phylogenese (bzw. Onto- u. Phylogenie), sondern auch der
Begriff der Ökologie (engl, ecology), der in jüngster Zeit in aller Munde ist
(vgl. Uschmann 1972b: 10).
11
) Schleicher (1863:8, Anm. 1) hatte seiner oben zitierten Feststellung
angefügt: ,,Diese auf Beobachtung beruhende Ansicht des Materialismus zu
beschuldigen, ist eben so verkehrt, als wolle man sie des Spiritualismus
zeihen".
Noch in seinem viel später verfaßten populärwissenschaftlichen

Buche Die Lebenswunder (1904) widmet Haeckel dem Monismus
in all seinen Erscheinungsformen ein ganzes Kapitel (S. 529-57),
und unter dem ,,Monistische Linguistik" überschriebenen Ab
schnitt notierte er u.a. folgendes, was mir auf eine Verbindung
zwischen Schleicher und Haeckel auch in bezug auf das Verhältnis
von Ontogense und Phylogenese hinzudeuten scheint :
Die O n t o g e n e s e d e r S p r a c h e ergab, daß die stufenweise Entwicklung
der Sprache beim Kinde (entsprechend dem Biogenetischen Grundgesetze)
eine Recapitulation jenes phylogenetischen Processes darstellt. (S.541; Sper
rung im Original.)
Ohne Zweifel ließen sich noch eine Reihe weiterer Berührungs

punkte zwischen Schleichers durch die Naturwissenschaften seiner
Zeit geformten Sprachideen und Haeckels Konzeption von Bau
und Entwicklung natürlicher Organismen auffinden, vor allem
in seinen verschiedenen Veröffentlichungen aus den sechziger
Jahren (vgl. u.a. Haeckel 1868a und b), als sich der kaum 30-
jährige Haeckel, durch die Arbeiten Huxleys (1863), Lyells (1863)
und anderer beflügelt, immer mehr für die Anerkennung der De
szendenzlehre Darwins einsetzte und in dem Sprachwissenschaftler
Schleicher volle Unterstützung seiner Ansichten fand.
Darwin selbst hatte es bekanntlich vorgezogen, in seinem Origin
of Species darauf hinzuweisen, daß seine Beobachtungen Licht auf
die Herkunft des Menschen werfen würden, und den Gesichtspunkt
der menschlichen Sprache außer Betracht gelassen. Nachdem aber
Huxley, Lyell u.a. in England und Ludwig Büchner (1824-99),
Friedrich Rolle (1827-87) u.a. in Deutschland die Frage nach
dem Ursprung des Menschen miteinbezogen hatten, veröffent
lichte er ein zweibändiges Werk mit dem Titel The Descent of Man
(1871), das noch im gleichen Jahr von J. Victor Carus ins Deutsche
übertragen wurde. In seinem Vorwort hebt Darwin die Leistungen
Haeckels hervor, und er geht so weit zu sagen, daß, wenn Haeckels
Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (1868; 21870) vor der Abfassung
seines Buches erschienen wäre, er seine Arbeit niemals abge
schlossen hätte (Darwin 1871 : 4). Dem ersten Bande von The
Descent of Man gibt Darwin sogar einen Abschnitt ,,Sprache"
(S. 53-62) bei, in welchem er in „articulate language" die differencia
specifica des Menschen erblickt, d.h. das, was Schleicher (1865 : 15)
als die „Fähigkeit des unmittelbaren Gedankenausdruckes durch
den L a u t " bezeichnete. Es ist denn auch nicht verwunderlich,
daß Darwin (S. 56) neben seinen Landsleuten Hensleigh Wedg

wood (1803-91) und Frederic William Farrar (1831-1903) vor allem
auf die Schriften 12 ) Schleichers zu diesem Thema verweist.
6. Schlußbemerkungen
In Otto Marx' Anhang zu Eric Heinz Lennebergs wichtigem

Buch Die biologischen Grundlagen der Sprache, ,,Die Geschichte
der Ansichten über die biologische Grundlage der Sprache" (1972),
werden nahezu alle bedeutenden Sprachforscher des 19. Jh.s ge
nannt: Bopp, Rask und Max Müller ebenso wie Humboldt, Stein
thal und Whitney. Vergleichsweise wenig Aufmerksamkeit widmet
Marx dem Werk Schleichers, das doch gerade in den Zusammen
hang seiner Darstellung gehörte 13 ). Diese Lücke ist, zumindest,
soweit es die Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften anbetrifft, durch
die Abhandlung von J.-H. Scharf (1975b, bes. S. 140-47, 202-04,
211-12) gefüllt worden. Es bliebe zu wünschen, daß die Wissen
schaftsgeschichte der Linguistik ihren Horizont erweitert und das
Wechselverhältnis zwischen Naturwissenschaft und Sprachfor
schung, wie es sich beispielsweise in den Beziehungen zwischen
Haeckel und Schleicher und ihren jeweiligen Fachdisziplinen
manifestiert, mehr als bisher berücksichtigt.
Literaturangaben
Arens, H. 1969. Sprachwissenschaft: Der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der
Antike bis zur Gegenwart. 2., durchges. u. stark erw. Aufl. Freiburg u.
München: K. Alber.
Beneš, B. 1958. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Jacob Grimm, August Schleicher:
Ein Vergleich ihrer Sprachauffassungen. Winterthur: P. G. Keller.
Benfey, Th. 1969. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philo
logie in Deutschland seit dem Anfange des 19. Jahrhunderts . . . München:
J. G. Cotta. (Nachdr.: New York: Johnson, 1965).
12
) Darwin (1871:56, Anm. 24) nennt zwar nur die 1869 erschienene
englische Übersetzung von Schleicher 1863, obwohl m.E. gerade die Schrift
d.J. 1865 den Überlegungen Darwins viel näher kommt.
13
) Vgl. Marx (1972:562-63); das Namensregister des Bandes enthält
keinen Hinweis auf Schleicher!
Bleek, W . H . I . 1868. Über den Ursprung der Sprache. H r g . m i t einem

Vorwort von E. Haeckel. Weimar: H . Böhlau.
B ü c h n e r , L . 1868. Die Darwin'sche Theorie von der Entstehung und Umwand
lung der Lebe-Welt. Ihre Anwendung auf den Menschen, ihr Verhältnis zur
Lehre vom Fortschritt und ihr Zusammenhang mit der Erfahrungs- oder
Wirklichkeitsphilosophie in der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Leipzig:
T . T h o m a s (4., v e r b . Aufl., 1876).
Carus, J . V. 1853. System der thierischen Morphologie. Leipzig; W . E n g e l
mann.
D a r w i n , Ch. 1859. Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or the
Preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for life. L o n d o n : J . M u r r a y .
— 1860. Über die Entstehung der Arten im Thier- und Pflanzen-Reich durch
natürliche Züchtung [in s p ä t e r e n A u f l a g e n ; Zuchtwahl]; oder, Erhaltung
der vervollkommneten Rassen im Kampfe ums Dasein. Ü b e r s , u n d m i t
A n m e r k u n g e n versehen v o n H . G. B r o n n . S t u t t g a r t : E . Schweizerbart.
(2., v e r b . Aufl., 1863).
— 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. L o n d o n ;
J . M u r r a y . [ D e u t s c h e Ü b e r s , v o n J . V . Carus, Die Abstammung des
Menschen und die geschlechtliche Zuchtwahl. S t u t t g a r t : E . Schweizerbart,
1871]
D e l b r ü c k , B . 1919. Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen:
Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Methodik der vergleichenden Sprachforschung.
Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. (Nachdr.: Hildesheim u n d New Y o r k :
G. Olms, 1976)
Diderichsen, P . 1976 a. „ E n t w i c k l u n g u n d S t r u k t u r in der Sprachwissen
s c h a f t " . I n ; P . D . , Ganzheit und Struktur: Ausgewählte Sprachwissen
schaftliche Abhandlungen, 217-53. München; W. Fink.
— 1976b. „ D a r w i n u n d die Sprachwissenschaft". Op. cit., 2 7 3 - 8 7 .
D i e t z e , J . 1966. August Schleicher als Slawist: Sein Leben und Werk in der
Sicht der Indogermanistik. Berlin; Akademie-Verlag.
F a r r a r , R e v . F . W . 1865. Chapters on Language. London; Longmans,
Green & Co.
G a s m a n , Daniel. 1971. The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social
Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League. L o n d o n :
M a c d o n a l d & Co.
H a e c k e l , E . 1862. Die Radiolarien (Rhizopoda radiaria): Eine Monographic
[Teil I ] . B e r l i n ; G. R e i m e r .
— 1863. ,,Ueber die E n t w i c k e l u n g s t h e o r i e D a r w i n ' s " . Amtlicher Bericht
über die 37. Versammlung der deutschen Naturforscher und Ärzte zu Stettin
(Erste allgemeine Versammlung. Sonnabend, den 19. September 1863),
17-30. [Wiederabgedr. in H a e c k e l 1 9 0 2 : 3 - 3 4 ] .
— 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen-. Allgemeine Formen-Wissen
schaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte [sic]
Deszendenz-Theorie. 2 vols. B e r l i n ; G. R e i m e r . [Bd I ; Allgemeine Ana
tomie der Organismen; B d I I ; Allgemeine Entwickelungsgeschichte der
Organismen]
— 1868a. Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte: Gemeinverständliche wissenschaft
liche Vorträge über die Entwickelungslehre im Allgemeinen und diejenige von
Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck im Besonderen. I b i d . [Zitiert n a c h 4. Aufl.,

1873]
— 1868b. Über die Entstehung und den Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechtes:
Zwei Vorträge. Berlin: C. G. L ü d e r i t z . [ 1 . V o r t r a g , ,,Ueber die E n t
s t e h u n g des M e n s c h e n g e s c h l e c h t s " ; 2. V o r t r a g , ,,Ueber d e n S t a m m b a u m
des M e n s c h e n g e s c h l e c h t s " (Wiederabgedr. in H a e c k e l 1902, 35-70 b z w .
71-118)]
— 1869. „ l i e b e r E n t w i c k e l u n g s g a n g u n d Aufgabe der Zoologie. R e d e ge
h a l t e n b e i m E i n t r i t t in die philosophische F a c u l t ä t z u J e n a a m 12.
J a n u a r 1869". Jenaische Zeitschrift für Medizin und Naturwissenschaft
5.353-70. [Wiederabgedr. in H a e c k e l 1902 I I , 3-28]
— 1872. Die Kalkschwämme: Eine Monographie. 3 vols. B e r l i n : G. R e i m e r .
— 1902. Gemeinverständliche Vorträge und Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete
der Entwickelungslehre. [2., v e r m . Aufl.] B o n n : E . S t r a u ß . [ 1 . u n d 2. B d . ]
— 1904. Die Lebenswunder: Gemeinverständliche Studien über die biologische
Philosophie. Leipzig: A. K r ö n e r .
Hoenigswald, H . M. 1975. „Schleicher's T r e e a n d its T r u n k " . Ut Videam:
Contributions to an Understanding of Linguistics. For Pieter Verburg on
the occasion of his 70th birthday, h r g . v o n W . A b r a h a m , 157-60. Lisse/
Holland: P . de Ridder.
H u x l e y , T h . H . 1863. Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. L o n d o n u n d
E d i n b u r g h : Williams & N o r g a t e .
I v i ć , M. 1965. Trends in Linguistics. The H a g u e : Mouton.
J a n k o w s k y , K . R . 1972. The Neogrammarians: A re-evaluation of their place
in the development of linguistic science. I b i d .
K i n g , R . D . 1971. Historische Linguistik und generative Grammatik. Übers.
v o n St. Stelzer. F r a n k f u r t / M . : A t h e n ä u m .
K o e r n e r , E . F . K . 1975. „ E u r o p e a n S t r u c t u r a l i s m — early b e g i n n i n g s " .
Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 1 3 : Historiography of Linguistics,
717-827. T h e H a g u e : M o u t o n .
— 1976. „ T o w a r d s a H i s t o r i o g r a p h y of L i n g u i s t i c s : 19th a n d 20th cen
t u r y p a r a d i g m s " . History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Lin-
guistics, hrsg. v o n H . P a r r e t , 685-718. Berlin u n d N e w Y o r k : W . d e
Gruyter.
Leroy, M. 1971. Les grands courants de la linguistique moderne. 2e éd. r e v u e
e t a u g m e n t é e . B r u x e l l e s : U n i v . Libre de Bruxelles.
Lyell, Ch. 1830-32. Principles of Geology; being an attempt to explain the
former changes of the earth's surface by reference to causes now in operation.
L o n d o n : J . M u r r a y . (12. Aufl., 1875).
— 1863. The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with remarks on
theories of the origin of species by variation. I b i d .
Maher, J . P . 1966. „More on t h e H i s t o r y of t h e C o m p a r a t i v e M e t h o d :
T h e t r a d i t i o n of D a r w i n i s m in A u g u s t Schleicher's w o r k " . Anthropo-
logical Linguistics 8:3.1-12.
M a r x , O. 1972. „ D i e Geschichte der A n s i c h t e n ü b e r die biologische G r u n d
lage der S p r a c h e " . I n : E . H . L e n n e b e r g , Biologische Grundlagen der
Sprache. Anhang , 541-74. F r a n k f u r t / M . : S u h r k a m p .
Morpurgo Davies, A. 1975. „Language Classification in the Nineteenth

Century". Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 13: Historiography of Lin
guistcs, 607-716. The Hague: Mouton.
Pedersen, H. 1931. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century: Methods
and results. Übers. aus dem Dänischen von J. W. Spargo. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
Priestly, T. M. S. 1975. „Schleicher, Čelakovský, and the Family Tree Dia
gram: A puzzle in the history of linguistics". HistoriographiaLingu
Rolle, F. 1866. Der Mensch, seine Abstammung und Gesittung, im Lichte

der Darwin'schen Lehre von der Art-Entstehung und auf Grundlage der
neueren geologischen Entdeckungen dargestellt. Frankfurt/M. : J. C. Hermann.
Scharf, J.-H. 1973. „Gedanken zum Problem der Sprachevolution". (Gegen-
baurs) Morphologisches Jahrbuch 119:6.944-53.
— 1975a. „Bemerkenswertes zur Geschichte der Biolinguistik und des
sogenannten Sprach-Darwinismus als Einführung zum Thema ,Aspekte
der Evolution menschlicher Kultur"'. Nova Acta Leopoldina 42, No. 218,
323-41.
— 1975 b. „August Schleicher und moderne Fragen der Glottogonie (Dua-
lisierung und Ergativismus) als biologische Probleme". Beiträge zur
Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und Medizin: Festschrift für Georg
Uschmann . . ., hrsg. von Kurt Mothes u. J.-H. Scharf, 137-219. Leipzig:
J. A. Barth.
Schleicher, A. 1848. Zur vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte. Bonn: H. B.
König.
— 1850. Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht. Ibid. [Neue
Ausgabe: Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982]
— 1852. Die Formenlehre der kirchenslawischen Sprache, erklärend und ver
gleichend dargestellt. Ibid.
— 1853a. „O jazyku litevském, zvláste ohledem na slovynsky" [Über die
litauische Sprache, besonders in bezug auf das Slavische]. Časopis Čes-
kého Musea 27.320-34.
— 1853b. „Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes". All
gemeine Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und Literatur 1853. 786-87.
— 1856-57. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. 2 Bde. Prag: J. G. Calve.
— 1858. Volkstümliches aus Sonneberg im Meininger Oberlande. Weimar:
H . Böhlau.
— 1859. Zur Morphologie der Sprache. ( = Mémoires de l'Académie impé
riale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg, VIIe série; Tome I, No. 7.) St. Peters
burg: Eggers & Co.; Leipzig: L.Voss.
— 1860. Die Deutsche Sprache. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta. [Zitiert nach der
2. Aufl., 1869]
— 1861-62. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. 2 Bde. Weimar: H. Böhlau. (4. Aufl., 1876)
— 1861/65. „Einige Beobachtungen an Kindern". Beiträge zur vergleichenden
Sprachforschung 2.497-98 u. 4, S. 128 (1865).
— 1863. Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft: Offenes Send
schreiben an Herrn Dr. Ernst Häckel . . . Weimar: H. Böhlau.
— 1865. Die Bedeutung der Sprache für die Naturgeschichte des Menschen.
Ibid.
— 1868. „ E i n e fabel in i n d o g e r m a n i s c h e r u r s p r a c h e " . Beiträge zur ver
gleichenden Sprachforschung 5.206-08.
Schieiden, M. J . 1842-43. Grundzüge der wissenschaftlichen Botanik, nebst
einer Anleitung zum Studium der Pflanze. 2 Teile. Leipzig: W . E n g e l m a n n .
(2., u m g e a r b . Aufl., 1846)
Schmid, G. 1935. , , Ü b e r die H e r k u n f t der A u s d r ü c k e Morphologie u n d Bio
logie: Geschichtliche Z u s a m m e n h ä n g e " . Nova Acta Leopoldina 2:3/4,
N o . 8, 597-620.
S t a m , J . H . 1976. Inquiries into the Origin of Language: The fate of a question.
New York & London: Harper & Row.
U s c h m a n n , G. 1959. Geschichte der Zoologie und der zoologischen Anstalten
in Jena 1779-1919. J e n a : V E B G. Fischer.
— 1967. „ Z u r Geschichte der S t a m m b a u m - D a r s t e l l u n g e n " . Gesammelte Vor
träge über moderne Probleme der Abstammungslehre, hrsg. v o n M. Gersch,
Bd. 2.9-30. J e n a : Univ. Jena.
— 1972 a. „ A u g u s t Schleicher u n d E r n s t H a e c k e l " . Synchronischer und
diachronischer Sprachvergleich: Zum 150. Geburtstag von August Schleicher,
h r s g . v o n H . S p i t z b a r d t , 62-70. J e n a : Friedrich-Schiller-Univ.
— 1972b „ H a e c k e l , E r n s t H e i n r i c h P h i l i p p A u g u s t ( 1 6 . 2 . 1 8 3 4 - 9 . 8 . 1 9 1 9 ) " .
Dictionary of Scientific Biography, hrsg. v o n C. C. Gillispie, B d . 6 . 6 - 1 1 .
N e w Y o r k : Scribner's Sons.
Vogt, C. 1845-47. Physiologische Briefe für Gebildete aller Stände. 2 B d e .
S t u t t g a r t : J . C. Cotta. (3., v e r b . Aufl., Giessen: J . Ricker, 1861).
W e d g w o o d , H . 1866. On the Origin of Language. L o n d o n : N . T r ü b n e r & Co.
POSTSCRIPT 1988
In chapter 13 the extent to which the linguist August Schleicher influenced the
theoretical argument of the biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) has been docu
mented in some detail. It was Haeckel who had first drawn Schleicher's attention
to the work of Charles Darwin, of whose Origins of Species a second German
translation by Georg Heinrich Bronn (1800-1862) had appeared in 1863, but
Haeckel had Schleicher the botanist in mind. However, as we know, Schleicher
responded as a theorist of language, showing himself familiar with the work of
Darwin's predecessors, and pointing to what he saw as parallels between the devel
opment of languages and the evolution of species. Haeckel, at the time only 29
years old and 13 years younger than Schleicher, who was at the height of his
international standing, was impressed by what his distinguished colleague at the
University of Jena had to say in his Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissen
schaft (see the reproduction of the title page of Haeckel's personal copy on p.210
above). In short, as Haeckel's writings of the period, especially the years 1863-
1868, illustrate, he made use of Schleicher's family tree idea (compare the repro
ductions on p.190 and on p.220) as well as of Schleicher's theoretical argument,
based on the development of languages, in favour of graduality of evolution and
'natural selection' for his own Darwinistic position, expounded in public lectures
and written works. Even the 'monistic' philosophy of nature, for which Haeckel
became especially popular in his later years, goes back to Schleicher's 'Offenes
Sendschreiben' to him of 1863.
Given the above evidence for Haeckel's dependence on Schleicher's argument
in favour of Darwin's theory, it is to be regretted that Jane M. Oppenheimer, in her
otherwise very informative article, "Haeckel's Variations on Darwin",* has chosen
to ignore Schleicher's work (although I had sent her a copy of my 1981 study fol
lowing the March 1982 symposium, where she first presented her paper). For
those interested in the subject (but not familiar with German), I refer to the volume
edited by myself in 1983, Linguistics and Evolutionary Theory: Three essays by
August Schleicher, Ernst Haeckel, and Wilhelm Bleek, with an introduction by J.
Peter Maher (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins), which also contains the
first English translation of August Schleicher's second 'Darwinian' essay, "On the
Significance of Language for the Natural History of Man" (73-82), originally
published in 1865, six years before the appearance of Darwin's The Descent of
Man (London: John Murray, 1871).
Published in Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification: An interdisciplinary perspective

ed. by Henry M. Hoenigswald & Linda F. Wiener (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press,
1987), pp.123-135. - The paper reproduces the tree diagram from Darwin's Origin of Species (Lon
don: John Murray, 1859) and five 'evolutionary trees' from Haeckel's work (pp.128-133), all of
which postdate Schleicher's trees by many years.
ON THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE
PHILOLOGY VS LINGUISTICS CONTROVERSY*
0. Introductory Remarks
The fact that the program committee of the Fifth International
Conference on Historical Linguistics decided to organize a special
panel discussion on 'Philology and Historical Linguistics' suggests
to me something worthy of attention. Most of us had long thought
that the relationship between 'philology' and 'linguistics', a conten
tious issue in the study of language for over 150 years, had been put
ad acta. The battle had been won in favour of 'linguistics' as the tru
ly scientific discipline of the two, and only weaker minds could
engage in the other field. The return to such an issue, then, must sig
nal certain developments in linguistics, notably in historical linguis
tics. At the same time we should be aware of the fact that such a re
vival of interest in the question has to do with a progression of the
field of diachronic linguistics, and not with a return to old contro
versies.
However, in order to understand these recent trends in especially
Anglo-Saxon countries, we must know a few things about the his
torical background to the traditional relationship between 'philo
logy' and 'linguistics' as well as the meanings associated with the
terms in different periods in the development of the study of lan
guage as a science. The announcement of the panel discussion in the
three official languages of the Society made it obvious to me that,
while the French and German renderings of 'historical linguistics'
as 'linguistique historique' and 'historische Sprachwissenschaft'
seem unproblematical, the suggested German and French counter
parts to the English term 'philology' do not traditionally cover the
same ground. Bloomfield (1933: 512, note 2.1.) noted the follow
ing (which is also indicative of the 20th-century attitude among lin
guists vis-à-vis philology) :
* This chapter constitutes a reprint, with minor corrections and a new select bibliography,
of an account first published in Papers from the 5 th International Conference on Historical
Linguistics ed. by Anders Ahlqvist (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982), pp.233-242.
The term philology, in British and in older American usage, is ap

plied not only to the study of culture (especially through literary
documents), but also to linguistics. It is important to distinguish
between philology (German Philologie, French philologie) and
linguistics (German Sprachwissenschaft, French linguistique),
since the two studies have little in common. 1
The original meaning of 'philologia' in all three languages was 'love
of learning and literature', a meaning which seems still to be present
in all western cultures. Both French and German have retained
much of the original sense of the term, together with the more spe
cialized meaning of 'the study of literary texts'. However, much of
the English usage has become associated with 'the historical study
of texts', to the extent that it has been traditionally used in the
sense of 'historical-comparative linguistics', something which had
come, in German-speaking lands at least, to be called 'Sprachwis
senschaft' tout court, especially during the last quarter of the 19th
until the mid-20th century. 2
In the following I will sketch part of the sources of the philology/
linguistics debate and, at the same time, hint at some of the reasons
for certain terminological differences in traditional Anglo-Saxon
and continental European usages. We might remind ourselves that
every discipline striving for an autonomous status has to develop its
particular metalanguage, its special terminological kit, and that the
study of language has gone through phases of development which
could be paralleled by developments in other fields (cf. Koerner
1
Bloomfield refers to statements made by Holger Pedersen (1867-1953) in
Litteris 5.150 (1928) and by George Melville Boiling (1871-1963) in Lan
guage 5 (1929) on the confusion in English usage.—In contrast to 'philo
logie' tout court, the collocation 'philologie comparée' was the usual term in
French to refer to historical-comparative linguistics, in the 19th century as
well as during the first half of the 20th century; cf. the journal 'Revue de Lin
guistique et de Philologie comparée' (Paris, 1867-1916), which not only made
the distinction but also followed by and large Schleicher's conception of lin
guistic science; this is particularly evident in the contributions by Abel Hove-
lacque (1843-96), Honoré Chavée (1815-77), and several other scholars. In
terestingly enough, the editor of the 'Revuede Philologie' (Paris, 1877-1926),
Edouard Tournier (1831-99), took a very similar view, thus motivating Michel
Bréal (1832-1915) to oppose the 'séparation fâcheuse' (Bréal 1878:1) be
tween linguistique and philologie.
2
More theoretically or philosophically inclined and not exclusively Indo-
European oriented endeavours were subsumed under the term 'allgemeine
Sprachwissenschaft'.
THE PHILOLOGY/LINGUISTICS CONTROVERSY 235
1980).
1. The Early 19th Century

Linguistics in the way we have come to understand the subject
has developed during the past century; its beginnings are not as easy
to pinpoint as most of our textbooks in the history of linguistics
suggest. 1 However, if the development of a number of technical
terms is any guide, we may trace its inception back to the first de
cade of the 19th century. In 1803 the term Vergleichende Gram
matik' (comparative grammar), probably by analogy to 'compara
tive anatomy', was first used. By 1808 the term 'Linguistik' ap
peared as part of a short-lived periodical (and had probably been
used earlier), and several years before Thomas Young is said to have
coined the term 'Indo-European' (in 1813), the compound 'indo-
germanique' had been in use (cf. Shapiro 1981). Other terms and
concepts were developed soon thereafter (cf. Koerner 1980, for de
tails), but the three mentioned are of particular interest in the pre
sent discussion.
The coinage of new terminology suggests a desire to establish a
new field of study; it does not necessarily mean that these neolo
gisms in fact produce the field as an autonomous discipline at once.
In fact, it took the joint efforts of two generations of researchers to
establish the study of language on firm grounds. Although there are
indications that the first generation of historical or historical-com
parative linguists (e.g., Bopp, Rask, Grimm, and others) realized
that they were moving in directions that separated them from
much of the literature-oriented philological tradition, they made
no attempt to divorce themselves from it openly. Indeed, while per
haps extending the usual meaning of the term, they regarded them
selves as 'philologists'. As a result, although the term 'Sprachwis
senschaft' had been available to these scholars from the beginning,
they do not seem to have made significant use of it.
August Friedrich Pott (1802-1887), a former pupil of Bopp and
a great admirer of Humboldt (who lived long enough to see his life-
work eclipsed by two subsequent generations of linguists, first by
1
The beginning of linguistics as a science is traditionally associated with the
publication of Bopp's Conjugationssystem (1816), a date which appears to
have been reinforced by the decision of the editors to publish the Cours
exactly 100 years later (Lausanne & Paris, 1916, not 'Geneva, 1915' as one
still finds in the literature).
Curtius and Schleicher, then by the Neogrammarians), did not

make much use of the term 'Sprachwissenschaft'. Instead, he used
expressions such as 'Sprachforschung' or 'Sprachkunde' in his writ
ings (and 'Sprachlehre' for 'grammar'). It seems that he began using
the term more regularly from the mid-1840s onwards after having
associated himself strongly with Albert Hoefer's (1812-83) 'Zeit
schrift für die Wissenschaft der Sprache' (4 vols., 1846-53), which
was soon eclipsed by Adalbert Kuhn's (1812-81) 'Zeitschrift für
vergleichende Sprachforschung' (1852ff.), a journal which still
exists today.
Hoefer, like Pott, was interested in promoting a more general,
Humboldtian approach to language, something which was not well
taken by the majority of the more positivistic oriented linguists of
the second half of the 19th century. 1 He expressed himself as fol
lows concerning the scope and general philosophy of his 'Zeit
schrift':
Es mag nicht überflüssig sein, ausdrücklich hinzuzufügen, dass
uns Forscher jeder Sprache willkommen sind, und dass wir uns so
wenig auf die neuere Wissenschaft der Sprachvergleichung be
schränken werden, dass wir, überzeugt von der Unzulänglichkeit
einer ausschliesslichen Methode, unsere Zeitschrift vielmehr als
ein Organ zur Vermittelung und Versöhnung der verschiedensten
Richtungen anbieten.
Because of his stand on the 'divergent trends' in the science of lan
guage it is not surprising that Hoefer expresses himself in favour of
a collaboration between 'classische Philologen' and 'Indogermani
sten' in the subsequent paragraph of his editorial. In so doing Hoe
fer found himself in line with many of the elder statesmen of the
discipline as well as with the somewhat younger Georg Curtius
(1820-85). Curtius, realizing a potential collision course between
the diverging approaches to the study of language, published a mo
nograph in 1845, at age 25, in which he tried to demonstrate the
usefulness of 'Sprachwissenschaft' (i.e., historical-comparative
grammar) to classical philology. Indeed, Curtius spent his life-work
on the reconciliation between the two fields, as is evident from his
many programmatic statements, the publication of grammars of
1
Friedrich Techmer's (1843-91) 'Internationale Zeitschrift für Allgemeine
Sprachwissenschaft' (Leipzig, later on Heilbronn, 1884-90) hardly fared bet
ter. Following his death there was nobody around to step in and continue the
journal.
Greek and Latin, the creation of journals (e.g., 'Studien zur grie
chischen und lateinischen Grammatik', Leipzig, 1868-77), etc. It
appears that Curtius' allegiance to 'philology', the more traditional
outlook on language, and his general philosophy of linguistic
science removed him more and more from the advances in linguis
tics made during the 1870s and 1880s (cf. Wilbur 1977, for a pene
trating analysis and a documentation of the period in question).
Quite in contrast to Curtius, his contemporary and long-time
friend August Schleicher (1821-68) took a very different stand.
In fact Arbuckle (1970: 18) regards Schleicher as responsible for
the 'gratuitous' distinction between 'linguistics' and 'philology'.
We have by now arrived at the middle of the 19th century.
2. The Mid-19th Century: Schleicher

It is by now generally agreed that Schleicher was the most in
fluential mid-19th-century theorist of language. In fact there are
good reasons to believe that the neogrammarian doctrine is by and
large little more than the extension of Schleicher's teachings (cf.
Koerner 1981, for details). From 1850 onwards—cf. his Die
Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht—Schleicher argued
strongly in favour of a sharp distinction (and division of labour) be
tween linguistics (he later preferred the term 'Glottik' 1 to mean
'linguistic science') and 'Philologie'.
For Schleicher, 'Philologie' is an 'historical discipline'; it regards
language as a medium to investigate the thought and cultural life of
a people. By contrast, 'Linguistik'—and it appears here that the
term is used quite forcefully, if not polemically—is a field that con
cerns itself 'with the natural history of man'. Indeed, linguistics (in
Schleicher's understanding of the discipline) is a natural science,
both because its object of investigation is open to direct observa
tion and because language is outside the realm of the free will of the
individual. In Schleicher's view, language is subject to unalterable,
natural laws. He admits that this applies especially to 'Formenleh
re' (Schleicher introduced the term 'Morphologie' into linguistic
nomenclature only in 1859), and much less to the realm of syntax
and still less where stylistics is concerned (Schleicher 1850: 4).
Whereas 'Philologie' has to do with 'Kritik', with individual inter-
1
'Glottik', being (unlike 'Linguistik') entirely Greek-derived and similar in
structure to 'Botanik', 'Physik', and 'Mathematik', was naturally much more
appealing to Schleicher than any other term, e.g., 'Sprachwissenschaft'.
pretations of (largely) historical texts, 'Linguistik'(note that Schlei

cher does not use the then much more c o m p o n term 'Sprachwis
senschaft') is at its best when it has to do with languages such as
Amerindian languages which have no written tradition. Schleicher
agrees that the linguist, especially where the classical languages
which are no longer spoken are concerned, needs philology as an
ancillary discipline from time to time, and also that philology re
quires linguistic information on occasion. However, essentially we
have to do with two distinct objects of investigation, to the extent
that a linguist need not be a philologist after all. In contrast to a phi
lologist, who could work on the basis of the knowledge of only one
language (e.g., Greek), a linguist, in Schleicher's view (1850: 4)
needs to know many languages, to the extent that 'Linguistik' be
comes synonymous with 'Sprachvergleichung' (p. 5).
It is clear from Schleicher's introductory chapter, 'Linguistik und
Philologie', to his 1850 book that there was a polemic intent be
hind Schleicher's argument; he was concerned with establishing
linguistics as an autonomous discipline, and not simply an appen
dix to classical philology, literature or Sanskrit (which was tradi
tionally more closely connected with philosophy, theology and ge
neral culture than with the study of language per se). In his subse
quent writings Schleicher continued to emphasize the dichotomy
between 'philology' and 'linguistics', and linguistic science has ever
since made such a clear distinction (cf. the quotation from Bloom-
field cited above as a typical example).
3. Linguistics after Schleicher

At least with respect to historical-comparative linguistic me
thod we have remained within the framework largely established
by Schleicher. It was to a great extent owing to his work that 'lin
guistic science' (this term was made popular in the Anglo-Saxon
world by Max Müller in the 1860s) became a professionalized dis
cipline soon after his death, with professorships in the individual
branches of the Indo-European language family being created at
many universities in Central Europe (e.g., a chair for Slavic at Leip
zig in 1870, with August Leskien as the first incumbent, 1 a chair in
1
It should perhaps be remembered that Leskien (1840-1916), the acknow
ledged leader of the Junggrammatiker, was-like Johannes Schmidt (1843-
1901) and Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929)-a former pupil of Schlei
cher.
Germanic at Jena in 1876 for Eduard Sievers, etc.). Schleicher's in
fluence may also be seen in the manner in which later generations
of linguists have viewed philology in contrast to linguistics.
It seems strange to us that Berthold Delbrück in his 1880 Einlei
tung in das Sprachstudium (cf. Delbrück 1882: 55) presents Schlei
cher 'in the essence of his being' as a philologist, since thirty years
before it had been Schleicher (and no one else) who had clearly set
off his work from those of the (classical) philologists. However, if
one remembers the 'eclipsing stance' which the Young Turks at the
University of Leipzig and elsewhere in Germany took vis-à-vis their
elders from the mid-1870s to the mid-1880s, one might not be sur
prised that Delbrück (1842-1922) distorted the facts to suit his ar
gument, namely, that the junggrammatische Richtung represented
'new endeavours' (Delbrück 1882: 55ff.) rather than a continua
tion of research along established lines. Already in 1885, when it
was obvious from the 'war of monographs' (Jankowsky) that Cur-
tius and other scholars of his generation had lost the final battle,
Karl Brugmann (1849-1919) struck a different chord.
In his Antrittsvorlesung as first incumbent of the chair of 'verglei
chende Sprachwissenschaft' at the University of Freiburg, 'Sprach
wissenschaft und Philologie' (Brugmann 1885: 1-41), Brugmann
put forward the view that the two fields are complementary rather
than in opposition to each other (pp. 7ff.). In fact he went so far to
assert (p. 17):
In der That hat denn auch noch niemand [!] eine begriffliche
Grenze zwischen Linguistik und Philologie zu ziehen gewusst, de
ren Unhaltbarkeit sich nicht leicht darthun Hesse. [...] Nicht in
den Sachen liegt eine Discrepanz, erst der Mensch, der einseitig
urtheilende, trägt sie hinein.
Brugmann offers an historical explanation for the making of the
distinction between the two areas of investigation, namely, that it
should be explained 'aus dem Entwicklungsgange, den die wissen
schaftliche Forschung genommen hat'. In other words, that it had
been important at some point in time in the development of linguis
tic science to draw such a distinction (probably to assert its identi
ty). By 1885 Brugmann feels no need to maintain the separation of
the two fields but makes a plea in favour of their close collabora
tion. By that time however linguistics had become an autonomous
discipline and was in no need to defend itself against encroach
ments from adjacent fields, with the result that we find few discus-
sions of the relationship between philology and linguistics from

that time onwards until the late 1960s, when new battles were
fought in linguistics.
4. Modern Variants of the Philology /Linguistics Debate

As we may have gathered from the quotation from Bloomfield's
Language made at the outset of the paper, the rapport between
philology and linguistics has become a non-issue in linguistic
science. (Note that the quotation had been taken from a footnote,
not a general statement made in the regular text of the book.) In
deed, there are indications that with the particular developments in
linguistics following the appearance of the Saussurean Cours de lin
guistique générale and the linguistique synchronique' which began
to take pride of place in the work of many schools of linguistic
thought from the 1920s onwards, the debate was soon centered
around the relationship between 'traditional', i.e., historical-com
parative (Indo-European), linguistics (Saussure's linguistique dia-
chronique') and 'synchronic', 'descriptive', or 'structural' linguis
tics, an approach to language analysis that makes abstraction of the
time factor and regards language as a network of systematic rela
tionships between parts making up a whole. Countries, especially
those with a long-standing tradition of Indo-European historical-
comparative work, such as the German-speaking lands and Italy
(but also France and other countries), did not wholehearted ac
cept 'synchronic linguistics' before the mid-1960s, a time when in
North America younger linguists distinguished their field from
those of their predecessors as being 'merely structuralist', 'taxo
nomic' and, worse, 'uninteresting'. Their (likewise non-historical)
approach to linguistic analysis was called 'transformational and,
in order to lay emphasis on what they claimed to be a 'creative' un
derstanding of language, 'generative', although it is evident that
their work can well be described as 'structural' too. (The interest of
the transformational-generative grammarians in historical linguis
tics has remained, with fairly few exceptions, marginal, despite
Chomsky's repeated affirmations that he derived his inspiration for
transformational rules from historical linguistics.)
As a result of the visibly polemic attempt of the younger genera
tion of structural linguists to separate their endeavours from those
of their immediate predecessors—a phenomenon which we find
best illustrated in the battle of the Neogrammarians (Junggramma-
tiker) against their teachers, especially Curtius and Schleicher,
more than 100 years ago—it seems that certain linguists (some of
them with philological leanings) felt that the relationship between
'linguistics' and 'philology' should be debated again.
While Arbuckle (1970) regarded the distinction as 'gratuitous',
others have taken a quite different view of the matter. Jankowsky
(1973), under the influence of the traditional Anglo-Saxon mean
ing of 'philology', suggests a tripartite distinction, namely, one be
tween 'Philologie', 'Linguistik', and 'Literaturwissenschaft'. This
separates the study of literature from philology, something which
is frequently found in German-speaking lands where 'philology'
stands for 'classical philology' or for 'language and literature of a
particular tongue'.
Anttila (1973), being foremost an historical linguist (though he
has never neglected general theoretical questions), seeks to recon
cile the traditional dichotomy, making a plea in favour of a strong
er philological orientation of linguistics. Linguists should know
languages after all—not only their mother tongue (and this even im
perfectly). In the same volume in which Anttila's contribution ap
peared, however, the editors, Bartsch and Vennemann, proposed
quite a different dichotomy, and here again we are back to a pole
mical type of argument similar to what we first encountered in
Schleicher (1850), though now under a changed situation in the
development of linguistics.
Bartsch and Vennemann (1973 a) use the two existing (andusually
synonymous) terms in German, namely, 'Linguistik' and 'Sprach
wissenschaft', in order to support their argument in favour of the
following 'new speak': while 'Sprachwissenschaft' is the overall
term (including synchronic as well as diachronic linguistic research)
'Linguistik' should represent the essentially theoretical portion of
the science of language.
This proposal was not an isolated one but an expression of the
'new faith' of a number of other linguists of the same generation
who felt a need to distinguish their work from that of their prede
cessors and differently minded colleagues. 'Sprachwissenschaft' in
the German-speaking lands (as 'glottologia' in Italy for example)
stood for an antiquated view of language incompatible with present-
day 'discoveries' about the nature of language (cf. Newmeyer 1980,
for an expression of this 'modern' view), whereas 'Linguistik' (in
Italy: linguistica)—usually equated with 'linguistic theory' in
'mainstream' linguistics—suggests the newly achieved scientific vis

tas of the new generation of researchers in the study of language.
Hildebrandt (1975) is just another example of the polemics be
tween 'linguistics' (Sprachwissenschaft) and 'modern linguistics'
(Linguistik) that was quite typical of the 1970s, both in North
America and in Europe.
The heavy polemics in certain quarters notwithstanding, there
were other voices in the debate who felt that the structuralist/trans
formationalist and related controversies did little more than disguise
the much more fundamental issues, namely, the (redefined) rela
tionship between 'linguistics' and 'philology' (cf. Hofmann 1973),
and the extent to which linguistics can profit from philological
work (cf. Anttila 1973).
5. Concluding Remarks
With the 'transformational-generative paradigm' having lost its
grip on the majority of workers in linguistics it appears that some
of the traditional issues can be taken up again sine ira et studio. The
panel discussion at the 5th International Conference on Historical
Linguistics' (Galway, Ireland, April 1981) on 'Philology and Histo
rical Linguistics' is an encouraging sign of an important change in
attitude taking place in the study of language, especially among
those who take a serious interest in questions of language change:
Data is no longer the ancillary of 'theory' but the basis of any sound
linguistic argument, to the extent that Anttila's 'philologized lin
guistics' may no longer be far away from normal scientific practice.
REFERENCES*
Anttila, Raimo. 1973. "Linguistik und Philologie". Linguistik und Nachbarwissen

schaften ed. by Renate Bartsch & Theo Vennemann, 177-191. Kronberg/Taunus:
Scriptor.
Arbuckle, John. 1970. "August Schleicher and the Linguistics/Philology Dichotomy: A
chapter in the history of linguistics". Word 26.17-31. (Actually published in 1973.)
Bartsch, Renate & Theo Vennemann. 1973. "Linguistik". Linguistik und Nachbar
wissenschaften ed. by R. Bartsch & T. Vennemann, 9-20. Kronberg/Taunus: Scrip
tor.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bolling, George Melville. 1929. "Linguistics and Philology". Language 5.27-32.
Bréal, Michel. 1878. "Sur les rapports de la linguistique et de la philologie". Revue de
Philologie, de Littérature et d'Histoire anciennes, 2e série, 2.1-10. Paris.
Brugmann, Karl. 1885. "Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie". Zum heutigen Stand der
Sprachwissenschaft by K. Brugmann, 1-41. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. (Repr. in
Wilbur 1977.)
Curtius, Georg. 1845. Die Sprachwissenschaft in ihrem Verhältnis zur klassischen
Philologie. Berlin: W. Besser. (2nd enl. ed., 1848.)
1862. Philologie und Sprachwissenschaft: Antrittsvorlesung gehalten zu
Leipzig am 30. April 1862. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 24 pp.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1882. Introduction to the Study of Language: A critical survey of
the history and methods of comparative philology of Indo-European languages.
Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. (New ed., with an introd. by E.F.K. Koerner, Amster
dam: John Benjamins, 1974; 2nd printing, 1989.)
Förster, K.GJ. 1851. Gesetz der deutschen Sprachentwicklung; oder: Die Philologie
und die Sprachwissenschaft in ihren Beziehungen zu einander und zum deutschen
Geiste. Berlin: Silvius Landsberger.
Hildebrandt, Rainer. 1975. "Linguistik contra Sprachwissenschaft". Neuere For
schungen in Linguistik und Philologie: Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich
Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag, 1-6. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Hofmann, Dietrich. 1973. "Sprachimmanente Methodenorientierung — sprachtrans
zendente 'Objektivierung': Zum Unterschied zwischen Linguistik und Philologie".
Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 40.295-310.
Jäger, Ludwig. 1987. "Philologie und Linguistik: Historische Notizen zu einem gestör
ten Verhältnis". Zur Theorie und Methode der Geschichtsschreibung der Linguistik:
Analysen und Reflexionen ed. by Peter Schmitter, 198-223. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Jankowsky, Kurt R[obert]. 1973. "Philologie — Linguistik — Literaturwissenschaft".
Lingua Posnaniensis 17.21-35.
The bibliography includes several items not referred to in this chapter, which in effect could be
enlarged to monograph length in order to provide a full account of the general hostility towards
linguists that existed among the classical philologists of the first half of the 19th century, and the
manner in which it affected the careers of a number of aspiring scholars of the time, not only the career
of August Schleicher at Jena. — I would like to thank Wilbur A. Benware of the University of
California, Davis, for having supplied me with a number of interesting bibliographical sources which
still require analysis.
Koerner, E[rnst] F[rideryk] Konrad. 1980. "Pilot and Parasite [amended to: Pirate]
Disciplines in the Development of Linguistic Science". FoliaLinguisticaHistorica
1.213-224. (Repr. as chap. 15 in this volume.)
--------. 1981, "The Neogrammarian Doctrine: Breakthrough or Extension of the
Moldenhauer, Gerardo. 1952. Filología y lingüística: Esencia, problemas actuales y
areas en la Argentina. Rosario de Santa Fe: Univ. Nacional del Litoral, Instituto de
Filología.
--------. 1957. "Notas sobre el origen y la propagación de la palabra linguistique (>
lingüística) y términos equivalentes". Anales del Instituto de Lingüística de la
Universidad de Cuyo 6.430-440. Mendoza, Argentina. [Appended is a note (pp.440-
444) by Otto Baster, "El grupo Linguist-Linguistik-linguistisch en alemán".]
Newmeyer, Frederick J[aret]. 1980. Linguistic Theory in America: The first quarter-
century of transformational grammar. New York: Academic Press. (2nd rev. ed.,
1986.)
Reid, T[homas] B[ertrand] W[illiam]. 1956. "Linguistics, Structuralism and Philol
ogy". Archivum Linguisticum 8.28-37.
—-. 1960. Historical Philology and Linguistic Science: An inaugural lecture.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Robinett, Betty W., Robert A[nderson] Hall, Jr., Hans Kurath, Henry M[ax] Hoenigs-
wald, Henry Lee Smith, Jr., W[illiam] Freeman Twaddell & Charles C[arpenter]
Fries. 1952-53. "Classics and Linguistics". Classical Weekley 46.97-100.
Schleicher, August. 1850. "Linguistik und Philologie". Die Sprachen Europas in
systematischer Uebersicht by A. Schleicher, 1-5. Bonn: H. . König. (New ed.,
with an introd. by Konrad Koerner, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins,
1983.)
Shapiro, Fred R. 1981. "The Origin of the Term 'Indo-Germanic'". Historiographia
Linguistica 8.165-170.
Stechow, Arnim von. 1970. "Sprachwissenschaft vs. Linguistik: Kritische Bemer
kungen zu Leo Weisgerbers 'Hat das Wort "Muttersprache" ausgedient?'". Mutter
sprache 80.396-399.
Storost, Jürgen. 1984. "August Fuchs [(1818-1847)], Philolog: Ein Beitrag zur Aus
einandersetzung zwischen Philologie und Linguistik in der ersten Hälfte des 19.
Jahrhunderts". Beiträge zur Romanischen Philologie 23.95-108.
Sturtevant, Edgard H[oward] & Roland G[rubb] Kent. 1929. "Linguistic Science and
Classical Philology". Classical Weekley 22.9-13.
Vendryes, Joseph. 1951. "Linguistique et philologie". Revue des études slaves (=
Mélanges André Mazon) 27.9-18. Paris.
Wagner, Robert Léon. [1953]. Grammaire et philologie, I. Paris: Centre de Documen
tation Universitaire.
White, Dorrance S. 1953-54. "Classics and Linguistics". Classical Weekley 47.42-43.
[Reply to Robinett et al. 1952-53.]
Wilbur, Terence H[arrison], ed. & introd. 1977. The Lautgesetz-Controversy: A docu
mentation. With essays by G. Curtius, . Delbrück, . Brugmann, H. Schuchardt,
H. Collitz, H. Osthoff, and O. Jespersen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
PILOT AND PIRATE DISCIPLINES
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
LINGUISTIC SCIENCE*
0. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
In recent years it appears that linguistics has become a kind of

pilot discipline within the social and behavioural sciences, to the
extent that observations made by Oswald Ducrot some ten years
ago seem to be widely accepted today. Ducrot had noted the fol
lowing in 1966:
La linguistique peut-elle proposer ses méthodes en modèle
aux autres sciences humaines? Il devient de plus banal
aujourd'hui de donner à cette question une réponse positive.
La sociologie, l'ethnographie, la psychoanalyse se sont
habituées à considérer une institution, un mythe ou un
rêve comme étant dans un large mesure, des ensembles
signifiants dont il faut, avant tout, établir la signification;
la linguistique, étude des langues naturelles, c'est-à-dire
de purs systèmes de signification, peut donc, sans paradoxe,
prétendre être le paradigme de la science humaine . . 1
Following the almost general acceptance of post-Saussurean

structuralism after World War I I , in Europe as well as in North
America, disciplines such as anthropology (cf. the work of Claude
Lévi-Strauss, but also of those following the Sapirian ethno-
linguistic tradition) and psychoanalysis (e.g. Jacques Lacan)
adopted important concepts and procedures of investigation from
* This chapter goes back to a presentation made at the Fifth LACUS Forum held at the
State University of New York at Buffalo in August 1978. A revised version, on which the
present text is based, was first published in Folia Linguistica Historica 1:1.213-224 (1980).
linguistic theory. With the advent of Chomsky's theories of language

it appears t h a t those branches of psychology which, in one way
or another, concern themselves with language have also regarded
linguistics as a possible pilot discipline (e.g., Greene 1971), though
it cannot be said that psychologists of language have generally
accepted the view (even though Chomsky regards linguistics as
"simply the subfield of psychology t h a t deals with these [cognitive-
grammatical] aspects of mind", Language and Mind 24/28). The
contemplation of such a position for linguistics within the social
and behavioural sciences (cf. Greenberg 1973) represents a major
change of perspective, however; it was not too long ago t h a t lin
guistics was a parasite discipline, i.e., a field of study which was
ready to follow, at times to a considerable degree, the lead of other
fields, first the natural sciences, later the social and behavioural
sciences.
The present paper concerns itself with the various extralinguistic
influences t h a t the science of language has undergone, 2 from the
time it began to evolve as an autonomous discipline, namely, from
around 1800 onwards, to the time it became itself a pilot science,
i.e., a field of inquiry making an impact on other disciplines in
terms of approach, overall theoretical outlook, and terminology.
1.0 T H E THESIS
Linguistics, at least in the way we now tend to understand it,

developed at the beginning of the 19th century. During earlier
centuries, the study of language was closely connected with other
intellectual or practical activities of the day, e.g., philosophy,
rhetoric, pedagogy, etc. Linguistics as an autonomous discipline,
as Humboldt himself understood it — cf. his letter to Bopp of 21
January 1821 (Bopp 1974: 66) — did not develop before 1800,
though anticipatory efforts in this direction could be cited.
Modern linguists are used to borrowing, particularly within the
so-called hyphenated branches, technical terms and concepts, as
well as matters of procedures of analysis, from disciplines, both
adjacent and seemingly remote, modifying such borrowings ac
cording to the demands of their particular object of study and in
corporating them in their theoretical framework. Indeed in our
largely interdisciplinary age it appears quite natural to do so.
Moreover, it seems t h a t many linguists nowadays are willing to
PILOT AND PIRATE DISCIPLINES 247
entertain the idea of abandoning the autonomous status of lin

guistics altogether, to wit Chomsky's proposal to "develop the study
of linguistic structure as a chapter of human psychology" (Language
and Mind 59/66), thus reversing the efforts of Saussure and gen
erations of linguists before him.
The 19th-century pioneers of our field faced other problems;
they had to struggle in order to establish the study of language
as a discipline apart from the traditional associations with the
teaching of (mostly Latin) grammar, the 'collegium logicum',
elocution, the compilation of dictionaries, and so forth. With this
aim in mind, what was more natural than to look around and to
observe those disciplines which at the time had already gained
general recognition because they had defined their field of investi
gation and established a methodology of their own?
2.0 THE EVIDENCE

I t is not an easy task, though one of the requirements for histor
ical research regarding the evolution of the discipline, to recreate
in some way the intellectual and, wherever desirable, the socio-
political atmosphere of the early 19th century. Indeed much reading
outside the field of linguistics is necessary to do a reasonably
adequate job. Happily, linguists have on occasion indicated their
sources of inspiration, and at times suggested what particular
discipline outside their own field they wished to imitate, thus at
least supplying hints to the linguistic historiographer as to what
aspects of the Zeitgeist he would have to inspect more closely in
order to obtain a better understanding of particular stages of
development in linguistics.
One such hint we find in Friedrich Schlegel's celebrated Ueber
die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier of 1808, where he says (p. 28)
that the science of language he has in mind should be a kind of
comparative grammar in the manner of the procedures followed
by Comparative Anatomy:
Jener entscheidende P u n k t aber [in the establishment

of language relationships], der hier alles aufhellen wird,
ist die innre Structur der Sprachen oder die vergleichende
Grammatik, welche uns ganze neue Aufschlüsse über die
Genealogie der Sprachen auf ähnliche Weise geben wird,
wie die vergleichende Anatomie über die höhere Natur

geschichte Licht verbreitet hat. 3
Heinrich Nüsse, in his 1962 monograph on Schlegel's theory of

language (p. 42), argued t h a t this reference to comparative anatomy
was nothing but a metaphor that offered itself at the time without
serious consequences (''unbelastet"). However, if we investigate
Schlegel's biography more closely, we will find ample reason to
believe that he intended his book to become something like a pro
gram for linguistic research, something which is evident from the
text itself, when he states, toward the end of the chapter on lan
guage (p. 84):4
Genug, wenn hier nur in das Ganze Ordnung gebracht und
befriedigend angezeigt ist, nach welchen Grundsätzen etwa
eine vergleichende Grammatik und ein durchaus historischer
Stammbaum, eine wahre Entstehungsgeschichte der Sprache,
statt der ehemaligen erdichteten Theorien vom Ursprunge
derselben, zu entwerfen wäre.
That the reference to comparative anatomy is by no means acci
dental may also be gathered from Schlegel's theoretical argument,
in which the investigation of the (grammatical) structure of lan
guage and the procedure of comparing morphological entities play
a central role (cf. Schlegel 1808: 27—28, 38, 41, 44ff., etc.).
Similar references to the natural sciences can be found in the
work of Franz Bopp, who, in his Conjugationssystem of 1816,
followed Schlegel's lead to a considerable extent. Emphasis was
placed on the comparison of morphological structures, on analysis
(note this term), not on a demonstration of the evolution of the
languages under investigation. I t is not surprising therefore that
Bopp's grammatical works — like Cuvier's anatomical studies
— remained essentially static, almost to the extent of being ahis-
torical (cf. Koerner 1975: 729 — 35, for details).
The same cannot be said of the work of Jacob Grimm, for ex
ample, though here too we may discover references to the natural
sciences, and, curiously enough (since he did not share his 'static'
and in fact 'taxonomic' views) to Linnæus' botanical work. In the
preface to the second edition of the first volume of his Deutsche
Grammatik of 1822 Grimm makes such a direct reference, and his
reviewer, Georg Friedrich Benecke, invites a comparison between
these two fields of study, when he calls on scholars in the study

of language to follow Grimm's example,
. . . um die Sprachwissenschaft sich dieselben Verdienste

zu erwerben, welche die Nachfolger des unsterblichen Linné
sich durch ihre mehr oder minder begränzte Untersuchungen
um die Naturwissenschaft erworben haben. (Benecke 1822:
2007-08).
The attempt to imitate the natural sciences and possibly compete
with their scientific rigour, something which continued in various
forms until the end of the 19th century, is clearly stated in other
passages of Benecke's review, for instance, when he says, comment
ing on this first volume of Grimm's Germanic Grammar devoted
to phonology and morphology: 5
Eine solche Darstellung läßt sich nicht geben ohne die
sorgfältigste und genaueste Untersuchung der ersten und
einfachsten Bestandtheile. Dieser Theil der Naturgeschichte
— denn so haben wir nun die Grammatik ansehen gelernt —
hat seine Anatomie, seine Physiologie, seine chemische
Analyse, so gut wie die übrigen. (Benecke 1822: 2002 — 03)
Here the reference to the natural sciences, particularly those con
cerned with analysis and, to borrow a modern term, 'descriptive
adequacy', is obvious; 'historische Grammatik' is earlier (p. 2002)
identified with 'Naturgeschichte' (emphasis in the original). We may
draw the conclusion that Grimm and his contemporaries were not
only aware of these disciplines, notably anatomy and botany, but
also felt a sufficient justification to follow their example and to
make use of at least some of their notions, technical terms, and
methods of analysis.
Bopp, who titled his analyses of Indo-European grammatical
categories 'Vergleichende Zergliederung . . .', wrote, in his review
of volume 2 of Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik (1826):
Die Sprachen sind . . . als organische Naturkörper anzu
sehen, die nach bestimmten Gesetzen sich bilden, ein inneres
Lebensprinzip in sich tragend sich entwickeln, and nach
und nach absterben. . . . Eine Grammatik in höherm, wissen
schaftlichem Sinne soll eine Geschichte oder Naturbeschrei
bung der Sprache sein; sie soll . . . besonders aber natur-
historisch die Gesetze verfolgen, nach welchen ihre Ent

wicklung . . . vor sich gegangen. (Bopp 1827: 251)
Other passages could be cited in which Bopp makes explicit refer

ences to the natural sciences. The emphasis on structure, already
implicit in his work of 1816, becomes explicit in the English version
of the linguistic portion of this book written in 1819 while he under
took research of Sanskrit in London: Analytical [ !] Comparison
of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Teutonic Languages, shelving the
original identity of their grammatical structure [ !] (Bopp 1820).
I do not know what motivated a certain Jean-Louis Le Bel to
entitle his 300-page grammar of Latin Anatomie de la langue latine
(Paris: Panckoucke, 1764), though the principle of analysis stated
on page 24 of his book, "il n'y a pas d'assemblage dont les parties
n'aient existé séparément avant d'être assemblées", may give a
hint regarding the parallel he envisaged between morphological
composition in grammar and anatomy. 6 From around 1800 on
wards, however, references to the natural sciences and the actual
borrowing of concepts and terms from then become more frequent
in the linguistic literature.
I t appears that the Danish antiquarian Georg Zoega created the
term 'phoneticus' in 1797 (cf. Zwirner 1970: 8); in 1803 August
Wilhelm Schlegel introduced the term 'vergleichende Grammatik'
(comparative grammar), probably formed by analogy to 'verglei
chende Anatomie', into linguistics, a term adopted by Johann
Severin Vater two years later in his Lehrbuch der Allgemeinen
Grammatik (Halle/S.: Renger, 1805) as title heading of a particular
section (p. 15). I t seems that it was Vater who first used the term
'Linguistik' in a short-lived journal he and Friedrich Justin Bertuch
edited in Weimar, Allgemeines Archiv für Ethnographie und Lin
guistik (1808). The term 'linguistics' became more generally used
after the publication of Saussure's Cours in 1916, though it was used
by such scholars as Humboldt, Pott, and others in the first decades
of the 19th century. 'Linguistik' was certainly modelled after terms
such as 'Botanik', 'Physik', 'Mathematik', thus hinting at the nat
ural sciences. Terms such as 'Struktur' or 'Bau' and 'Analyse'
or 'Zergliederung' betray the fact that they have been taken over
from scientific nomenclature of the day. Biological metaphors
abound in the literature of 19th-century linguistics, of which
'stem' and 'root' (though where the latter is concerned, an earlier
influence of Hebrew grammar has been claimed) are particularly

obvious. 7 Other terms, such as 'assimilation' which according to
Pott (1836: 5) was already current in the literature at the time,
when he introduced (ibid.) the term 'Dissimilation', and structure
(cf. Schlegel 1808) became 'clés de voûte' in the linguist's termino
logical kit.
I t could also be shown t h a t discovery procedures — not only
the term 'analysis' — were largely derived from the natural sciences.
Here Cuvier's principle of the correlation of forms, which, on the
basis of an assumed interrelationship between the parts and the
whole, allows him to propose the reconstruction of petrified or
ganisms (cf. Koerner 1975: 730—31, for pertinent quotations from
Cuvier), may be cited as a particularly revealing example. Note
that F. Schlegel proposed to reconstruct the original proto-language
on the basis of the existing 'daughter languages', adding historical
perspective to Cuvier's static view (and the assumption of the fixity
of species).
If Bopp can be said to have established a largely static framework
of comparison of linguistic structures, Grimm advocated a dynamic,
historical approach. The latter grew more powerful a generation
later, when August Schleicher combined these two traditions,
adding to them the Humboldtian line of thought concerned with
language typology. From the early 19th century onwards, geology
and biology developed rapidly to become leading disciplines by
1850. At the same time, botany, under the lead of Schleiden and
others, continued to play an important role in scientific discovery.
This is clearly reflected in the writings of Schleicher, who may be
said to best represent the mid-19th-century generation of linguists.
In an 1855 article on the history of the Slavic language family,
Schleicher refers, in the introductory paragraph, to the work of
Mathias Schleiden, the leading botanist in Germany at the time,
arguing t h a t the science of language must adopt the study of
'Entwickelungsgeschichte' as main guiding principle and indeed
sole possibility for obtaining scientific insight into a given object
of investigation. Linguistics or 'Glottik', as he preferred to call it,
was in his view a natural science, since languages were natural
organisms and since the science of language was a part of the
natural history of man (Schleicher 1858 [1855]: 1). I n other words,
Schleicher pushed the analogy between linguistics and the natural
sciences to its extreme; he was well informed about botany and
physiology and — contrary to Hoenigswald's (1965: 5) claim —

well informed about Darwin's predecessors, publishing in fact two
family tree diagrams in two articles, in German and Czech re
spectively, in 1853, six years before the publication of Origin of
Species (cf. Priestly 1975, for details).
Because of the development not only of the discipline itself but
also of other sciences, natural or social, linguists have long since
abandoned Schleicher's position. What should be recognized, how
ever, is the fact that Schleicher, on the basis of his particular con
ception of linguistic science, developed a framework of scientific
investigation which we may call a 'paradigm' in the Kuhnian sense
of the word. I t is not sufficient to note t h a t ideas found in the work
of Bopp, Grimm, Humboldt, and. others, such as 'Lautgesetz',
'assimilation', 'dissimilation', etc. became systematic parts in his
theory of language and its development. What is more important
is t h a t Schleicher's conscious adoption of terms, concepts, and
methodological principles from the natural sciences of his day,
especially botany and geology, gave linguistics a status which it
did not have before. Schleicher was not the creator of most of the
terms usually associated with his name in the literature, such as
the asterisk (cf. Koerner 1975b, for a history of this term), but it
was he who assigned them a place in an overall theory of language.
Schleicher introduced the term 'Morphologie' into linguistics,
in a programmatic article published in 1859, and it was he who
first developed a formal, mathematical notation of morphological
typology, which was strongly opposed by the 'mentalists' of his day,
especially Steinthal, but which anticipated 20th-century work in
the field. I t is in Schleicher's work t h a t we find the first compre
hensive formulation of the family tree concept, rigorous application
of the sound law and analogy principles, the so-called starred forms,
and the procedure of reconstruction of proto-forms in Indo-Euro
pean linguistics. In fact Schleicher's unerring belief in the validity
of his principles led him to write a short fabel in Proto-Indo-
European, something which was not meant to cause modern lin
guists to chuckle, but which constitutes a consequential step in
his theoretical argument. Indeed, not only were Schleicher's im
mediate successors, the Junggrammatiker, largely indebted to his
pioneering work; so are historical linguists up to the present day.
I t is true t h a t the Neogrammarians, from about 1880 onwards,
shook off the Schleicherian view of language as a natural organism;
instead they tended to associate the study of language with dis

ciplines other than the natural sciences. However, this change of
ideology did not produce a significant change in the day-to-day
operations of the linguist (cf. Benes 1958: 123); we may at least
debate the argument t h a t it was the Young Grammarians who,
from 1876 onwards, revolutionized the discipline (cf. Koerner
1976b).
Toward the end of the 19th century other disciplines which had
developed during roughly the same period as linguistics, notably
psychology and sociology, became widely recognized fields of study,
to the extent t h a t linguists began incorporating certain of their
findings into their arguments. This can be clearly seen in the writings
of scholars who, like Hermann Paul and Baudouin de Courtenay,
were particularly interested in establishing general principles of
linguistic investigation. Ferdinand de Saussure, some ten years
younger than the two, struggled with questions of general lin
guistic theory from 1890 onwards, and it is in his posthumous
Cours t h a t we find frequent references to those disciplines of the
day t h a t had made headways, such as political economy, sociology,
and psychology. And, similar to Schleicher's largely successful
incorporation of terms and procedures of analysis from the natural
sciences, Saussure, in borrowing from the nomenclature of those
disciplines which had made significant advances in his time, even
tually developed a new framework for linguistics, in which the study
of the historical development of languages was to be merely one
province.
3.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS
In a paper delivered before the Linguistic Circle of New York

in 1945, Ernst Cassirer noted that linguistic method in the 19th
century, having to grope its way and to proceed hesitatingly and
tentatively (because no 'paradigm' had as yet been established we
might add), couldn't but develop with the help of other disciplines:
I t was natural that, in these first attempts, linguists looked

for the help and guidance of other branches of knowledge
that, long before, had established their methods and prin
ciples. History, physics, psychology could be used for this
purpose. (Cassirer 1945: 99—100).
Cassirer might have done better if he had named botany, biology,

comparative anatomy, and geology instead of fields such as history
and physics, of which only the latter came to exercise a noticeable
influence on linguistics in the 20th, not in the 19th century. His
general idea, however, t h a t those wishing to establish the study of
language as a field of scientific research comparable to other dis
ciplines of the day had to imitate their technical terminology and
methodology, is quite in agreement with my findings. The 19th-
century linguists' approach to the problem might be called, without
reference to the negative connotations of the term, parasitic
— Saussure would have called this borrowing 'unilatérale' (cf.
Cours, p. 21) — and perhaps, with reference to  S. Peirce, 'ab-
ductive'.
In the 20th century, especially with the advent and eventual
success of the Saussurean 'paradigm', structural linguistics began
to change from a largely parasitic discipline, i.e., a field borrowing
terms, concepts, and methods from other fields, to a pilot discipline,
i.e., a field of scientific investigation offering its insights, procedures,
and results to other disciplines.
NOTES
1
Oswald Ducrot, in his review of A. J. Greimas' Sémantique structurale
(Paris:
2
Larousse, 1966), in L'Homme 6.121 (1966).
I have been aware of only one exception to the rule that linguistics
was under the spell of the natural sciences during 1800—1880, namely,
Schleicher's influence on the biologist Ernst Haeckel (cf. Koerner 1976c).
Greenberg (1973 : 51), however, cites from the work of the 19th-century
historian Sir Henry James Sumner Maine (1822—88), a close contemporary
of Schleicher, in which Maine refers to the Comparative Method as used in
linguistics as a model for comparative jurisprudence (cf. Maine 1871 : 80).
3
I quote the German original since the English rendering by Ellen J.
Millington reprinted in the 1977 re-ed. of Schlegel 1808 is rather vague
(1849
4
: 439) ; the same holds true of the subsequent quotation (p. 464).
Schlegel came to Paris in 1802 in the hope of establishing a German
Academy in exile, and the person he approached with his proposal was
George Cuvier, who, though only three years his senior, had already become
President of the French Academy of Sciences and a very influential figure
in the educational system under Napoleon. If we consider the fact that
Schlegel secured a letter of recommendation from Cuvier in the same year,
and that Cuvier's 5-volume Leçons de l'anatomie comparée appeared in Paris
d u r i n g ] 800 — 05, we m i g h t n o longer be surprised t o find a n explicit reference

t o c o m p a r a t i v e a n a t o m y in Schlegel's book.
5
G r i m m , in t h e Preface t o t h e first edition (1819) of h i s Deutsche Gramma
tik, h a d s t a t e d t h i s explicitly w h e n h e suggested (p. X I I ) : " W i r d m a n spar
s a m e r u n d fester die Verhältnisse d e r einzelnen S p r a c h e n e r g r ü n d e n u n d
stufenweise zu allgemeineren Vergleichungen fortschreiten, so ist zu e r w a r t e n ,
d a ß bei der g r o ß e n Menge u n s e r n F o r s c h u n g e n offener Materialien e i n m a l
E n t d e c k u n g e n z u s t a n d e g e b r a c h t w e r d e n k ö n n e n , n e b e n d e n e n a n Sicher
heit, N e u h e i t u n d Reiz e t w a n u r die vergleichende A n a t o m i e in der N a t u r
geschichte s t e h e n . "
6
H o w e v e r , I o w n a copy of a 36-page s t a t e m e n t b y J e a n - N i c o l a s J o u i n
d e Sauseuil, in which t h e s a m e t e r m a p p e a r s on t h e title-page, n a m e l y ,
Anatomie de la langue françoise, ou examen philosophique et analytique (Paris :
A u t h o r , 1783). H e r e one finds t h e t e r m ' s t r u c t u r e ' being used alongside
' s y s t è m e ' (p. 12), t h o u g h t h e r e is n o explicit reference t o n a t u r a l science.
7
T h e m o s t obvious b o r r o w i n g from t h e n a t u r a l sciences of course is t h e
c o n c e p t ' o r g a n i s m ' in linguistics, a t e r m still used b y Saussure as s y n o n y
m o u s w i t h ' s y s t è m e ' (cf. Cours, p . 40) a n d g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e (cf. 'orga-
nisme i n t é r i e u r de l'idiome', ibid., p . 4 1 ) , despite his s t r o n g objection t o t h e
1 9 t h - c e n t u r y view of l a n g u a g e as s o m e t h i n g like a biological o r g a n i s m .
REFERENCES
BENECKE, GEORG FRIEDRICH. 1819. R e v i e w of G r i m m 1819. Göttingische

gelehrte Anzeigen 67. S t ü c k (26 April 1819), 665 — 72.
—. 1822. R e v i e w of G r i m m 1822. I b i d . 2 0 1 . Stück (19 D e c e m b e r 1822),
2 0 0 1 - 0 8 [sic].
B E N E Š , B R I G I T . 1958. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Jacob Grimm, August Schlei
cher : Ein Vergleich ihrer Sprachauffassungen. W i n t e r t h u r : P . G. Keller.
B O P P , F R A N Z . 1820. " A n a l y t i c a l Comparison of t h e S a n s k r i t , Greek, L a t i n ,
a n d T e u t o n i c L a n g u a g e s , shewing t h e original i d e n t i t y of t h e i r g r a m m a t
ical s t r u c t u r e " . Annals of Oriental Literature (London) 1: 1.1 — 64. (Repr.,
t o g e t h e r w i t h several biobibliographical a c c o u n t s , A m s t e r d a m : J . Ben
j a m i n s , 1974.)
—. 1827. R e v i e w of G r i m m 1826. Jahrbuch für wissenschaftliche Kritik
( F e b r u a r y ) , 2 5 1 - 3 0 3 , a n d (May), 7 2 5 - 5 9 .
C A S S I R E R , E R N S T . 1945. " S t r u c t u r a l i s m in L i n g u i s t i c s " . Word 1.99—120.
G R I M M , J A C O B . 1819. Deutsche Grammatik. P a r t I . G ö t t i n g e n : Dieterichsche
Buchhandlung.
—. 1822. Deutsche Grammatik. P a r t I , 2nd r e v . ed. Ibid.
—. 1826. Deutsche Grammatik. P a r t I I . Ibid.
G R E E N B E R G , J O S E P H H . 1973. "Linguistics as a Pilot Science". Themes in
Linguistics : The 1970s ed. b y E r i c P . , 45 — 60. T h e H a g u e : M o u t o n .
G R E E N E , J U D I T H . 1971. Psycholinguistics : Chomsky and psychology. H a r -
m o n d s w o r t h , Middlesex: P e n g u i n .
HOENIGSWALD, HENRY M. 1965. " O n the History of t h e Comparative
M e t h o d " . Anthropological Linguistics 5: 1.1—11.
K O E R N E R , E . F . K . 1975a. " E u r o p e a n S t r u c t u r a l i s m : E a r l y b e g i n n i n g s " .
Current Trends in Linguistics 13: 2.717 — 827. T h e H a g u e : M o u t o n .
—. 1975b. " Z u U r s p r u n g u n d Geschichte d e r B e s t e r n u n g in d e r histori
schen S p r a c h w i s s e n s c h a f t ' . Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung
89: 2 . 1 8 5 - 9 0 .
—. 1976a. " T o w a r d s a H i s t o r i o g r a p h y of Linguistics: 19th a n d 20th
c e n t u r y p a r a d i g m s " . History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary
Linguistics ed. b y H e r m a n P a r r e t , 685 — 718. Berlin 8c N e w Y o r k : W . de
Gruyter.
—. 1976b. " 1 8 7 6 a s a T u r n i n g P o i n t in t h e H i s t o r y of L i n g u i s t i c s " . The
Journal of Indo-European Studies 4: 4.333—53.
—. 1976c. "Schleichers Einfluss auf Haeckel: Schlaglichter auf die wechsel

seitige Abhängigkeit zwischen linguistischen und biologischen Theorien
im 19. Jahrhundert". Paper presented a t the "Symposion Naturwissen
schaftliche Linguistik" hosted by the Deutsche Akademie der Natur
forscher, Halle, on 29 July 1976. (See chap. 13 for a printed version.)
MAINE, S I R H E N R Y JAMES SUMNER. 1871. Village-Communities in the East
and West: Six lectures delivered at Oxford. London: J . Murray. (3rd enl.
ed., 1876.)
POTT, AUGUST FRIEDRICH. 1833. Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete
der Indo-Germanischen Sprachen. Vol. I. Lemgo: Meyer.
PRIESTLY, T. M. S. 1975. "Schleicher, Čelakovský, and the Family-Tree
Diagram". Historiographia Linguistica 2: 3.299 — 333.
SCHLEGEL, FRIEDRICH. 1808. lieber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier.
Heidelberg: Mohr & Zimmer. (New ed., together with an introduction by
Sebastiano Timpanaro, and an appendix, Amsterdam: J . Benjamins,
1977.)
—. 1849. The Aesthetic and Miscellaneous Works of Fredrick von Schlegel.
Transl. from the German by E . J . Millington. London: H. G. Bohn.
(Pages 424 — 65 have been reprinted as an appendix to the 1977 re-edition
of Schlegel 1808.)
SCHLEICHER, AUGUST. 1858 [1855]. "Kurzer abriss der geschichte der slawi
schen sprache". Beitrage zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 1: 1.1 — 27.
(Originally published in Österreichische Blätter für Literatur und Kunst,
No. 19, of 7 May 1855.)
ZWIRNER, EBERHARD [and Kurt Zwirner]. 1970. Principles of Phonometrics.
Transl. by H. Bluhme. University, Ala.: Univ. of Alabama Prees.
SUR L'ORIGINE DU CONCEPT ET DU TERME
DE 'SYNCHRONIQUE' EN LINGUISTIQUE*
0. Il y a trente ans Maurice Leroy publiait une étude approfondie

« Sur le concept d'évolution en linguistique », concept (et terme) clé du
XIXe siècle qu'on retrouve encore dans l'enseignement de Ferdinand de
Saussure au début de notre siècle. En effet Saussure avait souvent
employé la paire ' statique ' /' évolutive ' dans ses cours de linguistique
générale [1907-1911] pour caractériser une distinction qu'il trouvait
indispensable pour le chercheur en linguistique : la discrimination entre
deux approches des faits du langage, celles de la synchronie et de la
diachronie. Le présent article est consacré au concept et au terme de
' synchronique ' chez Saussure et surtout à la question de ses sources
dont l'histoire semble très complexe (1). (Les termes 'diachronique ' et
'diachronie' ont été créés par Saussure ; il n'y a pas eu d'antécédents à
ma connaissance).
1. Depuis la parution du Cours de linguistique générale en 1916
certains linguistes ont cherché à élucider la question des sources de l'ins
piration saussurienne. Parmi ceux qui ont contribué considérablement
'à la connaissance du langage' [Godel 1954 : 66], Hugo Schuchardt,
mentionné par Saussure, conjointement avec d'autres linguistes de
l'époque comme Gaston Paris et Hermann Paul, fut un des premiers à
soulever des questions concernant les précurseurs intellectuels de cer
taines idées du Cours. Dans son compte rendu de ce livre posthume,
Schuchardt entre autres faisait remarquer que Auguste Comte, dans
ses Cours de philosophie positive [Paris, 1830-1842], avait distingué les
aspects 'statique' et 'dynamique' des phénomènes sociaux [Schu
chardt 1917: 1], distinction que Schuchardt rapprochait de celle que
Saussure faisait entre les méthodes linguistiques 'synchronique ' et
'diachronique'.
Dans un article consacré à cette distinction et à ses sources possibles
H.-H. Lieb [1967] cite deux passages d'un volume dans lequel Comte
* Ce chapitre constitue une réimpression corrigée d'un article publié dans Recherches de
Linguistique: Hommages à Maurice Leroy (Bruxelles: Éditions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 1980).
1. Pourtant le Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française, le soidisant
« Petit Robert », rédigé par un linguiste distingué de formation structuraliste post-saussurienne,
dorme les dates « env. 1913 » pour le terme 'diachronique' et « v. 1906-1911 » pour 'synchronie'
(mais 1750 pour 'synchronique').
reprend cette distinction. Dans les paragraphes préliminaires de son

Système de politique positive Comte [1852 : 1] affirmait :
« L'étude positive de l'Humanité doit être décomposée en deux par
ties essentielles : l'une, statique, concerne la fondamentale du grand
organisme ; l'autre, dynamique, se rapporte à son évolution néces
saire. »
Après avoir cité un autre passage du même ouvrage, Lieb [1967 : 19]
note que nulle part dans sa discussion Comte n'établissait d'antinomie
entre les deux aspects, mais qu'il les considérait comme étant complé
mentaires, observation qui semble se rapprocher de ce que Saussure
voulait dire dans ses cours à Genève, mais que les éditeurs du Cours
n'ont pas transmis de la même façon. Le passage cité ci-dessus nous
semble intéressant pour plusieurs raisons, surtout si l'on prend note du
fait que Comte parle, à la page suivante, de « l'identité fondamentale des
divers états successifs », car on semble y trouver des termes, sinon des
concepts, généralement associés avec les idées linguistiques proposées
par Saussure. On notera aussi que Saussure avait employé fréquemment
le terme ' o r g a n i s m e ' dans le sens de ' système ' (cf. CLG 40, 41, 42) et
qu'il utilisait souvent l'expression ' évolution ' dans ses réflexions théo
riques (cf. CLG 24, 193).
On pourrait faire une observation pareille au sujet de l'emploi des
termes et concepts comme ' état ', ' successivité ', ' identité ' et d'autres
qui, comme ' statique ', concernent le rapport et l'agencement entre le
couple ' s y n c h r o n i q u e ' / ' d i a c h r o n i q u e ' dans la théorie saussurienne.
On pourrait même supposer que Saussure avait eu connaissance des
écrits de Comte qui étaient très répandus durant la deuxième moitié du
XIX e siècle ; dans mon livre sur Saussure [Koerner 1973 : 271-273] j'ai
même extrait de nombreuses citations d'une source secondaire qui pour
rait avoir inspiré Saussure, à savoir le Versuch einer concreten Logik :
Classification und Organisation der Wissenschaften, Vienne, 1887, de
Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk [1850-1937], philosophe et homme d'état
tchèque. Ce n'est que chez son compatriote Vilém Mathesius, dans un
article de 1911 où ce dernier utilise la distinction dynamique/statique
pour mieux traiter les phénomènes du langage, qu'on trouve une réfé
rence à Masaryk ; cet article, étant rédigé en tchèque (il ne fut traduit en
anglais qu'en 1964 !), est resté inaccessible à Saussure.
Toutes les observations faites ci-dessus n'ont presque pas de valeur,
si elles ne servent qu'à suggérer que Saussure avait puisé ses sources chez
Comte, Masaryk ou d'autres ( 2 ). Si j'en ai fait mention, c'est avant tout
pour illustrer les voies détournées prises par beaucoup d'érudits moder-
2. Récemment H. AARSLEFF (1978) a ajouté le philosophe français Hippolyte TAINE

(1829-1893) à la liste des ' précurseurs '. On regrettera peut-être que l'article intéressant
offre peu de citations précises.
ORIGINE DU CONCEPT DE 'SYNCHRONIQUE' 259
nes intéresses à démontrer ou retracer ce qu'on appelle vaguement

l'influence que Saussure est censé avoir subie de ses prédécesseurs ou ses
contemporains. Selon moi, les parallèles terminologiques peuvent bien
indiquer que la linguistique, à chaque période de son développement,
reflète toujours, dans une certaine mesure, l'atmosphère intellectuelle de
son époque.
Toutefois ils ne devraient pas être interprétés comme des sources
directes d'inspiration théorique, sauf dans les cas où l'auteur s'y réfère
d'une façon non ambiguë (exemple fameux : August Schleicher). Par
contre, nous avons toujours maintenu que Saussure s'inspirait habituelle
ment des écrits de ses collègues et contemporains en matière linguistique.
Il les a cités soit dans ses cours (comme Whitney), soit dans ses notes
manuscrites, comme en témoigne le passage suivant :
« Ce ne sont pas les linguistes comme Friedrich Müller, de l'Univer
sité de Vienne, qui embrassent à peu près tous les idiomes du globe, qui
ont jamais fait faire un pas à la connaissance du langage ; mais les noms
qu'on aurait à citer dans ce sens seraient les noms de romanistes comme
M. Gaston Paris, M. Paul Meyer et M. Schuchardt, des noms de germa
nistes comme Hermann Paul, des noms de l'école russe s'occupant
spécialement de russe et de slave, comme M. N. Baudouin de Courte-
nay et M. Kruszewski. » [Godel 1954 : 66].
Dans ce petit article je propose de présenter les observations de

certains linguistes de l'époque qui ont touché à la question de la notion
et du terme même de 'synchronie'. Je pense d'ailleurs avoir suffisam
ment démontré, dans un article publié en 1972, que Saussure pourrait
avoir beaucoup profité, dans ses efforts pour développer une théorie
linguistique de la synchronie, de l'ouvrage de Hermann Paul, Prinzipien
der Sprachgeschichte [Halle, 1880 ; 4 e édition, 1909], qui était non seule
ment la 'bible des Junggrammatiker ' (Malmberg) mais également une
source d'inspiration théorique pour des linguistes non liés avec l'École de
Leipzig comme Mikolaj Kruszewski et J. Baudouin de Courtenay. En
effet, j'ai déjà analysé l'œuvre de Kruszewski en détail [Koerner 1973 :
148-165] et indiqué dans quelle mesure Saussure pourrait avoir profité
des réflexions théoriques de ce linguiste polonais dont les écrits en alle
mand se trouvaient dans sa bibliothèque personnelle. En d'autres mots,
si Antoine Meillet, dans sa nécrologie de 1913 (et en se référant à la
période 1881-1891 pendant laquelle Saussure était maître de conférences
à l'École pratique des Hautes Études), notait que Saussure « voulait
surtout bien marquer le contraste entre deux manières de considérer les
faits linguistiques : l'étude de la langue à un moment donné, et l'étude
du développement linguistique à travers le temps » [Meillet 1936 : 183], il
a démontré en même temps que Saussure s'intéressait à des questions
méthodologiques et théoriques bien avant sa nomination comme profes
seur de linguistique indo-européenne à l'Université de Genève en 1891.
Mais le contraste entre une approche descriptive et une approche histo

rique était déjà bien établie dans les écrits de Hermann Paul, J. Bau
douin de Courtenay et d'autres, et il n'y a pas de doute qu'il y avait,
durant le dernier quart du XIXe siècle une conscience assez répandue de
cette double nature du langage. En d'autres mots, on pourrait dire que la
distinction entre langue envisagée d'un point de vue qui fait abstraction
de l'aspect historique et langue vue dans son évolution était ' in the air '
(selon l'heureuse expression de Bloomfïeld) à l'époque où Saussure
s'appliquait à jeter les fondements même d'une théorie générale du
langage. Ce que Saussure a apporté à la linguistique était une définition
claire de la forme et la fonction du point de vue synchronique et son
intégration théorique et pratique dans la science du langage.
Un seul texte devrait suffire ici pour illustrer le fait que la distinction
entre l'approche ' statique' et l'approche 'évolutive' faisait partie des
délibérations théoriques de beaucoup de linguistes vers la fin du
XIXe siècle. La suite de mon exposé sera consacrée à retracer les sources
possibles du terme 'synchronique' chez Saussure.
Dans un article sur quelques aspects phonétiques dans certains
dialectes de la Sardaigne en Italie Hugo Schuchardt [1842-1927] faisait,
dès 1874, l'observation suivante :
« Rien ne contribuerait plus, suivant moi, aux progrès des études lin
guistiques de poursuivre séparément chacune des directions dans les
quelles elles s'étendent, d'examiner à part, si l'on peut s'exprimer ainsi,
la coupe verticale et la coupe horizontale de la langue. » [Schu
chardt 1928 : 328].
Cette constatation méthodologique parut au début de son article —
le fait mérite d'être signalé—dans la revue française « Romania » dont
le rédacteur en chef, Gaston Paris [1839-1903], s'exprimait, lui aussi,
clairement en faveur d'une double approche à la matière (en parlant,
comme Schuchardt, de la dialectologie romane) :
« On ne saurait trop répéter que la phonétique d'un patois roman,
comme celle d'une langue romane, doit se composer de deux parties
distinctes : la partie descriptive et la partie étymologique. La première
doit relever tous les sons, les faire connaître aussi exactement que pos
sible, indiquer soigneusement les limites où chacun se fait entendre ; la
seconde doit toujours partir du latin, prendre chaque son et chaque
groupe de sons du latin et montrer ce qu'il donne dans le parler de
chacune des localités qu'on étudie. » [Paris 1881 : 603].
Il serait difficile de trouver des observations plus claires à ce propos
que celles de Schuchardt et Paris pendant les années soixante-dix et
quatre-vingt du siècle dernier.
2. La question des sources du terme 'synchronique' chez Saussure
a souvent été soulevée, quoique pas toujours d'une façon cohérente et
substantielle. L'article de Éric Buyssens, « Origine de la linguistique

synchronique de Saussure » [1961], apporte peu à ce sujet. L'auteur
essaie de retracer le développement de la théorie synchronique dans
l'œuvre du maître genevois et de démontrer que certaines idées clé se
trouvaient déjà sous forme embryonnaire dans son Mémoire sur le sys
tème primitif des voyelles de 1878, mais il ignore tout le contexte intellec
tuel de la linguistique de l'époque. D'autres érudits, comme Mein-
rad Scheller [1968], ne sont pas conscients du fait que Saussure a déve
loppé ses idées concernant l'établissement d'une linguistique non-histo
rique au moins une dizaine d'années avant la présentation de ses cours
de linguistique générale. De même, Eberhard Zwirner, un chercheur
souvent bien informé et circonspect, semble être tombé dans le même
piège quand il affirme, dans son article « Zu Herkunft und Funktion des
Begriffspaares Synchronie-Diachronie » [1969], que Saussure s'était ins
piré du livre du disciple de Wundt, Ottmar Dittrich [1865-1952], Grund
züge der Sprachpsychologie [1903]. Il est vrai que Dittrich parle d'une co
existence et d'un ordre chronologique des phénomènes qu'il appelle
« Syn- bezw. Metachronismus » [1903 : 50] et d'un traitement synchronis-
tique (« synchronistische Behandlung ») des phénomènes dans la gram
maire 'descriptive' (sic), stylistique, rhétorique, poétique et autres
disciplines qui concernent le langage [cf. Koerner 1973: 111-12, 121-22
pour détails] ; mais un tel argument ignore le fait, établi par Godel
[1957 : 37], que Saussure avait déjà utilisé les termes en question en 1894
ou un peu plus tôt, définissant 'diachronique ' comme « opposé à syn
chronique ou idiosynchronique » [Godel 1957 : 49].
Récemment J.  Rijlaarsdam [1978 : 334-35] a proposé que les
termes 'statique ' et 'dynamique' ont été suggérés à Saussure par la
mécanique ; il est vraisemblable que Saussure, qui s'intéressait beaucoup
aux mathématiques, ait pris ses termes des sources non linguistiques.
Mais il me semble qu'on est encore loin des vraies sources de l'inspira
tion saussurienne quand on oublie son vif engagement pour les questions
et la matière intrinsèquement linguistiques. Il est vrai que le terme 'syn
chronique' (all. 'synchronistisch') se trouvait déjà dans la théorie
historique du XVIIIe siècle [e.g., Gatterer 1771] et dans les sciences natu
relles pendant le XIXe siècle [v. Littré 1873 : 2115], mais il est peu pro
bable que Saussure ait connu ce type de documentation (3). Je propose
par conséquent d'attirer davantage l'attention sur les textes linguistiques
de la fin du XIXe et du début du XXe siècle, à savoir la période de
l'enseignement de Saussure à l'Université de Genève [1891-1912].
On pourrait dire qu'à partir de la publication des Prinzipien der
Sprachgeschichte de Hermann Paul en 1880 et la critique détaillée de cet
3. Il reste cependant possible que Saussure ait consulté le Dictionnaire de la langue
française d'Emile LITTRÉ (1801-1881) qui était déjà à l'époque un ouvrage d'autorité sur les
questions lexicologiques, étymologiques, grammaticales, etc. du français.
ouvrage par Franz Misteli [1841-1903] en 1882 — pour ne pas parler du

travail de Baudouin de Courtenay dès 1870 [cf. Koerner 1972b] — la
distinction entre un point de vue descriptif (systématique, ' ahisto-
rique ') et un point de vue historique (évolutif, chronologique) faisait
partie des délibérations théoriques ou méthodologiques chez un grand
nombre de linguistes. Le premier linguiste qui semble avoir utilisé le
terme ' synchroni(sti)que ' fut, chose curieuse, Vasilij Alekseevic Bogo-
rodickij [1857-1941], ancien élève de Baudouin de Courtenay durant son
professorat à l'Université de Kazan [1876-1883], ville capitale de la pro
vince tartare sur la Volga, 700 km à l'est de Moscou. Il est fort probable
que Saussure ait eu connaissance de ce petit essai programmatique,
Einige Reformvorschläge auf dem Gebiete der vergleichenden Grammatik
der indo-europäischen Sprachen [Kazan, 1890], pour plusieurs raisons.
D'abord, Saussure s'intéressait beaucoup aux questions méthodolo
giques et épistémologiques de la linguistique de son temps ; dans son
compte rendu du livre de Johannes Schmidt [1843-1901], Kritik der
Sonantentheorie [Weimar, 1895], Saussure faisait la constatation suivante
qui semble cependant diamétralement opposée à ses réflexions person
nelles pendant les années 1890 :
«... quand on fera pour la première fois une théorie vraie de la langue,
un des premiers principes qu'on y inscrira est que jamais, en aucun cas,
une règle qui a pour caractère de se mouvoir dans un état de langue
(= entre 2 termes contemporains), et non dans un événement phonétique
(= 2 termes successifs) ne peut avoir plus qu'une validité de hasard. »
[Saussure 1897 : 217 ; italiques dans l'original].
L'autre question, c'est-à-dire la vraisemblance que Saussure ait eu
accès à une brochure publiée loin des centres intellectuels de l'Europe,
doit rester sans réponse définitive. Cependant on peut signaler que,
depuis leur rencontre personnelle à Paris pendant l'hiver 1881-1882,
Saussure restait en contact avec Baudouin de Courtenay. Il avait reçu,
inter alia, un exemplaire du livre de Mikolaj Kruszewski [1851-1887],
Ueber die Lautabwechslung [Kazan, 1881], et il est bien probable que
Bogorodickij lui ait envoyé un exemplaire de ses Reformvorschläge (à
peine 10 pages). Dans ce petit essai, Bogorodickij avait proposé la
création d'une approche synchronique — l'auteur en effet utilisait le
terme « synchronistisch » à plusieurs reprises — qui devrait précéder le
traitement historique des faits linguistiques. Si Saussure avait effective
ment eu connaissance des Reformvorschläge de Bogorodickij, on risque
peu en supposant que c'est ici la source immédiate de l'emploi saussu-
rien du terme ' synchronique ' dans ses discussions théoriques depuis
1891.
Nous avons déjà mentionné l'apparition du terme 'synchronis
tisch ' dans le livre de Dittrich [1903]; si Saussure avait pris connais
sance des Grundzüge der Sprachpsychologie à l'époque, il se peut que
l'argumentation un peu confuse de Dittrich ait poussé Saussure à traiter

davantage de ces questions de théorie générale. Mais on sait que Saus
sure avait abandonné ces réflexions depuis quelques années et s'occupait
beaucoup plus des problèmes sémiologiques des anagrammes et para-
grammes dans la littérature ancienne et contemporaine.
Cependant, en décembre 1906, Saussure fut chargé d'enseigner un
cours de linguistique générale qui l'obligeait à reprendre ses réflexions
théoriques des années 1890. C'est durant ce temps qu'il pourrait avoir
pris note d'un autre ouvrage, cette fois écrit par un Français, Raoul de la
Grasserie [1839-1914]. Juge au tribunal à Rennes, plus tard à Nantes, il
avait abordé plusieurs sujets dans le domaine de la linguistique.
La Grasserie, qui n'était pas linguiste par profession, se distinguait par
l'envergure de ses intérêts. Il traitait des catégories linguistiques, de la
classification des langues à la lumière des critères grammaticaux aussi
bien que psychologiques, des questions sociologiques et épistémolo-
giques en linguistique, etc. [cf. Koerner 1972c : 279-280 pour références
bibliographiques]. En 1890, La Grasserie avait publié un Essai de phoné
tique générale (Paris : Maisonneuve) ; en 1908, il s'attaque à un sujet dia
métralement opposé et traditionnellement négligé par la linguistique de
l'époque, à savoir la sémantique. Dans son ouvrage volumineux, Essai
d'une sémantique intégrale, La Grasserie abordait le sujet comme suit :
« On peut la [i.e., la sémantique] considérer à trois points de vue
[cf. CLG 23 et ailleurs] différents, soit à celui d'une langue à un moment
donné, abstraction faite de ce qui précède, et aussi sans comparaison
avec les autres, c'est la sémantique statique, soit à celui de son évolution
successive, c'est la sémantique dynamique, enfin soit à celui non plus
d'une seule langue, mais à la fois de plusieurs ou de toutes, dont nous
comparerons entre eux les phénomènes semblables ou contraires, c'est
la sémantique comparée. » [La Grasserie 1908 : 2].
Ce passage est intéressant à plusieurs points de vue. Nous y retrou

vons d'abord la distinction traditionnelle entre ' statique ' et ' dyna
mique ', termes que Saussure identifiait avec « les deux branches de la
mécanique » dans un cours donné le 30 mai 1911 [cf. Godel 1957 : 87].
Ce qui nous semble plus important c'est la prise de position claire en
faveur de trois approches nettement distinctes, où celle qui traite de la
langue ' à un moment donné, abstraction faite de ce qui précède ' reçoit
une place privilégiée dans l'ouvrage de La Grasserie. Comme Saussure
l'avait fait dans ses cours de linguistique générale, et probablement pour
les mêmes raisons, La Grasserie, après quelque quarante pages géné
rales et préliminaires, aborde la ' sémantique dynamique ', « quoique
l'ordre logique semble devoir plutôt appeler la statique », « parce que,
fait singulier, c'est la sémantique dynamique qui a été l'objet de travaux
plus nombreux, et qui fut plutôt considérée jusqu'à ce jour comme la
sémantique proprement dite » [La Grasserie 1908 : 2].
La Grasserie consacre (pp. 148-634) beaucoup plus d'importance et

plus de pages à la sémantique statique parce qu'il considérait sa ' syn
thèse ' comme la ' plus nouvelle ', par absence de ' guides pour
l'ensemble '. Il nous est impossible de présenter d'une façon rapide les
idées de La Grasserie sur ce sujet relativement nouveau. Ce qui nous
semble à tout le moins curieux, c'est le fait que La Grasserie, qui avait
une prédilection pour des néologismes, utilise le terme ' synchronique '
dans la partie qui concerne la sémantique statique :
« Nous avons vu qu'elle [i.e., la sémantique] étudie aussi les moyens
qui ont été employés pour trouver pour chaque idée un mot non seule
ment unique, mais adéquat, établissant autant que possible, entre les
mots la même distance entre les idées. C'est l'expression synchronique. »
[La Grasserie 1908 : 9 ; italiques dans l'original].
Le terme paraît encore dans le « Plan d'une sémantique » du livre

(p. 11), où l'auteur parle d'une ' sémantique statique synchronique '
(sic). Mais La Grasserie n'identifie pas ' synchronique ' et ' statique ' ;
au contraire, il semble avoir donné à ce terme un sens particulier et bien
à lui (idiosyncratique). On ne pourrait donc pas établir un lien direct
entre La Grasserie et Saussure en ce qui concerne l'emploi du terme
' synchronique '. Au mieux, La Grasserie doit rester, comme Bogorodic-
kij, Dittrich et d'autres, une source possible de l'inspiration saussurienne.
Le maître genevois n'a mentionné aucun des trois érudits dans ses écrits
(publiés ou non) ou ses cours. Saussure restera donc une énigme quant à
certaines de ses sources ; on se souviendra qu'il n'y a jamais publié une
seule ligne sur la linguistique générale. Peut-être aurait-il alors indiqué
lui-même ses sources, épargnant ainsi aux historiens de la linguistique de
difficiles recherches.
RENVOIS BIBLIOGRAPHIQUES
AARSLEFF, Hans, 1978. Taine and Saussure, dans The Yale Review : A national
quarterly, Autumn 1978, pp. 71-81.
BOGORDICKIJ, V. A., 1890. Einige Reformvorschläge auf dem Gebiete der verglei
chenden Grammatik der indo-europäischen Sprachen, Kazan : Universitäts-
verlag.
BUYSSENS, Éric, 1961. Origine de la linguistique synchronique de Saussure, dans
Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, 18, pp. 17-33.
COMTE, Auguste, 1852. Système de politique positive, ou traité de sociologie...

Vol. II : Statique sociale, Paris : L. Mathias.
DITTRICH, Ottmar, 1903. Grundzüge der Sprachpsychologie : Einleitung und allge
meine Grundlegung, Halle/S. : M. Niemeyer.
GODEL, Robert, 1954. Notes inédites de F. de Saussure, dans Cahiers Ferdinand de
Saussure, 12, pp. 49-71.
GODEL, 1957. Les sources manuscrites du Cours de linguistique générale de
F. de Saussure, Genève : Droz (2e tirage, 1969).
KOERNER, E. F. K., 1972a. Hermann Paul and Synchronic Linguistics, dans Lin
gua 29, pp. 274-307. (Repr. in Koerner 1978.73-106).
KOERNER, 1972b. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay : His place in the history of linguis
tic science, dans Canadian Slavonic Papers, 14, pp. 663-682. (Repr. in Koer
ner 1978.107-126).
KOERNER, 1972C. Bibliographia Saussureana 1870-1970 : An annotated, classified
bibliography... Metuchen, N.J. : Scarecrow Press.
KOERNER, 1973. Ferdinand de Saussure : Origin and development of his linguistic
thought in western studies of language, Braunschweig : F. Vieweg. (Traduc
tion espagnole par Graciela García Montaño, Madrid : Édit. Gredos, 1979).
KOERNER, 1978. Toward a Historiography of Linguistics : Selected essays. Préface
par R. H. Robins, Amsterdam : J. Benjamins.
LA GRASSERIE, Raoul, 1908. Essai d'une sémantique intégrale, Paris : E. Leroux.
LEROY, Maurice, 1949. Sur le concept d'évolution en linguistique, dans Revue de
l'Institut de Sociologie No. 3, pp. 337-375.
LIEB, Hans-Heinrich, 1967. 3 Synchronic ' versus ' Diachronie ' : A historical
note, dans Linguistics, 36, pp. 18-28.
LITTRÉ, Émile, 1873. Dictionnaire de la langue française. 4 vols., Paris : Hachette.
MASARYK, T. G., 1887. Versuch einer concreten Logik : Classification und Organi
sation der Wissenschaften, Vienne : . Konegen.
MEILLET, Antoine, 1936. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Vol. II,
Paris :  Klincksieck.
MISTELI, Franz, 1882. Compte rendu de Hermann Paul, Principien [sic] der
Sprachgeschichte (Halle /S. : Niemeyer, 1880). Zeitschrift für Völkerpsycholo
gie und Sprachwissenschaft, 13, pp. 376-409.
PARIS, Gaston, 1881. Compte rendu de Lucien Adam, Les Patois lorrains (Paris :
Maissonneuve, 1881) dans Romania 10, pp. 601-609.
RIJLAARSDAM, Jetske C, 1978. Platon über die Sprache. Mit einem Anhang über
die Quelle der Zeichentheorie Ferdinand de Saussures, Utrecht : Bohn,
Scheltema & Holkema.
SAUSSURE, Ferdinand de, 1897. Compte rendu de Johannes Schmidt, Kritik der
Sonantentheorie (Weimar: Böhlau, 1895), dans Anzeiger für indogerma
nische Sprach- und Altertumswissenschaft, 7, pp. 216-218.
SAUSSURE, Ferdinand de, 1931. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par
Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye, avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlin-
ger, 3e éd. Paris : Payot. (Les éditions subséquentes suivent celle-ci).
SCHELLER, Meinrad, 1968. ' Linguistique synchronique ' und ' linguistique dia-
chronique ' avant la lettre : Zur Geschichte der neueren Sprachwissenschaft,
dans Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 82, pp. 221-226.
SCHUCHARDT, Hugo, 1874. Phonétique comparée. I : Les modifications syntac-

tiques de la consonne initiale dans les dialectes de la Sardaigne, du centre et du
sud de l'Italie, dans Romania, 3, pp. 1-30. (Cité d'après Schuchardt 1928.)
SCHUCHARDT, Hugo, 1917. Compte rendu de F. de Saussure, Cours de linguis
tique générale (Lausanne & Paris: Payot, 1916), dans Literaturblatt für
germanische und romanische Philologie, 38, pp. 1-9. (Reproduit d'une façon
abrégée dans Schuchardt 1928).
SCHUCHARDT, Hugo, 1928. Hugo-Schuchardt-Brevier : Ein Vademecum der allge
meinen Sprachwissenschaft. Rédigé par Leo Spitzer. 2e éd., Halle/S. :
M. Niemeyer.
ZWIRNER, Eberhard, 1969. Zu Herkunft und Funktion des Begriffspaares Synchro-
nie-Diachronie, dans Sprache-Gegenwart und Geschichte publié par
Hugo Moser et al., pp. 30-51, Düsseldorf: Schwann.
Addendum
GATTERER, Johann Christoph. 1771. Einleitung in die synchronistische
Universalhistorie. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck.
PART III: SCHOOLS AND SCHOLARS
IN THE HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS
Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829)
FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL AND THE EMERGENCE OF
HISTORICAL-COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR*
0. Introductory Observations
In the annals of linguistic science Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829) is usually

accorded only a minor role.1 By contrast, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) and
Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) have attained larger-than-life positions in the
intellectual history of 18th and 19th century Germany, with the result that it has become
difficult, if not impossible, to find fault with their ideas or pronouncements. At times it
would appear that both Leibniz and Humboldt have become unassailable and that
reference to either of them supplies strength, and authority, to an argument concerning
past centuries just as a reference to Saussure or to Chomsky does in this century.
There are differences however between Leibniz and Humboldt, on the one hand,
and Saussure and Chomsky, on the other: Whereas the latter two are almost exclusively
cited with reference to linguistic theory, the former two commanded authority in a
variety of fields. This wider authority appears to have increased their standing within
the study of language. This should not be overlooked, but it should not deter us from
submitting their contribution to linguistics to close scrutiny as both Leibniz and
Humboldt held a life-long interest in the study of language, stimulated the interest of
others to engage in the subject, and also undertook detailed research of their own.
In contradistinction to Leibniz's Sprachphilosophie, we are still far from an ad
equate picture of his contribution to Sprachwissenschaft, This is largely because of the
fact that, with the exception of a very few scholars (e.g., Schulenburg 1973), only
Leibniz's writings on questions pertaining to language philosophy and logic, i.e., his
universalist interests (cf. his 'characteristica universalis' project, which was very much
in line with the efforts of Dalgarno, Wilkins and others in 17th-century Britain) and his
This chapter constitutes a much enlarged and revised version of a paper first presented at the
Colloquium on "Leibniz, Humboldt et le origini del comparatismo" organized by Lia Formigari and
Tullio De Mauro at the University of Rome, 26-28 September 1986. An earlier version appeared in
Lingua e Stile 22:3.341-365 (Sept. 1987).
1
For instance, neither Friedrich Schlegel nor his brother August Wilhelm (who held the first chair of
Sanskrit established at the University of Bonn in 1819) were included in Thomas A. Sebeok's 2-
volume Portraits of Linguists: A biographical source book for the history of Western linguistics,
1746-1963 (Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1966).
debate with John Locke have become readily accessible to date (cf. Leibniz's
posthumous Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain). These scholarly writings
which manifest the interest in Leibniz as a philosopher of language (e.g., Heinekamp
1972) -- and as a
'semiotician' (e.g., Dascal 1978; Dutz 1983) -- may explain the scant
attention given to his practical and historical approach to the study of languages, both
European and non-European. In short, an adequate appraisal of Leibniz as a linguist
(cf. Weimann 1966) remains a desideratum.
Of course, such a study on Leibniz as a Sprachforscher would reveal that he does
not by any means mark the beginning of the serious empirical research which even
tually led to 19th-century linguistic science. There were a host of others that preceded
him in many of his observations and interests concerning language relationship,
language structure, and language evolution. We may refer to Giuliano Bonfante's
study of 1953, in which the author tries to establish that there was a long-standing
awareness of and interest in questions of linguistic kinship in Europe which went back
to the late 12th century. For example, a variety of scholars such as Abraham Mylius
(1563-1637; cf. Metcalf 1953) and Conrad Gessner (1516-1565) in the 16th century,
and Martin Fogel (1634-1675) — who compared Hungarian and Finnish one hundred
and more years earlier than Sajnovics and Gyarmathi to whom the credit usually goes
(cf. Stehr 1957:7-23) — and the linguistic speculations of Edward Brerewood (cf. Rea
1976) in the 17th century are just a few who pre-empted the findings of their illustrious
follower. It would also be desirable and indeed very fruitful to investigate Leibniz's
correspondence concerning linguistic matters with a number of his contemporaries;
only that with Hiob Ludolf (1624-1704) has thus far been made available (Waterman
1978), and this but in part and by no means satisfactorily.
The situation appears to be quite different in the case of Humboldt, to the extent that
the impression prevails that he is overstudied nowadays. Nevertheless, it should be
noted that Humboldt the empirical student of languages, not only of classical Indo-
European languages but also of various so-called 'exotic' languages, notably Basque
and Kawi, American Indian and Chinese, has generally been ignored (Buchholz's 1985
dissertation constitutes a rare exception). It is interesting to note that both Leibniz and
Humboldt instigated such empirical work, through their individual research and their
letters to others as well as through established venues. Humboldt's initiatives in foster
ing this kind of research and in fact creating university positions for such endeavours
are well known, and scholars will no doubt recall Leibniz's important role in the
creation of the Berlin Academy of Sciences as well as his Brevis designatio of 1710, in
which he outlined his proposal of a world-wide 'collatio linguarum'.
Leibniz's call for a comparative grammar of the languages of the world addressed to
Peter the Great of Russia was only taken up by Catherine the Great two generations
later. I am referring to Peter Simon Pallas' (1741-1811) two-volume Linguarum totius
orbis vocabularia comparativa (St. Petersburg 1786/87-1789), whose first volume
appeared before Sir William Jones' (1746-1794) famous Third Anniversary Discourse
was published. Apart from the date, there were many remarkable things about Pallas'
compilation of samples of languages spoken within the Russian empire and beyond
FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL 271
(including the fact that the term 'comparative' appears in its title, though this is by no
means the first such use).
Language comparison can boast a long history, but it is doubtful whether
'comparative grammar' or 'vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft' became a principled
scientific activity much before 1800.1 For Benfey (1869:278) Sámuel Gyarmathi's
(1751-1830) Affinitas linguae Hungaricae cum Unguis Fennicae originis grammatice
demonstrata (Göttingen, 1799) constituted the "erste wirklich wissenschaftliche
Sprachvergleichung". Its subtitle indicated Gyarmathi's opposition to the Pallas
enterprise, which was exclusively based on the comparison of vocabulary items: Nec
non vocabularia dialectorum Tataricarum et Slavicarum cum Hungarica comparata.
But this does not change the fact that well before 1800 various attempts were made to
establish serious research in language comparison. In this context special mention
should be made of the insightful review article on Pallas' Vocabularia by Christian
Jacob Kraus (1753-1807), which has recently been translated into English (Kaltz
1985). Kraus' review was highly critical of the type of compilation work done by
Pallas and his collabotators, making a number of constructive suggestions of how, in
his view, a serious comparison of languages ought to be made, suggestions that did not
fail to arouse interest in the subject, at least in German-speaking lands.
Next to Pallas' Vocabularia, another weighty enterprise should be mentioned, as it
made additional material available to interested parties, namely, Lorenzo Hervás y
Panduro's (1735-1809) Catálogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas, y
numeración, división, y clases de éstas según la diversidad de sus idiomas y dialectos,
which appeared in six volumes at the beginning of the 19th century (Madrid, 1800-
1805). It had been preceded by a series of volumes in Cesena, Italy, under the general
title of Idea dell'universo che contiene la storia delia vita dell'uomo (22 vols., 1778-
1787), whose 17th volume (1784), entitled Catalogo delie lingue conosciute et notizia
della loro affinità e diversità, contained the gist of the later Spanish version (ef. Gipper
& Schmitter 1979:25-26, for details). Last but not least, mention must be made of the
third monumental linguistic undertaking of the period, namely, Johann Christoph
Adelung's (1732-1806) Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde mit dem Vater
Unser als Sprachprobe in bey nahe fünfhundert Sprachen und Mundarten (4 vols.,
Berlin, 1806-1817), completed by Johann Severin Vater (1771-1826). The loose ends
of this brief account of the earliest stirrings of comparative-historical linguistics in
Europe may be brought together by noting that Humboldt, for his part, had made
Hervás' personal acquaintance during his diplomatic mission in Rome and was familiar
with his work (Batllori 1951); that Humboldt also contributed a longer study on Basque
to Adelung & Vater's enterprise (Vol.IV, pp.277-360), which appeared in 1817, and
that Friedrich Schlegel, the main subject of this paper, was the immediate contemporary
of Vater.
1 Not much in terms of either 'comparative grammar' or a historical component can be found in Jacob
Rodrigue Pereire's (1715-1780) 126-page Observations sur treize des principales langues de l'Europe
(Paris: Merigot le jeune, 1779), which seems to anticipate Jenisch's 'comparative' enterprise of 1796.
1.0 Friedrich Schlegel's Contribution to Linguistics

The above introduction was necessary in order to place Friedrich Schlegel's ideas
and proposals in their historical context. To be sure, much more would have had to be
done to do so adequately. German Romanticism in which Schlegel played a major role,
and the influence of Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), both in this powerful
movement and on the study of language, would have had to be accounted for. The
reader may refer to secondary sources for further discussion of these points (e.g.,
Gipper & Schmitter 1979:60-77, 99-113 passim; Irmscher 1966). One other devel
opment in this period which seems to have made a great impression on Schlegel,
namely, the impact of the natural sciences on linguistic thinking, will be discussed in
this paper. The influence of biology, botany, geology, and comparative anatomy
continued throughout most of the 19th century, reaching its peak in the work of August
Schleicher, and permeating most of the initial phase of the neogrammarian movement
(cf. Koerner 1980 and chap.20 in the present volume, for details).
Friedrich Schlegel's interest in Oriental studies had originally been aroused by
translations from Sanskrit and Persian literature. The book he wrote, with inter
ruptions, during 1805 and 1807 contained chapters of approximately equal length on
the philosophy and theology (Schlegel 1808:89-153) and on the 'historische Ideen'
concerning India (157-230), with translations of Indian poetry into German (231-324).
Yet it is no doubt the first part on language ("Von der Sprache", 1-86) which attracted
the most enduring interest among his contemporaries.2 Already within a year of the
publication of the original, the 25-year-old Swiss journalist Jacques Louis Manget had
brought out a French translation of this portion of lieber die Sprache und Weisheit der
Indier (see Schlegel 1809).3 Although the initial reception of the book in Germany was
2 Already on 16 March 1805, while working on the book, Schlegel wrote to his prospective publisher
in Berlin, Georg Reimer (1776-1842): "Was ich im Iten Theile zu geben dachte, ist außer einer
allgemeineren Einleitung 1) eine Abhandlung über die indische Sprache. Dieses ist die Grundlage des
Ganzen, und ich wünschte wohl, daß sie auch besonders ausgegeben würde." See Die Brüder Schlegel:
Briefe aus frühen und späten Tagen der deutschen Romantik ed. by Josef Körner, vol.I: Briefe von und
an Friedrich und Dorothea Schlegel (Berlin: C. A. Kindle, 1926), p.59; this passage is also quoted in
Plank (1987a:205n.7).
3 The fact that Manget added part I of Schlegel's 1808 book to his translation of Adam Smith's (1723-
1790) Essai sur la première formation des langues, et sur la différence du génie des langues originales et
des langues composées of 1761 (Geneva: Manget & Cherbuliez, 1809), pp. 111-129, appears to have
led scholars to identify the Smith mentioned in Schlegel (1808:81 note) with this eminent political
economist, quite wrongly so, I believe. The context in which Schlegel refers to a certain Smith
suggests that he had written on Celtic, possibly even on Britannic, something quite outside Adam
Smith's essay. Furthermore, by 1809 there had been several earlier editions of this essay available in
French translation - for instance in Charles-Joseph Panckoucke's (1736-1798) Encyclopédie
Méthodique, vol.11 (Paris, 1784), pp.422-33, and two other translations of 1796 and 1798 (cf.
Noordegraaf 1977:63) — which would make it hard to believe that Schlegel had no access to any of
them while in Paris. It appears possible that Schlegel had the following work by a certain John Smith
(1747-1807), minister of Campbelltown, in mind: Gallic Antiquities: Consisting of a history of the
Druids, particularly of those of Caledonia: a dissertation on the authenticity of the poems of Ossian;
and a collection of ancient poems, translated from the Gallic of Ullin, Ossian, Orran &c. (Edinburgh:
C. Elliot, 1780), of which a German translation had appeared in the following year entitled Gallische
somewhat hampered by Schlegel's conversion to Catholicism in 1808 (which caused

quite a stir among the intellectuals of the day), it received a number of reviews by
philologists and historians (cf. Struc-Oppenberg 1975:ccxvii-ccxxviii; 1980:431-33,
for details). The fact, however, that the King of Bavaria granted two of his subjects,
Othmar Frank (1770-1830) and Franz Bopp (1791-1867), scholarships to pursue the
study of Persian and Sanskrit in Paris a few years later, may serve as an indication of
the importance that soon was attached to Oriental studies, and this largely as a result of
Schlegel's book.
Schlegel's place in the annals of linguistic science has again become more prom-
nent in recent years. In Theodor Benfey's (1809-1881) informative Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaft, Friedrich Schlegel was given his due (cf. Benfey 1869:357ff.),
but scholars of the jung grammatische Richtung, notably Delbrück (1882), and later
historians of linguistics (e.g., Pedersen 1931) tended to downplay his importance in the
development of linguistics as an autonomous discipline. The most insightful analysis
and appraisal of Schlegel's significance in the establishment of historical-comparative
Indo-European linguistics is without a doubt Sebastiano Timpanaro's 35-page article of
1972, an English translation of which was made available five years later (Timpanaro
1977). I shall refer to the latter in the discussion of Schlegel's work that follows.
1.1 Language Comparison and Comparative Linguistics
Unlike Leibniz and Humboldt, Friedrich Schlegel's importance in the history of

linguistic science rests on one work only, namely, his Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit
der Indier of 1808. It appears that partly because of the very date of publication
Schlegel's work often receives cavalier treatment in later histories of linguistics, as it
does not fall within the neat framework that their authors had come to adopt. The year
1816, the date of Bopp's Conjugationssystem, was picked as marking the beginning of
linguistics as a science, and earlier publications were, as a result, regarded as
precursory only. Once 1816 was made the accepted point of reference, and as later
historians of linguistics tended to copy or at least slavishly follow these earlier
accounts, Schlegel's book was mentioned but not read, a phenomenon we have
witnessed occurring not infrequently in linguistics; compare for instance the treatment
of Bloomfield's Language of 1933 by proponents of the so-called 'Chomskyan
Revolution' nowadays. However, in both instances serious research in the history of
the language sciences undertaken during the past fifteen years or so has shown that
Altertümer, oder eine Sammlung älter Gedichte aus dem Gallischen, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Weidmann,
1781). -- According to Jean Rousseau of Paris (personal communication), however, Schlegel was
referring to "Remarks on Some Corruptions which Have Been Introduced into the Orthography, and
Pronunciation, of the Gallic; with Proposals for Removing them, and Restoring the Purity of the
Language" by a certain "Capt. Donald Smith, of the 84th Regiment", which had appeared in Prize
Essays and Transactions of the Highland Society of Scotland, vol.1 (Edinburgh 1799), pp.324-343, of
whose existence, if the conjecture is correct, Schlegel could have known only through Alexander
Hamilton (cf. Plank 1987a:207n.9; Plank 1987b).
these facile schemes are far from adequate, and that the original works must be read
again, and with careful attention to their contexts of time and place.
Engaging in this contextualizing process, we should mention that around 1800 there
were a number of books published which indicate that there was a heightened interest in
developing a more adequate framework, both theoretical and practical, for the study of
language in general and of individual languages and language families in particular.
Perhaps Benfey was justified in saying that Gyarmathi's Ajfinitas represented the first
scientific comparison of languages, but like the work of others before him devoted to
non-Indo-European languages, it did not receive the attention that it could have (cf.
Koerner 1975:725-26). However, other publications of the late 18th and early 19th
century should be mentioned to suggest the diversity of views available on the market
of ideas regarding the study of language at the time. For instance mention should be
made of Daniel Jenisch's (1762-1804) Philosophisch-kritische Vergleichung und
Würdigung von vierzehn älteren und neueren Sprachen Europens of 1796 (Berlin: F.
Maurer), which Timpanaro (1977:xxxi) has rightly shown to belong to a tradition of
language comparison that "consisted in the attempt to demonstrate the superiority of one
language over another, either from an esthetic point of view or that of 'expressive
clarity' and practicality." There is little connection between this older evaluative and
undoubtedly less scientific approach and the type of comparison we find in
Gyarmathi's work, except for the idea of 'comparison' between languages. Another
book that may be mentioned here is Johann Arnold Kanne's (1773-1834) lieber die
Verwandtschaft der griechischen und lateinischen Sprache of 1804 (Leipzig: Rein).
Despite its fanciful etymologizing (which, by the way, captured the enthusiasm of the
young Jacob Grimm), Kanne touched upon ideas that were to interest comparativists
like Bopp and Rask later on. Another line of linguistic thought which was receiving
wider attention in Germany only at the turn of the 19th century, appears to be based on
17th and 18th century work done in French under the label of 'grammaire générale et
raisonnée', if we are to believe recent research.4 However, the main source of inspira
tion of this work in 'allgemeine Grammatik' was much more likely Kant's philo
sophical framework, which aimed at the discovery of logico-linguistic universals, but
which because of their a priori nature were not recoverable through the empirical study
of languages. In this context, works by August Ferdinand Bernhardi (1769-1820) and
Johann Severin Vater (1801, 1805) should be referred to.
Friedrich Schlegel is traditionally credited with the first use of the term
Vergleichende Grammatik' (cf. Benfey 1869:363; Nüsse 1962:42, and many others:
see Gipper & Schmitter [1979:46], for an almost complete list of such references).
However, as Timpanaro (1977:xxx) has pointed out, a similar term can be found as
early as 1801, in the index of Vater's Versuch einer allgemeinen Sprachlehre (p.259)
and in the text itself (p.xvi), where the author speaks of 'vergleichende Sprachlehre'
4
For instance, Naumann (1986:49) states: "Die deutschen Allgemeinen Grammatiker um 1800 haben
die Klassifizierung Arnaulds und Lanzelots voll übernommen. Sie bemühen sich entweder um eine
Grammaire générale oder um eine Grammaire Particulière oder häufig um beides, aber niemals um eine
Grammaire d'Usage."
along with 'vergleichendes Sprachstudium'. Two years later, in his review of

Bernhardi's two-volume Sprachlehre of 1801 and 1803, the elder Schlegel, August
Wilhelm (1767-1845), spoke of vergleichende Grammatik (A. W. Schlegel 1803:203;
italics in the original). Again two years thereafter Vater distinguished clearly between
'vergleichende Grammatik' - an empirical undertaking which matches forms and
grammatical systems in order to discover whatever features languages share — and
'allgemeine Sprachlehre' — which searches for anything universal and valid for all
languages, but which is attainable only through speculation (cf. Vater 1805:15-16;
Timpanaro 1977:xxxiiif.). In other words, it is clear that Friedrich Schlegel had his
predecessors and immediate sources of inspiration. In this context special mention
must be made of Schlegel's exposure to the writings of Sir William Jones (1746-1794)
and to the ancient language of India through Alexander Hamilton (1762-1824).
Schlegel took private lessons from Hamilton during 1803 and 1804, thus becoming the
first continental European to learn Sanskrit (cf. Plank 1987b for details). As is well
known the European discovery of this classical Hindu tongue transformed linguistics
and brought about comparative Indo-European studies of the 19th century.
1.2 The Concept of Language as an Organism
Those familiar with the Cours de linguistique générale will not have failed to notice
that Saussure frequently employed organisme in the sense of 'structural whole' or
'grammar of a language'. A similar use of the term can be found one hundred years
earlier in Friedrich Schlegel's Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier where the
author refers to Indic as being of an organic structure ("die Structur der Sprache [ist]
durchaus organisch gebildet" [Schlegel 1808:41]). However, unlike Saussure in
whose theory of language 'organisme' or 'système' (his favourite term) becomes a
metalinguistic expression, the characterization of language as 'organic' in Schlegel is
made with regard to language types, and it is meant in contrast to the term 'mechanical'
(mechanisch; cf. section 1.3 below). Scholars (e.g., Benware 1974:4-5; Timpanaro
1977:xxxvi) have referred to Herder, Schelling, and others as sources for the concept
of 'organic' in Friedrich Schlegel's work (see also A. W. Schlegel 1803:203). I
believe that we should be prepared to look for an undercurrent in Schlegel's argument
which derives from those natural sciences which were making considerable advances
during the late 18th and the early 19th century, namely, (taxonomic) botany,
comparative anatomy, (evolutionary) biology, and geology.
It is true that we find only one direct reference to comparative anatomy in Schlegel's
book — in an often quoted passage from Chapter 3 — but other passages seem to
suggest that the sciences of botany and probably also of biology had an influence on his
thinking. Schlegel, in the chapter "Von der grammatischen Structur", advances an
argument in favour of establishing language relationship and common ancestry of
particular languages on the basis of shared grammatical features, and it is in this
connection that he remarks:
Jener entscheidende Punct aber, der hier alles aufhellen wird, ist die innre Structur der
Sprachen oder die vergleichende Grammatik, welche uns ganz neue Aufschlüsse über
die Genealogie der Sprachen auf ähnliche Weise geben wird, wie die vergleichende
Anatomie über die höhere Naturgeschichte Licht verbreitet hat. (Schlegel 1808:28;
italics mine: KK; for an English translation, see Timpanaro 1977:xviii.)
This is the well-known passage from Chapter 3. Heinrich Nüsse, in his book Die
Sprachtheorie Friedrich Schlegels, argued (Nüsse 1962:41) that Schlegel had been
particularly successful in advancing the study of language because of his introducing
the organism concept into linguistic theory. However, Nüsse claimed that this concept
was nothing but a metaphor that presented itself quite independently of the natural
sciences which, in his view, came into prominence only later in the 19th century. Such
an opinion cannot be upheld in light of the general historical context in which
Schlegel's book was written (not to mention biographical details, of which see below).
We may accept the possibility that during his five-year sojourn in Paris (1802-
1807, with interruptions) Schlegel was not aware of Augustin Pyramus de Candolle's
(1778-1841) voluminous Plantarum historia succulentarum; ou, Histoire des plantes
grasses (Paris: Dufour & Durand, 28 instalments, 1799-1803), a work which con
stituted a considerable advance over Linné's rather shallow plant taxonomy. One might,
further, accept the possibility that he did not know of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck's
(1744-1829) Système des animaux sans vertèbres (Paris: Deterville, 1801), which was
one of the most influential books in early 19th-century biology. But it can hardly be
doubted that Schlegel was at least superficially acquainted with the works of Georges
Cuvier (1769-1832). Cuvier's Leçons d'anatomie comparée appeared, in five vol
umes, during 1800 and 1805 (Paris: Baudoin). If we consider the position that Cuvier
held in French science at the time, the popularity of his public lectures on comparative
anatomy, and the fact that soon after his arrival in Paris in the autumn of 1802 Schlegel
secured a letter of recommendation from him (cf. Körner 1958:52), the probability of
Schlegel's knowledge of Cuvier becomes a certainty. According to Struc-Oppenberg
(1980:425) Schlegel in his unpublished 'Oriental Notebooks' of the period mentions
Cuvier's work on fossils explicitly. (Perhaps we should add that Cuvier, for his part,
was born near the Wurttemberg border, that he received his early scientific training at
the Mannheim Karlsschule, where Friedrich Schiller pursued medical studies a few
years earlier, and that he was a fluent speaker of German.)
Timpanaro (1977:xxxvf.), who was otherwise inclined to believe that Friedrich
Schlegel "probably was thinking of Georges Cuvier's Leçons d'anatomie [comparée]",
however agrees with Nüsse's (1962:42) further claim that there was in Ueber die Spra
che und Weisheit der Indier no 'evolution of languages' comparable to the evolution of
species. While it is true, as Timpanaro maintains, that Cuvier clung to the traditional
conception of the fixity of species - like Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840) in
his Handbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie (Göttingen: H. Dietrich, 1805), it does not
necessarily follow that Schlegel subscribed to the same view, even if it was, at least in
France, the majority position (because of Cuvier's prominent place in organized
science). I shall return to this question in Section 1.4 below. Let us now consider
Schlegel's classification of languages which was, as we shall see, closely related to

both the, then, newly developed comparative view of language and the organism
concept as sketched above (Sect. 1.1-2).
1.3 The Two-Fold Typology of Languages
As noted earlier, Schlegel engaged in a kind of language comparison which had

little to do either with the evaluative type of language comparison or with the non-
empirical, deductive approach of the general grammar tradition. His comparison of
languages was based on the analysis of language structure, of grammatical features,
with a view to establishing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the classical languages of
Europe, i.e., Latin and Greek, as well as other language groups (like Germanic) were
indeed genetically related to those of India and Persia. On the other hand, it should not
be ignored that, as Timpanaro (1977:xxxi-iv) has pointed out, traces of both older
kinds of language characterization can still be found in Schlegel's work. Timpanaro
(p.xxxivf.) goes so far as to suggest that the evaluative nature of comparative
linguistics, in the form of the distinction between 'organic' and 'agglutinative' (a term
not actually used by Schlegel) led, in its ideological extrapolation, to a 'divine'/'feral'
dichotomy of how to divide languages and peoples, and that this might have to be
reckoned with in Schlegel's argument (though I believe that Timpanaro is stretching his
argument a little in this instance).
It is true that Schlegel's two-fold distinction of language types contains value
judgements; however, they are by no means in the extreme form encountered in the
later 19th century, frequently with racist overtones. It seems to me that Schlegel
arrived at his typological distinctions as a result of his desire to establish irrefutably
what, at least since Leibniz, had been a wide-spread conviction among linguists,
namely, that the various European languages were genetically related. Hervás and
Kraus during the 1780s had pointed to grammatical structure as probably the best
criterion to be used by the analyst, and Gyarmathi had applied the principle successfully
in his 1799 work proving the kinship of Finnish and Hungarian once and for all. (We
should recall that the similarity or identity of lexical items could frequently be
interpreted as being due to borrowing, and that, prior to the discovery of 'sound laws'
by Grimm and others, orthographic or phonetic similarity was by no means a sure
guide; — hence the many wild schemes of etymologizing found before the early 19th
century.)
Schlegel wanted to establish the affiliation between most European and certain
Oriental languages, and this he felt was only possible by demonstrating that they shared
resemblances of a morphological and grammatical kind. In this connection, Schlegel
recalled Sir William Jones' celebrated statement concerning the genetic relationship
between Sanskrit, the classical language of India, as well as Persian and European
languages, in particular Greek, Latin, Germanic ('Gothic'), and Celtic. He acknowl
edged his indebtedness to Jones (Schlegel 1808:iii, 85), but he did not clearly adopt his
correct assumption that the original language from which these others derived probably
no longer existed. Thus, after first seeming to accept the view that Sanskrit was the
matrix of the (other) Indo-European languages, among which he counts, though with
reservations (pp.3-4), Slavic and Celtic as well, Schlegel later on hedges by asking
what the original language might have been like if Sanskrit was, albeit the oldest, a
derived language too (p.62), and he eventually opts for this explanation of the facts
(p.66). Interestingly enough, Bopp (1816:9) took a similarly ambiguous line when he
states that his eventual goal is to prove that "an allen Sprachen, die von dem Sanskrit,
oder mit ihm von einer gemeinschaftlichen Mutter abstammen" the grammatical
technique of prepositional determination could be traced back to the original language
(Ursprache).
In his search for linguistic links Schlegel rejects the traditional 'etymologische
Künsteleien' by which scholars had attempted to establish language relationships and
their "Veränderungs- oder Versetzungsregeln der Buchstaben" (1808:6); instead, he
argues that the complete identity ('völlige Gleichheit') of words would have to be
established in order to realize such a goal. Schlegel is however realist enough to
concede:
Freilich wenn sich die Mittelglieder historisch nachweisen lassen, so mag giorno
von dies abgeleitet werden, und wenn statt des lateinischen ƒ im Spanischen so oft
h eintritt [und] das lateinische p in der deutschen Form desselben Worts sehr häufig
ƒ, und  nicht selten h, so gründet dieß allerdings eine Analogie auch für andre nicht
ganz so evidente Fälle. (Schlegel 1808:6-7)
And when he continues by saying that these intermediate forms or at least the general
parallelism of such correspondences would have to be proved historically ('historisch
nachgewiesen', p.7), we may ask ourselves whether Timpanaro (1977:xxxii-vii
passim) is right when he argues that Schlegel's procedure in deriving all the European
languages from Sanskrit is basically inspired by an 'anatomy of fixed species' (p.
xxxv), and devoid of evolutionist content. (This question will be taken up in Section
1.4 below.) Before having studied the relevant (con)texts, we should probably be wise
in not identifying 'historisch' in Schlegel's work with our modern understanding of the
term. (We may recall that 'historisch' was frequently seen in contradistinction to
'philosophical', in order to contrast 'empirical, inductive' and 'hypothetical, deduc
tive', as is clear not only in the writings of Jacob Grimm, but also still to be found in
Hermann Paul's Principien of 1880.) Yet it is interesting to read in a letter that Schlegel
wrote to his brother August Wilhelm ten years earlier, in 1798: "Mir ekelt vor jeder
Theorie, die nicht historisch ist." (Neumann 1967:16, n.13).
Timpanaro is correct when he notes that Schlegel confined his investigation to one
language family only, leaving aside other groups such as Semitic, the American Indian
languages, and Chinese, which however he regarded as a curious example ('merk
würdiges Beispiel') of a language exhibiting an extremely simple morphological
structure (Schlegel 1808:45). Before presenting his views on linguistic structure in
general, Schlegel provided (pp.7-26) a series of examples from Greek, Latin, Persian,
and German (including Old High German and Low German, p.22), and at even from
Celtic (e.g., p.21) and Slavic (p.23), to demonstrate that these various forms, despite
the changes they might have undergone, were derived ('abgeleitet', cf. pp.16, 18, etc.)
from an Indic source. It should be added that Schlegel not only compared lexical items,
including the well-known cognates for 'father', 'mother', 'brother' and 'sister' (p.8),
but also particles (pp.10, 16), pronouns (pp.21-22), case endings (8-9), and other
basic elements of language - "einfache Grundbestandtheile der Sprache" (p.9). Given
the audience Schlegel had in mind, namely, the educated élite of his time, it is
understandable that regular dictionary words were more often referred to than esoteric
grammatical items.
In Chapter 3, "Von der grammatischen Structur", however, where he sets out to
discuss the assumption that Indic was the oldest of the genetically related languages,
and that it would have to be regarded as the source of all these other languages ("ihr
gemeinschaftlicher Ursprung", p.27), Schlegel refers to a number of grammatical
features, i.e., comparative endings, diminutives, morphological markers for person,
number, tense, mode, and the like as well as other grammatical features (28ff.). When
discussing the case endings in German, Schlegel suggests taking into account the older
Germanic dialects such as Gothic, Old Saxon, and Icelandic (p.33), concluding with
the following observation (p.34):
Es kann [...] bei der Betrachtung dieser alten Denkmahle der germanischen Sprache
nicht der mindeste Zweifel übrig bleiben, daß sie ehedem eine ganz ähnliche
grammatische Structur hatte, wie das Griechische und Römische.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that Schlegel regarded Germanic as the (intermediate)
source language for all these attested Germanic languages, especially when we note that
on the same page he refers to the Romance languages as showing a parallel
development from Latin. Changes from the earlier states are seen as caused by the
regular use of these languages ("Abschleifung des gemeinen Gebrauchs") and the
general tendency toward ease of expression ("Abbreviatur zum leichten [...] Ge
brauch", p.35). The older languages, Indic, Greek, and Latin, however, still exhibit
the same grammatical features, to the extent of at times being identical in all three; they
all follow the 'Gesetz der Structur' (p.38), though not all equally well. What these
languages (including the modern varieties) have in common is the
... Gleichheit des Princips, alle Verhältnisse und Nebenbestimmungen der Bedeutung
nicht durch angehängte Partikeln oder Hülfsverba, sondern durch Flexion d.h. durch
innre Modification der Wurzel zu erkennen zu geben. (Schlegel 1808:35)
Schlegel illustrates his principle with reference to ~ among others (e.g., suffixes, p.37)
— the infixes in Sanskrit and Greek marking tense differences, thus in effect extending
the notion of 'root' beyond the regular understanding of the term. But what is most
important for Schlegel becomes clear in the next chapter of his book, "Von zwei
Hauptgattungen der Sprachen nach ihrem innern Bau" (44-59), which has been the
subject of lengthy discussions in histories of linguistics as it is commonly regarded as
containing the statement ~ despite its limitations (cf. Morpurgo Davies 1975:657-58) —
concerning language types which was very influential in 19th-century linguistics.
In this chapter Schlegel pointed out that not all languages followed the same
'Sprachprinzip' that he found most perfectly adhered to by Sanskrit, but that there were
many others having a rather different, in fact oppositive grammar ('durchaus
entgegengesetzte[...] Grammatik', p.44). These were languages that did not make use
of the change within the root of a word but of a technique by which particular
grammatical functions such as number or tense were expressed with the help of an
added word ('hinzugefügtes Wort') - we would now say: separate morpheme, a
technique the most extreme instance of which is exhibited by Chinese. But Schlegel,
referring to material he had access to through the good offices of Alexander von
Humboldt (see p.44, note), and, with respect to Basque, of Wilhelm von Humboldt
(p.45, note), enumerates a variety of languages, including American Indian, as
belonging to the same grammatical type.
Schlegel admits that in some instances these last-mentioned languages appear at
times to make use of the technique of inflection, but he remains confident that he is able
to distinguish between the two basic species ('Gattungen') of language (p.48).
Furthermore, he envisages successive stages in the development of both language
types, with Chinese at the lowest rung of the ladder, followed by Coptic, Basque, the
American Indian languages, and eventually Arabic and its cognate dialects. (Note that
Schlegel speaks of 'Stufengang der Sprachen', p.49.) Although he is aware of the
diversity of the languages found in the Americas, Schlegel maintains nevertheless that
they all follow the same plan, arguing (p.50): "... die ähnliche Structur deutet auf ein
gleiches Princip der Entstehung", offering the following explanation for the differences
between these languages and those that are like Sanskrit or (classical) Greek: The
former, in Schlegel's opinion, are characterized by their use of 'Affixa', i.e., individual
items loosely attached to words, and this in a mechanical fashion; the other group of
languages, by contrast, exhibits the organic technique of 'Flexion'. It is for the second
group that he reserves the highest praise:
In der indischen oder griechischen Sprache ist jede Wurzel wahrhaft das, was der
Name sagt, und wie ein lebendiger Keim, denn weil die Verhältnißbegriffe durch
innre Verändrung bezeichnet werden, so ist der Entfaltung freier Spielraum gegeben,
die Fülle der Entwicklung kann ins Unbestimmte sich ausbreiten, und ist oftmals in
der That bewundrungswürdig reich. (Schlegel 1808:50-51)
Schlegel goes on to explain that despite their diversity of development, these languages,
as they evolve from original roots, maintain their basic characteristics through
thousands of years, whereas many other languages - and he lists a variety of language
groups and individual languages from around the world (52-54) — do not share these
traits. In these languages "sind die Wurzeln nicht eigentlich das [as the term "Wurzel"
may suggest]; kein fruchtbarer Same, sondern nur ein Haufen Atome, die jeder Wind
des Zufalls leicht aus einander treiben und zusammenführen kann" (Schlegel 1808:51).
As a result, Schlegel (p.52) argues these languages do not grow organically and that,
therefore, unlike Indic or Greek, they tend to become more complex, more artificial in
structure, to the extent that it becomes nearly impossible to trace them to a common
ancestor. In fact, Schlegel (p.56) believes that the languages using affixation instead of
inflection have opposite directions of growth: while the latter type shows a devel
opment towards a simplification of structure, even to the extent of losing the beauty and
art ('Schönheit und Kunst') of the ancestral language, the languages of the former type
become more and more structurally complex. It appears however that part of
Schlegel's reason for referring to the 'downward' development of the inflectional
languages is that he wishes to forestall criticism of one-sidedness and prejudice. Thus
Schlegel has many nice words to say (p.55) about the dignity, vigor and artistry of
Arabic and Hebrew (whose 'inflectional' character he fails to recognize), and later on
lauds the beauty and expressive power of Quechua (p.58), a native language of South
America.
It is difficult for us today to understand (let alone appreciate) Schlegel's argument,
and one may wonder why his book had the influence on 19th-century linguistics that it
did. One reason may be that Schlegel's ideas were much in line with an intellectual
current of the time, in which the distinction between 'organic' and 'mechanical' played
an important role. Thus Friedrich Schlegel's elder brother, August Wilhelm, who ten
years later introduced the influential 'synthetic'/'analytic(al)' distinction into linguistic
typology, offered the following elucidation of the 'organisch/mechanisch' distinction
in his famous lectures on dramatic art and literature of 1808 (the year in which Ueber
die Sprache und Weisheit derIndicrappeared):
Form is mechanical when, through external force, it is imparted to any material as
an accidental addition without reference to its quality; as for example, when we give
particular shape to a soft mass that it may retain the same after its induration.
Organical form, again, is innate; it unfolds itself from within, and acquires its
determination contemporaneously with the perfect development of the germ [...]. In
a word, the form is nothing but a significant exterior, the speaking physiognomy of
each thing, which, as long as it is not disfigured by any destructive accident, gives a
true evidence of its hidden essence. (A. W. Schlegel 1846 1808]: 340)
Here we recognize a parallelism between Friedrich Schlegel's linguistic views and

those of his brother concerning literary art, when the younger adds to the charac-
erization of the non-flectional languages earlier quoted that their technique of
composition is "eigentlich kein andrer, als ein bloß mechanischer durch äußere
Anfügung" (1808:51). It seems clear that Friedrich Schlegel's dichotomy of flectional
and affixional languages and between organic and mechanical or atomistic types is
based not on empirical evidence but largely on a preconceived idea. Had he compared
Modern English with Chinese for example, he would have found it difficult to maintain
the view that their grammatical organizations were miles apart; or had he carefully
studied any of the Semitic languages, he would have had to admit that their
triconsonantal base - where semantic specification is achieved by modification of the
root vowels — would have qualified Hebrew and Arabic for example as 'flectional',
indeed as flectional languages par excellence (cf. Schlegel's hedging remarks, pp.49-
50).
Anna Morpurgo Davies (1975:657), who rightly finds Friedrich Schlegel a
'problematic figure', feels that Timpanaro, who had studied Schlegel's classification of
languages at considerable length (see Timpanaro 1977[1972]:xviii-xx et passim), has

not sufficiently stressed that nowhere in Schlegel's book "is there a clear statement of
the distinction between linguistic comparison which aims at genealogical results and
linguistic comparison which aims at typological statements or classification." That no
clear distinction is made is true, but whether this should be stressed or not is a moot
point. For Schlegel there was no such contrast as he reserved the terms 'organic' and
'flectional' for only those languages which we call Indo-European. The 'organic',
'flectional' characteristics allow him to maintain the genetic affiliation of these
languages, even after many of them had undergone considerable structural changes.
1.4 Language Origin and Linguistic Evolution
In a careful analysis of Friedrich Schlegel's linguistic thinking, Sebastiano

Timpanaro (1977:xxxvii and elsewhere) argues that, inspite all appearances, Schlegel
subscribed to "an anatomy of fixed species" (p.xxxv). If this exegeisis is meant to
apply only to Schlegel's separation of the Indo-European languages from all others and
his denial of their similarity in terms of structure, Timpanaro is correct, as Schlegel
envisaged no crossover between the basic language types and maintained polygeneticist
views, quite in line with Establishment science, especially evident in botany and
comparative anatomy. However, Timpanaro's argument (p.xxxvi) that Lamarck's
"great evolutionary work, the Philosophie zoologique, appeared only in 1809, i.e., one
year after Schlegel's book", is no convincing evidence that Schlegel's linguistic ideas
were not influenced by evolutionist currents found in 18th-century philosophy and
science (as Timpanaro suggests, p.xxxv). Indeed, Paul Salmon, in his well-researched
article on "The Beginnings of Morphology" (1974), has demonstrated that the
intellectual climate of the 18th century was imbued with biological metaphors and
evolutionist thinking. Thus it becomes difficult not to interpret the following famous
passage in Schlegel's Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indicr as contradicting
Timpanaro's interpretation that there was no hint of an "evolutionist concept of
'linguistic organism'":
Genug, wenn hier nur in das Ganze Ordnung gebracht und befriedigend angezeigt ist,
nach welchen Grundsätzen etwa eine vergleichende Grammatik und ein durchaus
historischer Stammbaum, eine wahre Entstehungsgeschichte der Sprache, statt der
ehemaligen erdichteten Theorien vom Ursprung derselben, zu entwerfen wäre.
(Schlegel 1808:84; English translation in Timpanaro 1977:xxxvii)
As noted earlier (1.1 above), we should not jump to conclusions with regard to the
semantics of 'historisch' in Schlegel's book. Yet the context in which it occurs makes
an interpretation in the sense of 'historical, developmental' quite attractive ("ein
durchaus historischer Stammbaum"). It would be difficult not to see in a genealogical
tree something dynamic, evoking succession, if not diachronic development.
The above quotation comes from the sixth and last chapter of part one ('Erstes
Buch') of Schlegel's book, in fact from its second-last page. The preceding chapter
was devoted to glottogeny ("Vom Ursprunge der Sprachen"), in which he goes over
the origin of language question again, a problem which had received wide attention as a
result of Herder's 1770 prize essay. Schlegel puts forward a polygeneticist position
with ingredients of his own. Thus, in agreement with his earlier view of the existence
of (two) different basic types of language, he denies that every language began in the
same manner, by onomatopoeia for example or on the basis of emotional and
'endeictic' cries which were subsequently conventionalized (cf. Schlegel 1808:66).
Although he conceded that Indic may not be the original form of the language from
which all the other flectional languages derived (p.62), he maintained that its clarity of
expression and beauty of structure was original, comparable to a living texture which
developed and formed itself through its own inner strength ("einem lebendigen
Gewebe, das nun durch innre Kraft weiter fortwuchs und sich bildete" [64-65]; cf. A.
W. Schlegel's remark of 1808 cited earlier in this paper, Sect. 1.4). In earlier stages of
the language - and Schlegel refers to William Jones' comparison between the style of
legal texts in Sanskrit and that of the Latin of Cicero (p.68) - Indic undoubtedly was
much simpler and much more prosaic, its poetry flourishing at a much later stage of
development. The antiquity of the language, Schlegel believed, could be proved histor
ically on the basis of terminological usage or etymologically from compounds ("his
torisch aus dem Gebrauch der Terminologie, oder etymologisch aus den zusammen
gesetzten Worten" [p.69]).
In the concluding chapter of the linguistic portion of his book, "Von der Verschie
denheit der verwandten und von einigen merkwürdigen Mittelsprachen" (pp.71-78),
Schlegel discusses at length questions of change and language mixture. As Timpanaro
(1977:xxiv) has pointed out, the ideas outlined there anticipate substratum theory
usually associated with Ascoli, Schuchardt, and others at the end of the 19th century.
Thus Schlegel maintained that language contact and the resulting borrowings made it
difficult at times to identify all 'Sanskritic' languages, making it necessary to consider
what we may call the external history of a given language, in addition to submitting it to
close morphological analysis (p.72; see also p.74).
In a discussion of linguistic contamination and the question of language descent,
Schlegel drew particular attention to Armenian, in which he found many similarities
with Latin, Greek, Persian and German roots (p.77) and — more importantly —
agreements in grammatical structure (p.78). However, he is not quite ready to include
Armenian among languages derived from Indic (or, as we would say, belonging to the
Indo-European language family), but recognizes it as a curious intermediary ('merk
würdiges Mittelglied') between this language group and others. Now we must realize
that the material available to Schlegel was limited. He himself points out this fact on
several occasions in his treatise (e.g., pp.81-82 note); it becomes obvious when he is
unable to determine that Zend and Pahlevi are in fact 'Sanskritic' languages (p.79).
When we note that Schlegel speaks of one language as being derived ('abgeleitet')
from another, of external histories of languages, of language mixture, and similar
observations, it becomes difficult to maintain that he was not considering a historical,
evolutive component in his linguistic argument, independent of whether or not we

assign to his use of 'historisch' a modern interpretation.5
2.0 Concluding Observations
It has become difficult for us today to fully appreciate the work written at the turn
of the 19th century by a European scholar. We may find it a demanding, if not at times
impossible, task to recreate the context in which a particular thinker worked out his
system, to recognize its sources as well as its innovations; we may be tempted to give
interpretations to a passage or statement on the basis of our current understanding of the
field and thus distort the author's intentions. The reading of lieber die Sprache und
Weisheit der Indicr today is a case in point. While we might at times be surprised by
certain insights, we may also wonder why this book had the impact it did, leading, as
Timpanaro and other scholars have in recent years pointed out, to the establishment of
linguistic science in the 19th century.
Part of the success of Schlegel's book had something to do with the fact that it
revived and reinforced ideas that we found expressed by 18th-century writers on
language such as Leibniz and others (cf. Timpanaro 1977:xii, xiv; Salmon 1974:318-
321). We may illustrate this continuity of ideas with the help of a quotation from A
Discourse Concerning the Confusion of Languages at Babel by the English divine
William Wotton (1666-1727) — with whom Leibniz had a correspondence — writing
shortly after Leibniz' "Brevis designatio" (1710) among other things the following:
My Argument does not depend upon the Difference of Words, but upon the
Difference of Grammar between any two languages; from whence it proceeds, that
when any Words are derived from one Language into another, the derived Words are
then turned and changed according to the particular Genius of the Language into
which they are transplanted. I have shewed, for Instance, in what Fundamentals the
Islandish and the Greek agree. I can easily afterwards suppose that they might both
be derived from one common Mother, which is and perhaps has for many Ages been
entirely lost. (Wotton 1730[1713]:57; quoted in Salmon 1974:315)
Wotton in fact showed (pp.l7ff.) that the tense system of Latin, Greek, and Germanic,
for example, was quite different from the aspectual system in Hebrew (though it is true
that he did not go so far as to question the myth of Babel, which had been debunked by
the time Schlegel was writing). Schlegel maintained in part the 18th-century idea of the
'genius' of a language in the form of a particular language reflecting the 'national
character' of its people.
We may also point to the fact that William Jones' famous remark was not that
original after all, especially when we note that he included the language of "the ancient
Egyptians or Ethiopians" as well as Chinese and Japanese to the group of Indo-

Perhaps we should mention that fact that Schlegel was lecturing on universal history in Paris during
1805-1806; cf. his Cours d'histoire universelle (1805-1806) ed. from manuscript by Jean-Jacques
Anstett, with an introd. and notes (Trevoux: Impr. G. Pâtissier, 1939), 324 pp.
European languages in subsequent addresses (Timpanaro 1977:xiv; cf. also Schlegel

1808:85, where Jones is criticized for espousing a monogeneticist view). The quote
from Wotton also suggests that the discovery of Sanskrit was probably not necessary
for the establishment of comparative-historical linguistics. (The work of Rask and
Grimm may be referred to as another case in point.) However, given the late 18th-
century craving for ideas from the East, the discovery that most of the European
languages were in fact related to Indic provided a tremendous boost to the linguistic
enterprise. Schlegel's elaboration of the idea, together with a number of findings of his
own, was bound to receive wide attention, even though its initial reception in German-
speaking lands was somewhat mixed, not to a small extent because of Schlegel's
conversion to CathoUcism and because of his acceptance of employment at the Austrian
imperial court, the symbol of reactionary politics.
A few examples may indicate the important role that Ueber die Sprache und
Weisheit der Indicr played in the development of linguistics as an autonomous
discipline. We have already mentioned on several occasions Franz Bopp. His first
work, Ueber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem
der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache (1816), is still
widely referred to as marking the beginning of comparative-historical linguistics. It
should not be forgotten in the present context (beyond what Karl Joseph
Windischmann acknowledged in the "Vorerinnerungen" to Bopp's study, p.viii) that it
was largely Friedrich Schlegel's book which induced the young student at the then
recently created University of Aschaffenburg to embark on Oriental studies (cf.
Neumann 1967:10ff.). Indeed, it can be shown that Bopp followed Schlegel's
suggestions in a number of ways. The emphasis on the investigation of grammatical
features for the proof of genetic affiliation, perhaps more often preached than practised
in Schlegel's book, is clearly in evidence in Bopp's work. In particular, Bopp
followed up on a suggestion made in the chapter "Von der grammatischen Structur", in
which Schlegel had pointed to the investigation of the conjugation (in contrast to the
declension) system as a fruitful line of research (cf. Schlegel 1808:29), in effect making
it the centre of his attention. (That Bopp should add some 150 pages of translations
from Indic poetry, in fact making up one half of his book, is just another indication of
how much he emulated Schlegel's example.)
Those familiar with Humboldt's linguistic writings will find a considerable
number of indirect and direct references to Schlegel's Sprache und Weisheit der Indier,
especially with regard to Schlegel's ideas on language structure and linguistic
classification (cf. Humboldt 1820 and 1822). Even in his later work, including his
famous Einleitung to the Kawi language of Java, "Ueber die Verschiedenheit des
menschlichen Sprachbaus und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des
Menschengeschlechts", published posthumously in 1836, we find the following
Statement about his contribution to linguistics — even though he disagrees with
Schlegel's 'Eintheilung aller Sprachen':
Es ist aber bemerkenswerth und, wie mir scheint, zu wenig anerkannt, dass dieser
tiefe Denker und geistvoller Schriftsteller der erste Deutsche war, der uns auf die
mehrwürdige Erscheinung des Sanskrits aufmerksam machte, und dass er schon zu

einer Zeit bedeutende Fortschritte darin gethan hatte, wo man von allen jetzigen
zahlreichen Hülfsmitteln zur Erlernung der Sprache enblösst war. (Humboldt
1963[1830-35]: 515,note)
Humboldt clearly recognizes Friedrich Schlegel as a pioneer. We have already men

tioned that Schlegel's book was soon translated into French, in part in 1809 and in full
in 1837 (cf. Struc-Oppenberg 1975: ccxvi); it also appeared in English in 1849 (cf.
appendix to Schlegel 1977). More importantly still, it is interesting to note that no
lesser scholar than the Dane Rasmus Kristian Rask (1787-1832) advised, as late as
1824, a British student of Anglo-Saxon to read Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der
Indicr in support of his belief that "the European languages of the Gothic stock [i.e.,
Germanic] are related to those of India and Persia" (cf. Morpurgo Davies 1975:622,
n.34). We may refer as well to Alexander Hamilton's last publication, a review of
Bopps' Conjugationssystem and of his translation into Latin of a Sanskrit epic, which
he begins with a laudatio of Friedrich Schlegel's importance in the development of
Sanskrit studies and historical-genetic linguistic research. Hamilton (1820:431-432)
notes:
Mr. Frederick Schlegel was the first, who, in an Essay on the language and the
philosophy of the Indians, indicated to his countrymen the sources of unexplored
truths concealed in that distant region [i.e., India], and the important conclusions to
which they might probably lead, in tracing the affiliation of nations, the progress of
science, and the transactions of that mysterious period which precedes all history,
but that of one remarkable family.
Given the fact that Friedrich Schlegel was introduced to Sanskrit--and probably to a
variety of other linguistic ideas (cf. Plank 1987b) - by Hamilton himself, this praise of
his former student carries appreciable weight.
We could add many later comments on Schlegel's significance in the study of
language, especially from the later 19th century and, of course, in historical accounts of
linguistic science, but it may suffice to sum up his place in the emergence of
comparative-historical (as well as general) linguistics in the following manner: More
than a 'philologsicher Anreger' (Klin 1967),6 Schlegel paved the way for a comparative
linguistics based on grammatical structure rather than on lexical items or phonetic
similarity. At the same time, he replaced the traditional (and mostly fruitless) discus
sion about the origin of language by an historical investigation of attested languages,
and he provided the first impetus to the study of language types. In a general way we
may regard Friedrich Schlegel's work — "one of the venerable documents of modern
6
In this connection we should not forget that Friedrich Schlegel induced his brother August Wilhelm
to learn Sanskrit in Paris, with the result we know (see also note 1), namely, that he became a very
influential scholar in the field (cf. Schlegel 1820-30). His most distinguished pupil was the
Norwegian-born Indo-Iranian philologist Christian Lassen (1800-1876). - On A. W. Schlegel's
contribution to historical linguistics, see Desnickaja (1983).
linguistic science" as W. F. Twaddell (1943:151) called it some 135 years later - as

having fostered three lines of 19th-century research, namely, Comparative Linguistics
(Bopp), Historical Linguistics (Grimm), and Typological Linguistics (Humboldt).
They were united by August Schleicher two generations later in a positivistic
framework that all subsequent generations of historical-comparative (Indo-European)
linguists adopted, and which dominated the discipline until the 1920s. The Hum-
boldtian tradition, trivialized by Schleicher and his followers (cf. Delbrück 1882:27-
28), was revived in Germany, Italy, and a few other European countries at the same
time that Saussure's posthumous lectures on general linguistics began to inspire
scholars outside the traditional powerhouses of Hnguistic research that owed so much to
Friedrich Schlegel.
REFERENCES
Adelung, Johann Christoph. 1806-1817. Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde
mit dem Vater Unser als Sprachprobe in bey nahe fünfhundert Sprachen und
Mundarten. 4 parts in 5 vols. Berlin: Voss. [Beginning with vol.II (1809) ed. and
completed by Johann Severin Vater.]
Batllori, Miguel. 1951. "El archivo lingüístico de [Lorenzo] Hervás en Roma y su
reflejo en Wilhelm von Humboldt". Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu 20.59-116.
Philologie in Deutschland [...]. München: J. G. Cotta. (Repr., New York:
Johnson, 1965.)
Benware, Wilbur A. 1974. The Study of Indo-European Vocalism in the 19th Century,
from the beginnings to Whitney and Scherer. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. (2nd print
ing, with a note by the series editor, 1989.)
Bernhardi, August Ferdinand. 1801-1803. Sprachlehre. 2 vols. Berlin: H. Frölich.
(Repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1973.) [Part I: Reine Sprachlehre; Part II: Angewandte
Sprachlehre.]
Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich. 1779. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte. Göttingen: J. 
Dietrich. (12th ed., 1830; French transl., 1803.)
--------. 1805. Handbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie. Göttingen: H.Dietrich.
Bonfante, Giuliano. 1953. "Ideas of the Kinship of the European Languages from
1200 to 1800". Cahiers d'Histoire mondiale/Journalof World History 1:3.679-699.
[Published 1954.]
Bopp, Franz. 1816. Ueber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Verglei-
chung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Spra
che. Ed. with a preface by Karl Joseph Windischmann. Frankfurt/Main: Andreäische
Buchhandlung. (Repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1975.)
Buchholz, Ulrike. 1985. Das Kawi-Werk Wilhelm von Humboldts: Untersuchungen
zur empirischen Sprachbeschreibung und vergleichenden Grammatikographie.
Doctoral diss., Univ. of Münster. (Printed, Münster: Institut für Allgemeine Sprach
wissenschaft der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität, 1986.)
Candolle, Augustin Pyramus de. 1799-1803. Plantarum historia succulentarum; ou,
Histoire des plantes grasses. 28 instalments. Paris: Dufour & Durand.
Cuvier, Georges. 1800-1805. Leçons d'anatomie comparée. 5 vols. Paris: Baudoin.
(Other ed., Paris: Crochard &Fantin, 1805.)
Dascal, Marcelo. 1978. La Sémiologie de Leibniz. Paris: Aubier Montaigne.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1882. Introduction to the Study of Language: A critical survey of

the history and methods of comparative philology of Indo-European languages.
Transl. from German by Eva Channing. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. (New ed.,
Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1974; 2nd corrected printing, 1989.)
Desnickaja, A(gnija) V(asil'evna). 1983. "August Wilhelm Schlegel und seine Rolle im
Werden der historischen Sprachwissenschaft". Beiträge zur Romanischen Philologie
22.279-286.
Droixhe, Daniel. 1978. La Linguistique et l'appel de l'histoire (1600-I800): Ratio
nalisme et révolutions positivistes. Geneva: Droz.
Dutz, Klaus D. 1983. Zeichentheorie und Sprachwissenschaft bei G. W. Leibniz: Eine
kritisch annotierte Bibliographie der Sekundärliteratur. Münster: Institut für
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität.
Gipper, Helmut & Peter Schmitter. 1979. Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachphilosophie
im Zeitalter der Romantik. Tübingen: G. Narr.
Gyarmathi, Samuel. 1799. Affinitas linguae Hungaricae cum Unguis Fennicae originis
grammatica demonstrata;necnon vocabularia dialectorum Tataricarum et Slavicarum
cum Hungarico comparata. Göttingen: J.  Dietrich. (English transl., with an intro
duction and notes, by Victor E. Hanzeli, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins,
1983.)
Hamilton, Alexander. 1820. Review of Bopp (1816) and Bopp, ed. & transi., Nalus,
carmen sanscritum [...] (London: Treuttel & Wiirtz, 1819). Edinburgh Review 33.
431-442.
Heinekamp, Albert. 1972. "Ars characteristica und natürliche Sprache bei Leibniz".
Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 34.446-488.
Hervás y Panduro, Lorenzo. 1784. Catalogo delie lingue conosciute e notizia delia loro
affinità, e diversità. (= Idea delVuniverso che contiene la storia della vita dell'uomo,
17.) Cesena: G. Biasini.
--------. 1800-1805. Catálogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas y numeración,
división, y clases de éstas según la diversidas de sus idiomas y dialectos. 6 vols.
Madrid: Ranz (Imprenta de la Administración del Real Arbitrio de Beneficencia).
[Rev. and enl. Spanish version of 1784 title.]
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1963. Werke in fünf Bänden. Ed. by Andreas Flitner &
Klaus Giel, Vol.III: Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft. [Contains, inter alia, Humboldt 1820, 1822, 1827-1829, and 1836
(1830-1835).]
Irmscher, Hans Dietrich, ed. 1966. Johann Gottfried Herder: Abhandlung über den
Ursprung der Sprache. With an afterword by the ed. [137-175]. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Jankowsky, Kurt R. 1972. The Neogrammarians: A re-evaluation of their place in the
development of linguistic science. The Hague: Mouton.
Jenisch, Daniel. 1796. Philosophisch-kritische Vergleichung und Würdigung von vier
zehn älteren und neueren Sprachen Europens. Berlin: F. Maurer.
Jones, Sir William. 1788[1786]. "The Third Anniversary Discourse, delivered [...] by
the President of the Society [...]". Asiatick Researches 1.515-531. (Repr. in A
Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics ed. by Winfred
P. Lehmann, 7-20. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1967.)
Kaltz, Barbara. 1985. See Kraus 1787.
Kanne, Johann Arnold. 1804. Ueber die Verwandtschaft der griechischen und latei
nischen Sprache. Leipzig: Rein.
Klin, Eugeniusz. 1967. "Friedrich Schlegel als philologischer Anreger (1802-1808)".
Germanica Wratislaviensia 11.83-103.
Koerner, E. F. Konrad. 1975. "European Structuralism: Early beginnings". Current

Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.XIII: Historiography of Lin
guistics, 717-827. The Hague: Mouton.
---------. 1980. "Pilot and Parasite [amended to 'Pirate'] Disciplines in the Develop
ment of Linguistic Science". Folia Linguistica Historica 1.213-224. (Repr. in this
volume as chap. 15.)
---------. 1982. "The Schleicherian Paradigm in Linguistics". General Linguistics
22.1-39.
Körner, Josef. 1958. Krisenjahre der Romantik. Vol. III: Kommentar. Bern: A.
Francke.
Kraus, Christian Jacob. 1787. Review of Pallas (1786/87-1789), vol.1. (Jenaische)
Allgemeine Literaturzeitung (Halle/Saale) No.235, cols.1-8; No.236, cols.9-16;
No.237a, cols. 17-24, and No.237b, cols.25-29 (1-3 Oct. 1787). (English transl.,
with an introduction, by Barbara Kaltz, in Historiographia Linguistica 12.238-253,
254-257 [notes], 1985.)
Lamarck, Jean Baptiste de. 1801. Système des animaux sans vertèbres, en table
générale des classes, des ordres et des genres de ces animaux. Paris: Deterville.
----------. 1809. Philosophie zoologique; ou, Exposition des considerations relatives à
l'histoire naturelle des animaux; [...]. 2 vols. Paris: Dentu.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1710. "Brevis designatio meditationem de Originibus
Gentium, ductis potissimum ex judicio linguarum". Miscellanea Berolinensis ad
incrementum scientarum 1.1-16. Berlin.
---------. 1765. Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain. Ed. by Rudolf Erich
Raspe [(1737-1794)]. Amsterdam & Leipzig: J. Schreuder. [Written ca. 1704.]
Metcalf, George J. 1953. "Abraham Mylius on Historical Linguistics". Publications of
the Modern Language Association of America 68.535-554.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1975. "Language Classification in the Nineteenth Century".
Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.XIII: Historiography of
Linguistics, 607-716. The Hague: Mouton.
Naumann, Bernd. 1986. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache zwischen 1781 und 1856:
Die Kategorien der deutschen Grammatik in der Tradition von Johann Werner Meiner
und Johann Christoph Adelung. Berlin: E. Schmidt
Neumann, Günter. 1967. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft 1816 und 1966: Zwei
Vorträge [...]. Innsbruck: Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut der Leopold-Franzens-
Universität.
Noordegraaf, Jan. 1977. "A Few Remarks on Adam Smith's Dissertation (1761)".
HistoriographiaLinguistica4.59-67.
Nüsse, Henrich. 1962. Die Sprachtheorie Friedrich Schlegels. Heidelberg:  Winter.
Pallas, Peter Simon, ed. 1786/87-89. Linguarum totius orbis vocabularia comparativa
[...]. 2 vols. St. Petersburg: Schnoor. (Repr., Hamburg: H. Buske, 1977-78.) [The
text is in Russian.]
Pedersen, Holger. 1931. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century. Transl. from
the Danish by John Webster Spargo. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
Picardi, Eva. 1977. "Some Problems of Classification in Linguistics and Biology,
1800-1830". HistoriographiaLinguistica4.31-57.
Plank, Frans. 1987a. "The Smith-Schlegel Connection in Linguistic Typology: For
gotten fact or fiction?". Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommu
nikationsforschung 40.196-214.
1987b. "What Schlegel Could Have Learned from Alexander ('Sanscrit')
Hamilton besides Sanscrit". Lingua e Stile 22.367-384.
Rea, John A. 1976. "Linguistic Speculations of Edward Brerewood (1566-1613)".

Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill ed. by Mohammad Ali
Jazavery et al., vol.1: General and Theoretical Linguistics, 257-262. Lisse: P. de
Ridder. (Other ed., The Hague: Mouton, 1978.)
Salmon, Paul B. 1974. "The Beginnings of Morphology: Linguistic botanizing in the
18th century". HistoriographiaLinguistica1.313-339.
Schlegel, August Wilhelm. 1803. "Ankündigung: Sprachlehre von A. F. Bernhardi".
Europa: Eine Zeitschrift ed. by Friedrich Schlegel, 2.193-204.
--------. 1818. Observations sur la langue et la littérature provençales. Paris: Librairie
grecque-latine-allemande. (Repr., together with an introduction by Gunter Narr,
Tübingen: TBL Verlag, 1971.)
--------, ed. [and main contributor]. 1820-30. Indische Bibliothek. 3 vols. [of several
fascicles each]. Bonn: E. Weber.
--------. 1846[1808]. Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature. Transl. by John
Black. London: H. G. Bohn. (Repr., New York: AMS Press, 1965.)
Schlegel, Friedrich. 1808. Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit derIndicr:Ein Beitrag zur
Begründung der Alterthumskunde. Heidelberg: Mohr & Zimmer. (New ed., with an
introduction by Sebastiano Timpanaro, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1977.)
Schulenburg, Sigrid von der. 1973. Leibniz als Sprachforscher. Ed. by Kurt Müller.
Frankfurt/Main: V. Klostermann.
Stehr, Alfred. 1957. Die Anfänge der finnisch-ugrischen Sprachvergleichung, 1669-
1771. Doctoral diss., Univ. of Göttingen.
Struc-Oppenberg, Ursula. 1975. "Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indicr [of F.
Schlegel]". Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe ed. by Ernst Behler et al., vol.
VIII: 1, clxxxvii-ccxxx. München-Paderborn-Wien: F. Schöningh; Zürich: Thomas.
[Introd. to the critical ed. of Schlegel 1808.]
--------. 1980. "Friedrich Schlegel and the History of Sanskrit Philology and
Comparative Studies". Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 7.411-437.
Sweet, Paul R. 1978-80. Wilhelm von Humboldt: A biography. 2 vols. Columbus,
Ohio: Ohio State Univ. Press.
Timpanaro, Sebastiano. 1972. "Friedrich Schlegel e gli inizi della linguistica indo
europea in Germania". Critica Storica n.s. 9.72-105.
---------- 1977. "Friedrich Schlegel and the Beginnings of Indo-European Linguistics
in Germany". Schlegel 1977[1808], xi-lvii. [Transl. of Timpanaro (1972) by J. Peter
Maher, ed. by E. F. K. Koerner.]
Twaddell, William Freeman. 1943. "Fr. Schlegel's Criteria of Linguistic Relation".
Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 35.151-55.
Vater, Johann Severin. 1801. Versuch einer allgemeinen Sprachlehre, mit einer Einlei
tung über Begriff und Ursprung der Sprache [...]. Halle/Saale: Renger.
---------. 1805. Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Grammatik, besonders für höhere Schul
lassen, mit Vergleichung älterer und neuerer Sprachen. Ibid.
Waterman, John T., ed. & transl. 1978. Leibniz and Ludolf on Things Linguistic:
Excerpts of their correspondence (1688-1703). Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of
California Press.
Weimann, Karl-Heinz. 1966. "Leibniz als Sprachforscher". Leibniz: Sein Leben - sein
Wirken - seine Welt ed. by Wilhelm Totok & Carl Haase, 535-552. Hannover:
Verlag für Literatur und Zeitgeschehen.
Wotton, William. 1730. A Discourse concerning the Confusion of Languages at Babel.
London: S. Austen & W. Bowyer.
FRANZ BOPP (1791-1867)*
Peter Paul Rubens wurde in Siegen in Westfalen geboren, aber niemand

hat je daran gezweifelt, daß er ein Flame war, oder wäre gar auf den
Gedanken gekommen, seine Malerei nicht der Niederländischen Schule zu
zuordnen. Der am 14. September 1791 in Mainz geborene dritte Sohn des
Andreas Bopp (etwa 1765—1840), Futter und Wagenschreiber des Kur
fürsten Friedrich Karl von Erthal, war jedoch mehr mit Aschaffenburg ver
bunden als mit seinem Geburtsort. In diese Stadt war die Familie wohl schon
im Jahre 1797 im Gefolge des Kurfürsten gezogen, nachdem im Frieden von
Campoformio (1797) das linke Rheinufer und damit die Stadt Mainz an
Frankreich gefallen war. Hier in Aschaffenburg ging der junge Franz Bopp
zur Schule, besuchte das Humanistische Gymnasium und schließlich ab
Herbst 1809 die ein Jahr vorher von Fürstprimas Karl Theodor Freiherr
von Dalberg gegründete Karls-Universität, die bis 1813/14 bestand, als das
Fürstentum Aschaffenburg an die Krone Bayerns überging.
Hatte Bopp sich schon auf dem Gymnasium ausgezeichnet, so belegte
er mit Erfolg in den zwei Jahre umfassenden „Philosophischen Klassen"
der Karls-Universität vor allem Griechisch und Latein, aber auch Englisch,
Französisch und Italienisch. Es muß wohl in dieser Zeit gewesen sein, als
Bopp von Friedrich Schlegels (1772—1829) Werk: Über die Sprache und
Weisheit der Indicr. Heidelberg 1808, Kenntnis bekam und sein Interesse
an indischer Sprache, Literatur und Philosophie dadurch geweckt wurde.
In jenem Buche hatte Schlegel eigentlich schon den Weg vorgezeichnet, den
Bopp bald zu gehen sich anschickte. Er schreibt auf S. 28:
Jener entscheidende Punkt aber, der alles hier aufhellen wird, ist die
innere Structur der Sprachen oder die vergleichende Grammatik, welche
uns ganz neue Aufschlüsse über die Genealogie der Sprachen auf ähnliche
Weise geben wird, wie die vergleichende Anatomie über die höhere Natur
geschichte Licht verbreitet hat.
Schlegel war einer der ersten Kontinental-Europäer, die Sanskrit er
lernt hatten, und zwar mit Hilfe des vormaligen Infanterieoffiziers der
Ostindischen Kompagnie in Kalkutta, Alexander Hamilton (1762—1824),
der sich ab 1802 für mehrere Jahre in Paris aufhielt und die reiche indi
sche Handschriftensammlung der Nationalbibliothek katalogisierte. Daß
Schlegel im obigen Zitat auf die vergleichende Anatomie als Modell hin
weist, erstaunt nicht,wenn man weiß, daß seit 1800 z.B. Cuviers „Leçons
d'anatomie comparée" in Paris erschienen und zu diesem Zeitpunkt die
* Repr., with a new select bibliography, from Aschaffenburger Jahrbuch 8.313-319 (1984).
Naturwissenschaften, vor allem die Botanik, die Biologie und die Anatomie,
das Wissenschaftsbild prägten. Im Bemühen, aus der Sprachforschung eine
Wissenschaft zu machen, haben die Linguisten des 19. Jahrhunderts vieler
lei Anleihen bei den Naturwissenschaften gemacht, und zwar im Hinblick
auf die Terminologie (vgl. Zergliederung — ein Lieblingsbegriff Bopps —
bzw. Analyse, Lautgesetz, Sprachfamilie, Sprachstamm; siehe auch die be
reits genannte „Genealogie" Schlegels: Assimilation, Dissimilation, Mor-
phologie, Bau bzw. Struktur etc.) wie auch auf die Methode der Kompa
ration und Rekonstruktion des Ganzen auf der Basis der Teile (vgl. Cu-
viers Korrelations-Gesetz). Gegen Ende des ersten Teils seines Buches,
„Über die Sprache" stellt Schlegel (S. 84) fest:
Genug, wenn hier nur in das Ganze Ordnung gebracht und befriedi
gend aufgezeigt ist, nach welchen Grundsätzen etwa eine vergleichende
Grammatik oder ein durchaus historischer Stammbaum, eine wahre Ent
stehungsgeschichte der Sprache, statt der ehemaligen erdichteten Theorien
vom Ursprunge derselben zu entwerfen wäre.
Zur Lektüre des Schlegelschen Werkes mag Bopp von seinem Lehrer
und eifrigen Förderer an der Karls-Universität, dem Professor für Ge
schichte und Philosophie Karl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann (1775—
1839), angeregt worden sein, der ein begeisterter Anhänger der Romantik
und der Schellingschen Philosophie war. Bopp war selbst kein philosophi
scher Kopf, aber er entzog sich nicht dem Einfluß seiner Lehrer, ehe er,
auf sich selbst gestellt, in die Struktur des Sanskrit, der religiösen Schrift
sprache des klassischen Indicns, einzudringen begann. In den „Vorerinne
rungen", die Windischmann dem Boppschen Erstlingswerk (vgl. S. 316)
beifügte, stellte der einstige Lehrer dem flügge gewordenen Sprachforscher
folgendes Zeugnis seiner „Lehrzeit" aus:
Ausgezeichnet durch alle Classen ließ er insbesondere in den philoso
phischen Cursen bedeutenden Scharfblick und vorwaltende Neigung zu
ernster Wissenschaft an sich erkennen. Diese widmete er vor allem der
Sprachforschung, sogleich vom Beginn mit der Absicht, auf diesem Wege
in das Geheimnis des menschlichen Geistes einzudringen und demselben
etwas von seiner Natur und von seinem Gesetz abzugewinnen. So lernte
er dann, minder aus einem vorherrschenden Talente der bloßen Sprach
fertigkeit, als aus dem lebhaften Gefühl für die im Sprachenreichthum des
Menschengeschlechts verborgenen Harmonien die Sprachen des classischen
Alterthums sowohl, als die gebildetsten des neueren Europa und suchte
dieselben seinem tief erforschenden Sinne gleichsam als Organe anzueignen.
Dies alles geschah in der Stille und eben in ihr hegte er auch das Verlangen,
den Sinn für die innere Natur der Sprache durch Bekanntschaft mit den
ältesten Sprachen der Welt zu üben und zu schärfen. Er suchte mit dem
FRANZ  293
größten Eifer den Charakter und die Denkart des morgenländischen Alter-
thums bekannt zu machen, benützte sowol die öffentlichen Vorträge hiesi-
ger Lehranstalt, als den Umgang mit seinen Lehrern, vorzüglich in Bezug
auf orientalischen Mythus und Philosophie und ließ endlich seinen Wunsch,
sich in Paris mit der orientalischen und insbesondere mit der indischen Lit
teratur vorerst genau bekannt zu machen und dann ferner sein ganzes
Leben hindurch mit ihr sich zu beschäftigen, bestimmter hervortreten.
Bopp gehört offenbar zu jenen Naturen, die, wie Heinrich Schliemann,
der sich schon als 14jähriger vornahm, das sagenumwobene Troja zu fin
den, schon recht früh in ihrem Leben ein bestimmtes Ziel im Auge hatten
und es mit Zähigkeit und Energie (und nicht ohne Genialität) verwirk
lichten. Wenn wir von Windischmanns romantischem Überschwang absehen,
dann zeigt sich neben dem schon erwähnten Hauptcharakterzug auch schon
das Gewicht, das Bopp auf seine Forschungsarbeit legte, nämlich die Ein
heit in der Vielfalt der Sprachen zu finden, den Organismus, die den
Sprachen zugrundeliegende Formstruktur, zu ermitteln.
Wohl im Jahre 1811 oder im Frühjahr 1812 beendigte Bopp seine
Studien an der Karls-Universität, die allerdings niemals den Status einer
Volluniversität erlangte. Sein Entschluß, nach Paris zu gehen, war schon
gefaßt, als er die Bekanntschaft der Literatin und Reiseschriftstellerin Wil
helmine von Chézy (geb. Freiin von Klencke, 1783—1856) machte, die im
Jahre 1812 Aschaffenburg zum zweiten Male besuchte. Verheiratet mit
dem Pariser Orientalisten Antoine Léonard de Chézy (1773—1832) lehrte
sie Bopp nach eigener Aussage das Persische lesen und brachte ihm viel
Zeitwörter und Substantive bei.
Ihre Behauptung, daß Bopp bei ihrem Manne Sanskrit gelernt habe*),
scheint Bopps eigenen Angaben zufolge (vgl. die Vorrede zu seiner Aus
gabe mit lateinischer Übersetzung des „Nalus". London 1819) nicht zu
zutreffen; sicherlich war jedoch der freundschaftliche Kontakt mit der
Familie Chézy in der ersten Zeit seines Pariser Aufenthalts (1812—1816)
wichtig. Von seinem Vater finanziell unterstützt, zog Bopp aus, Sanskrit,
aber auch Arabisch und Persisch, letztere Sprachen unter der Leitung von
Antoine Isaac Silvestre de Sacy (1758—1838), der seit 1795 am Orienta
lischen Institut lehrte, zu studieren. Durch Vermittlung seines Aschaffen-
burger Lehrers Windischmann gelang es Bopp, von König Maximilian I.
für zwei Jahre (1814—1816) ein Stipendium aus dem Aschaffenburger
*) Vgl. CHÉZY, H. V.: Unvergessenes: Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Leben der Helmine
von Chézy, von ihr selbst erzählt, T. 2. Leipzig 1858, S. 64. — Ihr Mann Antoine
Léonard de Chézy begann erst im Jahre 1815 damit, Sanskrit zu unterrichten; vgl.
seinen „Discours prononcé au Collège royale de France à l'ouverture du cours de
langue et littérature sanscrite, 16 janvier 1815", Paris 1815.
Friderizianischen Fonds bewilligt zu bekommen. Diese Unterstützung

führte dann auch zum baldigen Abschluß des ersten Werkes Bopps, das
ihn in den Augen der meisten Sprachforscher in der Folgezeit (unter ihnen
auch August Leskien, dem Haupte der Junggrammatiker in Leipzig, die
im letzten Viertel des 19. Jahrhunderts in der Sprachwissenschaft den Ton
angaben) zum „Begründer der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft" machte.
In der Tat war das Datum des Erstlingswerks (1816) so sehr mit dem Ein
setzen der Sprachforschung als Wissenschaft verbunden, daß die Heraus
geber des „Cours de linguistique generale" des Genfer Indogermanisten
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857—1913), das den Strukturalismus unseres
Jahrhunderts begründete, das Jahr 1916 als Veröffentlichungsjahr wählten.
In dem Werk „Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in
Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und deut
schen Sprache" (Frankfurt/M. 1816) folgte Bopp Schlegels Buch in ver
schiedener Hinsicht, zunächst äußerlich, indem er Übersetzungen aus der
(zum Teil religiösen) Literatur des Sanskrit seinem Buche beifügte, die in
keinerlei Beziehung zum eigentlichen Text (S. 3—157) des „Conjugations
system" stehen. (Schlegel hatte ja noch tief in die indische Literatur, Phi
losophie und Theologie eindringen wollen.) Schlegel (S. 29, 34 und passim)
hatte schon auf das Verbalsystem als den Ort der Grammatik verwiesen,
an dem die Verwandtschaft der indo-europäischen Sprachen aufgezeigt
werden müsse, denn oberflächliche Laut- und Bedeutungsähnlichkeiten
führten zu keinem wissenschaftlich gesicherten Ergebnis. So setzte sich also
Bopp daran, das Programm seines illustren Landsmanns auszuführen, und
dies mit einer Zähigkeit und Zielstrebigkeit, die dem genialischen Schlegel
nicht gegeben waren.
Noch während des Jahres 1816 suchte Bopp erneut um ein Stipendium
nach, das es ihm ermöglichen sollte, an die reichen Schätze zu gelangen,
die die Engländer aus Indicn heimgetragen hatten, und mit ihren bedeu
tendsten Kennern des Sanskrit, Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765—1837)
und vor allem Charles Wilkins (1749—1836), in Verbindung zu treten.
Aber erst ein Jahr später wurde Bopp ein weiteres Stipendium — diesmal
von der Münchener Akademie der Wissenschaften — bewilligt. Im Oktober
1818 ging Bopp nach London, wo er ein Jahr darauf schon eine Episode
des großen indischen Epos „Mahâbhârata" in lateinischer Übersetzung und
mit Anmerkungen herausgab (Nalus, carmen sanscritum . . . , London 1819;
2. Ausg. Berlin 1832; 3. Aufl., 1868). Im darauffolgenden Jahr erschien
eine englische Bearbeitung des linguistischen Teils seines „Conjugations
system", von Bopps eigner Hand, und zwar im l.Heft der neugegrün
deten „Annals of Oriental Literature" (S. 1—65). Diese Schrift, Analyti
cal Comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and Teutonic Languages,
FRANZ BOPP 295
shewing [sic] the original identity of their grammatical structure (1820),

bedeutete schon einen Fortschritt gegenüber dem Erstlingswerk; neben der
Konjugation wurde nun auch die Deklination in die Betrachtung mitein
bezogen.
Während seines Pariser Aufenthalts hatte Bopp den älteren Schlegel-
Bruder, August Wilhelm (1767—1845), der 1819 schon einen Lehrstuhl
für indische Sprache und Literatur an der neugegründeten Universität
Bonn erhielt, ins Sanskrit eingeführt; in London machte er bald die Be
kanntschaft des als preußischer Gesandter tätigen Wilhelm von Humboldt
(1767—1835) und trieb mit diesem ebenfalls Sanskrit. A.W.Schlegel
dankte Bopp für seine Dienste niemals; Humboldt hingegen ist bis zu
seinem Lebensende stets Freund und Förderer Bopps geblieben. In Bayern
fand man für den 1820 heimkehrenden Bopp keine Professur; stattdessen
wurden bei ihm Mängel in der akademischen Ausbildung festgestellt. Die
Bayerische Akademie schlug daher vor, daß der nunmehr 29jährige sich
durch Studien an einer anerkannten Universität vervollkommnen solle.
Bopp ging darauf ein und bat am 19. Oktober 1820 den König um Erlaub
nis, ein halbes Jahr zum Behufe seiner ferneren Ausbildung in Göttingen
zubringen zu dürfen. An der Georgia Augusta wurde Bopp jedoch mit
Ehren empfangen; man verlieh ihm für seine bisherigen wissenschaftlichen
Arbeiten den Ehrendoktor. Wohl auf Vorschlag Humboldts wandte sich
Bopp im Sommer 1821 nach Berlin; zuvor hatte er eine Selbstanzeige seines
„Analytical Comparison" verfaßt, die in den „Göttingischen Gelehrten
Anzeigen" (1821, S. 529—543) erschien*).
Schon am 4. September 1821 wurde Bopp, durch Vermittlung von
Alexander und Wilhelm von Humboldt, eine außerordentliche Professur
„für das Fach der orientalischen Literatur und der allgemeinen Sprach
kunde" an der Universität Berlin angeboten, die er annahm, nachdem er
sich hierzu von seinem König die Erlaubnis eingeholt hatte. Hiermit war
über Bopps akademische Laufbahn entschieden; im Jahr darauf wurde
Bopp Mitglied der Berliner Akademie und bald darauf auch Ordinarius.
Ab 1824 erschienen in den Abhandlungen der historisch-philologischen
Klasse der Akademie in regelmäßiger Abfolge die Vorarbeiten zu seiner
„Vergleichenden Grammatik" unter dem Haupttitel „Vergleichende Zer
gliederung des Sanskrit und der mit ihm verwandten Sprachen" (5 Teile,
1824—1831). Hierin wurden u. a. die Wurzeln, Präpositionen, Demonstra-
*) 1827 erschien eine, von einem Hildesheimer Gelehrten namens D r . . . . P A C H T (der Vor
name des Autors war nicht zu ermitteln) angefertigte Übersetzung dieser Schrift unter
dem Titel „Analytische Vergleichung des Sanskrit, des Griechischen, Lateinischen und
der germanischen Dialekte, welche die ursprüngliche Übereinstimmung ihres gramma
tischen Baues beweiset". In: Seebode, G.: Neues Archiv für Philologie und Pädagogik,
Bd. 2, H. 3, S. 51—80 und H. 4, S. 1—30.
tivpronomina, Konjunktionen und andere Aspekte der indo-europäischen

Grammatik analysiert. 1833 wurde dann der erste Teil seines Hauptwerks
„Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend [ = Avestisch], Griechischen,
Lateinischen, Lithauischen und Deutschen" vorgelegt. Zu Beginn der Vor
rede (S. III) formulierte Bopp sein Anliegen in der für ihn typischen Auf
fassung der Sprachforschung als einer den Naturwissenschaften ähnlichen
Disziplin:
Ich beabsichtige in diesem Buche eine vergleichende, alles Verwandte zu
sammenfassende Beschreibung des Organismus der au] dem Titel genann
ten Sprachen, eine Erforschung ihrer physischen und mechanischen Gesetze
und des Ursprungs der die grammatischen Verhältnisse bezeichnenden
Formen.
Weiterhin sprach Bopp in demselben Vorwort von systematischer
Sprach-Vergleichung und Sprach-Anatomie (S. VI), vom Organismus und
Mechanismus (S. VIII) und von einer Physik oder Physiologie der Sprache
(S. XIV). Unter physischen Gesetzen verstand er, was man später „Laut
gesetze" nannte; mit mechanischen Gesetzen meinte er seine merkwürdige
Theorie vom relativen Gewicht der Silben und Vokale.
Die nächsten zwanzig Jahre seines Lebens verbrachte Bopp mit der
Vervollständigung seiner „Vergleichenden Grammatik" (6. Abteilung, 1852),
von der ab 1845 eine englische Übersetzung zu erscheinen begann, ange
fertigt von Edward Backhouse Eastwick (1814—1883) unter der Leitung
des Oxforder Professors für Sanskrit, Horace Hayman Wilson (1786—
1860). Während das Original nur zwei weitere Auflagen erfuhr (eine
,gänzlich umgearbeitete', 1856—1861, und eine posthume, 1868), erschienen
von der Comparative Grammar insgesamt 4 Auflagen (2. Auflage 1856;
3. Aufl. 1862 und 4. Aufl. 1885); seit 1866 erschien die auf der 2. Auflage
basierende französische Übersetzung, die sein einstiger Schüler Michel Bréal
(1832—1915) übernommen hatte, unter dem Titel Grammaire comparée
des langues indo-européennes (Paris, 1866—1874; 3. Aufl., 5 Bde., 1884—
1889). Daneben arbeitete Bopp weiterhin an seiner Kritischen Grammatik
der Sanskrita-Sprache (Berlin 1834; 2. Aufl. 1845; 3. Aufl. 1863; 4. Aufl.
1868) und an verschiedenen anderen Fragen. So fügte er 1838 das Kelti
sche zur indo-europäischen Sprachfamilie und identifizierte in einer ande
ren Akademie-Schrift (1854) das Albanische erstmalig als einen Zweig
desselben Sprachkreises. Nur zweimal ging Bopp in seinen Forschungen in
die Irre, nämlich als er (1840) die malayisch-polynesischen Sprachen (unter
dem Einflusse Humboldts?) und (1846) das Georgische zu den indo-euro
päischen Sprachen zählen wollte, ein Mißgriff, der beim Stand der Wissen
schaft, die erst durch August Schleicher (1821—1868) um 1860 kodifiziert
wurde, nicht verwunderlich sein dürfte.
FRANZ  297
Bopp hat die 50. Wiederkehr der Veröffentlichung seines „Conjuga-

tionssystems" noch erleben dürfen, anläßlich welcher die Bopp-Stiftung
zur Förderung sprachwissenschaftlicher Studien geschaffen wurde. Er starb
am 23. Oktober 1867 in Berlin, das er seit seiner Berufung — 46 Jahre zu
vor — nicht mehr verlassen hatte. 1891, anläßlich des 100. Geburtstages
von Bopp, wurde die Zeitschrift „Indogermanische Forschungen" von Karl
Brugmann (1849—1919) und Wilhelm Streitberg (1865—1925) gegründet;
im gleichen Jahr erschien der erste Band von Salomon Lefmanns (1831—
1912) Biographie „Franz Bopp: Sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft" (Ber
lin, 1891—1895; Nachtrag 1897). Bopp hat zwar nicht selbständig die
Sprachwissenschaft begründet — diesen Titel muß er sich mit anderen
Sprachforschern seiner Generation, vor allem Jacob Grimm (1785—1863),
Rasmus Kristian Rask (1787—1832) und selbst Wilhelm von Humboldt
(1767—1835), teilen —, aber es kann gesagt werden, daß er deren vor
nehmlich historisch und philosophisch ausgerichteten Arbeiten eine stark
komparatistisch-taxonomische Komponente beifügte. Vor allem seine San
skrit-Grammatik wurde noch vom jungen Saussure und vom Dänen Karl
Verner mit großem Nutzen konsultiert, als deren Entdeckungen zu Beginn
des letzten Vierteljahrhunderts zur weiteren Vertiefung der Einsichten in
die Natur des Sprachwandels verhalfen.
Mit der Erneuerung des Interesses an der Wissenschaftsgeschichte wäh
rend der letzten 15 Jahre setzte auch eine erneute Beschäftigung mit Leben
und Werk Franz Bopps ein. Anläßlich der 150. Wiederkehr der Veröffent
lichung von Bopps „Conjugationssystem" erschienen mehrere Würdigun
gen; unter ihnen wäre Günter Neumanns Schrift „Indogermanische Sprach
wissenschaft 1816 und 1966" (Innsbruck 1967), vor allem der Bopp ge
widmete erste Teil, besonders hervorzuheben. 1972 erschien in Leipzig unter
dem Titel „Kleine Schriften zur Vergleichenden Grammatik" eine Samm-
lung von Bopps Akademie-Schriften der Jahre 1824—1854. 1974 wurde
Bopps „Analytical Comparison" (1820), zusammen mit Joseph Daniel
Guigniauts (1794—1876) „Notice historique sur la vie et les travaux de
M.François Bopp" (1869) und einem 1889 erstmalig von Friedrich Tech-
mer (1843—1891) veröffentlichten Brief Humboldts an Bopp, in dem er
ausführlich auf dieses Werk eingeht (und dabei zugleich einen Einblick in
seine eigenen Sprachkenntnisse gewährt), in Amsterdam neu herausgegeben.
1978 erschien in den „Indogermanischen Forschungen" (Bd. 82, S. 39—49)
ein Aufsatz, der sich mit der kritischen Haltung Bopps gegenüber den
alten indischen Grammatikern auseinandersetzt.
FRANZ BOPP 299
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Works by Franz Bopp

1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der
griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Nebst Episoden
des Ramajan und Mahabharat in genauen metrischen Uebersetzungen aus dem
Originaltexte und einigen Abschnitten aus den Veda's. Herausgegeben und mit
Vorerinnerungen begleitet von Dr. K[arl] J[oseph] Windischmann. Frankfurt am
Main: Andreäische Buchhandlung, xxxxvi, 312 pp. in-16 . (Repr., Hildesheim:
Georg Olms, 1975.)
1819. Nalus, carmen Sanscritum e Mahâbhârato; edidit, latine vertit et adnotationibus
illustravit. London: Treuttel & Würtz. (2nd rev. ed., Berlin: F. Nikolai, 1832; 3rd
rev. ed., 1868, xv, 286 pp.)
1820. "Analytical Comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Teutonic Languages,
shewing the original identity of their grammatical structure". Annals of Oriental
Literature (London) 1.1-64. (Repr. in 1974 - see below.)
1824. "Vergleichende Zergliederung der Sanskrita-Sprache und der mit ihm verwand
ten Sprachen. Erste Abhandlung: Von den Wurzeln und Pronomen erster und zweiter
Person". Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin;
Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1825.117-148. (Repr. in Bopp l972.1-32.)
1825. "Vergleichende Zergliederung [...] Zweite Abhandlung: Über das Reflexiv".
Ibid. 1826.191-200.
1826. "Vergleichende Zergliederung [...]. Dritte Abhandlung: Über das Demon
strativpronomen und den Ursprung der Casuszeichen". Ibid. 1827.65-102.
1827. Ausführliches Lehrgebäude der Sanskrita-Sprache. 2nd enl. ed. Berlin: F.
Dümmler, 360 pp. (First ed., 1824, 232 pp.)
1830. "Vergleichende Zergliederung [...]. Vierte Abhandlung: Über einige Demon
strativ-Stämme und ihren Zusammenhang mit verschiedenen Präpositionen und
Conjunktionen". Abhandlungen der Königlich[-Preussisch]en Akademie der Wissen
schaften; Phil.-hist. Klasse 1830.27-47. Berlin.
1831. "Vergleichende Zergliederung [...]. Fünfte Abhandlung: Ueber den Einfluss der
Pronomina auf die Wortbildung". Ibid. 1832.1-28. (Repr. in Bopp 1972.103-130.)
1833-52. Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Send, [Armenischen], Griechischen,
Lateinischen, Litthauischen, [Altslawischen], Gothischen und Deutschen. 6
Abtheilungen. Berlin: F. Dümmler, xviii, 1511 pp. (2nd rev. and enl. ed., 3 vols.,
1857-61, with an index vol. comp. by Carl Arend, ibid., 1863; 3rd ed., 1868-71;
repr., Bonn: F. Dümmler, 1971.)
* As far as I know there is no full bibliography of Bopp's writings available to the present day;
Guigniaut's "Liste des ouvrages" of 1877 (reprinted in Bopp 1974.xxxvi-xxxvii) appears to be the
fullest account to date. Unfortunately, Guigniaut translated all titles into French, thus making it
difficult to establish the original references. The present bibliography makes a modest attempt to
remedy the situation.
1834. Kritische Grammatik der Sanskrita-Sprache in kürzerer Fasssung. Berlin:

Nicolai, xii, 380 pp. (3rd rev. ed., 1863, xv, 475 pp.; 4th ed., 1868, xv, 479 pp.)
1836. Vocalismus, oder sprachvergleichende Kritiken über J. Grimm's Deutsche
Grammatik und Graff s Althochdeutschen Sprachschatz, mit Begründung einer neuen
Theorie des Ablauts. Ibid., x, 253 pp.
1838. "Die celtischen Sprachen in ihrem Verhältnisse zum Sanskrit, Zend, Grie
chischen, Lateinischen, Littauischen und Slawischen". Abhandlungen der Königlich-
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Philologische und historische Classe
1839.187-272. (Also separately, Berlin: F. Dümmler, 1839, 88 pp. in-4 .)
1840. "Über die Verwandtschaft der malayisch-polynesischen Sprachen mit den
indisch-europäischen". Ibid. 1842.171-246. (Separate publication, Berlin: F. Düm
mler, 1841, 164pp.; repr. in Bopp 1972.235-310.)
1840. "Über die Übereinstimmung der Pronomina der malayisch-poiynesischen und
indisch-europäischen Sprachen". Ibid., 247-332.
1847[1842]. Die kaukasischen Glieder des indoeuropäischen Stammes. Berlin: F.
Dümmler, 1847, 83 pp. ["Gelesen in der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften
am 11. December 1842."]
1845-53. A Comparative Grammar [...]. Transl from the German principally by
Lieut[enant Edward Backhouse] Eastwick [(1814-1883)], and conducted through the
press by H[] H[ayman] Wilson [(1786-1860)]. 3 vols. London: Madden &
Malcolm. (2nd ed., London & Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1856; 3rd ed., 1862;
4th ed., 1885. - Repr. of first ed., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1985.)
1846. "Über das Georgische in sprachverwandtschaftlicher Beziehung". Abhandlungen
der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften', Phil.-hist. Klasse 1848.259-339.
1847. Glossarium Sanscritum, in quo omnes radices et vocabula usitatissima
explicantur et cum vocabulis graecis, latinis, germanicis, lithuanicis, slavicis, celticis
comparantur. 2nd ed. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmler (Grube & Harrwitz), viii, 412 pp. (3rd
ed., with a glossary and indices, 1867, viii, 492 pp.)
1853. Über die Sprache der alten Preußen in ihren verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen.
Berlin: F. Dümmler, 55 pp.
1854. Vergleichendes Accentuationssystem, nebst einer gedrängten Darstellung der
grammatischen Übereinstimmungen des Sanskrit und Griechischen. Ibid., vii, 304
pp.
1854. "Über das Albanesische in seinen verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen". Abhand
lungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1854-55. (Separate publi
cation, Berlin: J. A. Stargardt, 1855, 92 pp.)
1866-72. Grammaire comparée des langues indo-européennes. Traduite sur la 2e
édition et précédée d'une introduction par M. Michel Bréal. 4 vols. Paris: Impr.
Nationale. (Registre détaillé, prepared by Francis Meunier on the basis of Carl
Arend's index vol. of 1863, ibid., 1874; 2nd ed., 5 vols., 1875-78; 3rd ed., 1884-
1889.)
1967. "On the Conjugational System of the Sanskrit Language". English transl. of
extracts from Bopp (1816:3-11, 12-13, 61-62, 88-89, 116-117) in A Reader in
Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics ed. and transl. by Winfred
P. Lehmann, 40-45 (introd. by ed., 38-40).Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ.
Press.
1972. Kleine Schriften zur vergleichendenden Sprachwissenschaft: Gesammelte Ber
liner Abhandlungen 1824-1854. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR.
1973a. "Sur les verbes en général". French transl. of passages from Bopp (1816:3-11)
in Genèse de la pensée linguistique ed. by André Jacob, 103-106. Paris: Armand
Colin.
FRANZ BOPP 301
Comparison by Friedrich Techmer, and a letter to Bopp by Wilhelm von Humboldt,

with a preface and an index of authors, by E.F.K. Koerner. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 1974, xxxviii, 68 pp. in small-4 . (2nd printing, with corrections and a
new foreword, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1989.) [Reissue of Bopp
(1820) on the basis of F. Techmer's ed. in Internationale Zeitschrift für Allgemeine
Sprachwissenschaft 4.3-66 (1889).]
1985. A Comparative Grammar. 3 vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. [See entry 1845-53
(above), for details.
1988. "Du système de la conjugaison de la language sanscrite, [...]". Extract from
Bopp (1816:3-8) in Anthologie de la linguistique allemande au XIXe siècle ed. by
Brigitte Nerlich, 59-62. Münster: Nodus Publikationen. [Cf. 1973a above.]
. Secondary Sources
Amsterdamska, Olga. 1987. Schools of Thought: The development of linguistics from
Bopp to Saussure. Dordrecht-Boston-Lancaster-Tokyo: D. Reidel.
Desnickaja, A(gnija) V(asil'evna). 1969. "Franz Bopp und die moderne Sprach
wissenschaft". Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität Berlin; Ge
sellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 18.305-307.
Hamilton, Alexander. 1820. Review of Bopp (1816) and (1819). Edinburgh Review
No.66, art.7, 431-442.
Hiersche, Rolf. 1985. "Zu Etymologie und Sprachvergleichung vor Bopp".
Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen: Festschrift für Johann Knobloch ed. by
Hermann M. Ölberg et al., 157-165. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft,
Univ. Innsbruck.
Lefmann, Salomon. 1891-95. Franz Bopp, sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft. Mit
dem Bildnis Franz Bopps und einem Anhang: Aus Briefen und anderen Schriften.
Parts I-. Berlin: Georg Reimer.
---------. 1897. Franz Bopp, [...]. Nachtrag. Mit einer Einleitung und einem
vollständigem Register. Ibid.
Leskien, August. 1876. "Bopp, Franz". Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 3.140-149.
Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. (Repr. in Portraits of Linguists ed. by Thomas A.
Sebeok, vol.1, 207-221. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1966.)
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1987. "'Organic' and 'Organism' in Franz Bopp". Biological
Metaphor and Ciadistic Classification: An interdisciplinary perspective ed. by Henry
M. Hoenigswald & Linda F. Wiener, 81-107. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania
Press.
Neumann, Günter. 1967. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft 1816 und 1966: Zwei
Gastvorträge, gehalten am 28. und 29. April 1966. Part I: Franz Bopp - 1816.
Innsbruck: Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut der Leopold-Franzens-Universität.
Orlandi, Tito. 1962. "La metodología di Franz Bopp e la linguistica precedente".
Rendiconti dellTstituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere; Classe di lettere e scienze
morali e storiche 96.529-549.
Pätsch, Gertrud. 1960. "Franz Bopp und die historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissen
schaft". Forschen und Wirken: Festschrift zur 150-Jahr-Feier der Humboldt-
Universität zu Berlin 1810-1960, vol.I, 211-228. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der
Wissenschaften.
Paustian, Paul Roben. 1978 [for 1977]. "Bopp and the Nineteenth-Century Distrust of
the Indian Grammatical Tradition". Indogermanische Forschungen 82.39-49.
Rocher, Rosane. 1968. Alexander Hamilton (1762-1824): A chapter in the early history
of Sanskrit philology. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
Schlerath, Bernfried. 1986. "Eine frühe Kontroverse um die Natur des Ablauts". O-o-
pe-ro-si: Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag ed. by Annemarie Etter, 3-
18. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter.
Sternemann, Reinhard. 1984a. "Franz Bopps Beitrag zur Entwicklung der verglei
chenden Sprachwissenschaft". Zeitschrift für Germanistik 5.144-158.
--------. 1984b. Franz Bopp und die vergleichende indoeuropäische Sprachwis
senschaft. (= Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft', Vorträge und Kleinere
Schriften, 33.) Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Univ. Innsbruck.
Timpanaro, Sebastiano. 1973. "Il contrasto tra i fratelli Schlegel e Franz Bopp sulla
struttura e la genesi delie lingue indoeuropee". Critica Storica 10.1-38.
Verburg, P[ieter] A[drianus]. 1950."The Background to the Linguistic Conceptions of
Bopp". Lingua 2.438-468. (Repr. in Portraits of Linguists ed. by Thomas A.
Sebeok, vol.1, 221-250. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1966.)
Wüst, Walther. 1955. "Bopp, Franz". Neue Deutsche Biographie 2.453-454. Berlin:
Duncker & Humblot.
JACOB GRIMM'S PLACE IN THE FOUNDATION OF
LINGUISTICS AS A SCIENCE*
1.0 Introductory Observations
The bicentenaries of the birth of Jacob Grimm (1785-1863) and of his brother
Wilhelm (1786-1859) have led to renewed attention to the work of these famous
scholars especially in German-speaking lands. This paper deals with the work of the
elder brother only, and is essentially limited to his philological and linguistic produc
tion. Those who exclusively associate Jacob Grimm with his particular formulation of
the Germanic and High German Lautverschiebungen, now known as 'Grimm's Law',1
may be surprised to note that his scholarship went far beyond the foundation of
Germanic historical linguistics. Such a view would be as limited as is the popular
association of his name with the Kinder- und Hausmärchen, the Grimm's Fairy Tales,
among lay people. On the contrary, apart from establishing the field of Germanistik,
Jacob Grimm laid the groundworks of such fields as Volkskunde, which goes far
beyond 'folklore' and includes legal traditions of a people, the historical study of the
lexicon of a given language, plus a variety of other linguistic and literary interests.
In most histories of linguistics (e.g., Ivić 1965:41; Leroy 1971:19; Robins 1979:
171-172) we find an impoverished picture of Jacob Grimm which essentially reduces
his accomplishments to the 'discovery' of 'Grimm's Law'. There are, however, a few
laudable exceptions (e.g., Jankowsky 1972:76-83; Amirova et al. 1980:249-253). The
situation was quite different in 19th-century annals of linguistic science (cf. Benfey
1869:427-470; Raumer 1870:378-452 and 495-539 passim), in which Jacob Grimm's
(and, to a lesser extent, Wilhelm Grimm's) œuvre is given ample treatment. At the
beginning of this century Vilhelm Thomsen (1842-1927) discussed Grimm's contribu
tion to linguistics at some length (Thomsen 1927[1902]:57-62). However, it appears
that his effort to view in an evenhanded way the relationship between Grimm's work
An earlier version of this chapter was first presented at The Brothers Grimm: An International
Bicentenary Symposium held at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on 10-12 April 1986.
Another version was published in Word 39:1.1-20 (April 1988).
1
For details on (the history of) this term, see note 3 below.
and that of Rasmus Kristian Rask (1787-1832) and the question of the influence of the
latter on the findings of the former, in particular with regard to the discovery of the
Germanic sound shifts, was not well received by Rask's and Thomsen's compatriot
Holger Pedersen (1867-1953). Pedersen, writing in 1916, went so far as to insist that
Grimm's Law should in fact be called 'Rask's Law' (Pedersen 1983 [1916]:59) — a
view echoed by Jespersen (1922:43) - thus leading, it would seem, not only to much
fruitless discussion about the priority of Rask over Grimm, but also to a narrowing of
focus which did neither Rask's nor Grimm's accomplishments any justice. (Cf., how
ever, the careful treatments of the relationship between Rask and Grimm by the Danish
scholars Sverdrup 1920 and, especially, Diderichsen 1976 [1960]:133-36.)
The present paper constitutes an attempt, albeit a modest one, to widen the scope of
the discussion, and to sketch the contribution made by Jacob Grimm to the study of
language and the establishment of linguistics as a science.
2.0 Jacob Grimm's Path to the Historical Study of the Germanic Languages
2.1 The early phase up to 1815
Luigi Lun, in a 1960 study of Germanic philology from the mid-18th century to the
mid-19th century, distinguished three phases in the linguistic work of Jacob Grimm:
the first covering the years between 1807 and 1819; the second bracketed by the
twenty-one years between the first edition of Part One of Grimm's Deutsche Gram
matik in 1819 and its third revision in 1840; and the concluding phase from there to the
end of his life in 1863 (Lun 1960:105-148). There is an attractive symmetry about this
periodization, and Gudrun Ginschel, in her masterly study on Der junge Jacob Grimm,
1805-1819 of 1967, appears to agree at least with regard to the first phase. However,
Ginschel (1967:362) also suggests that the year 1816 marks some-thing like a turning
point in Grimm's career as a linguist; moreover, as the preface to his Deutsche Gram
matik suggests (Grimm 1819:xxv), the first part of his magnum opus was completed
by the fall of 1818, a few months after he had received a copy of Rask's Undersögelse.
Indeed, I am in full agreement with Wilbur A. Benware, who regards the year 1816 as
a "major turning point in the history of linguistics" (Benware 1974a:22).
Usually, Franz Bopp's (1791-1867) Conjugationssystem is associated with the
1816 date and with the supposed beginning of linguistics as a science. But this is at
best true only if we consider comparative Indo-European linguistics in isolation and
ignore the important lead given to Bopp by Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829) in his
lieber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indicr of 1808. Schlegel's study goes far beyond
the fantastic etymologies of Johann Arnold Kanne (1773-1824) and others which the
young Jacob Grimm favoured in his early writings (see Ginschel 1967:326-334). The
year 1816 saw another publication in linguistics which is usually ignored in the
literature, especially in the historical accounts written by the Junggrammatiker (e.g.,
Delbrück 1882[1880]) and those following their lead (e.g., Jankowsky 1972, Benware
1974a, Amirova et al. 1980). I am referring to François Raynouard's (1761-1836)
JACOB GRIMM 305
Grammaire romane, ou Grammaire de la langue des troubadours, which appeared in

Paris as the first volume of a 6-volume account of the literature of the troubadours of
medieval France, and which constitutes in effect the first historical grammar of Pro
vençal (Raynouard 1816).
As we may gather from the preface to his Deutsche Grammatik, Grimm knew
Bopp's Conjugationssystem and Raynouard's Grammaire. Of the former Grimm said
(1819:xix) that its presentation of Sanskrit after a comparative study of the major
branches of Indo-European languages constituted a 'Schlußstein', the keystone, of the
entire edifice, and he recognized the latter as a historical grammar (p.xxxiii). However,
as will be clear in these prefatory remarks, Grimm was most singularly impressed by
the work of Rask (Grimm 1819: xviii-xix, xxiv-xxv, etc.), of whose work on Icelandic
(Rask 1811) he had written a detailed review several years earlier (Grimm 1812). As a
matter of fact — as Rudolf von Raumer (1815-1876) has suggested more than 100 years
ago (Raumer 1870:508-510) — it was probably Rask's Vejledning til det Islandske of
1811 which led Grimm to undertake his historical work of the Germanic languages,
whereas his much larger Undersögelse of 1818 led Grimm to recast entirely the first
part of the Deutsche Grammatik (Grimm 1822).
However, before this reworking was done, Grimm had made observations in
his own research of Old High German and Middle High German texts that led him to a
reconsideration of suggestions made by Rask in 1811, ideas which he had rejected in
his review (Grimm 1812). He rejected them as well in 1813, when Georg Friedrich
Benecke (1762-1844), his early collaborator (whose colleague at the University of
Göttingen he was to become many years later), published a paper on the same
phenomenon in Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm's journal, Altdeutsche Wälder (Benecke
1813; Grimm 1813). I am referring to the concept of 'umlaut' in Germanic.2
Preceding Grimm's discovery late in 1816 of what has become known in linguistic
nomenclature as the 'i-Umlaut', first reported in a letter to Benecke of November 19th
of that year (see Müller 1889:91; cf. Antonsen 1962, for details concerning the
relationship between Rask and Grimm), there was another event which scholars agree
was of considerable importance to his development as a linguist of Germanics with a
dedicatedly historical bent. It came in the form of a stinging review article by August
Wilhelm Schlegel (1767-1845) of volume I of Altdeutsche Wälder, appearing in 1815.
In his account, Schlegel was particularly critical of what he termed Grimm's
'babylonische Sprachverwirrung' in the etymologies he had proposed, summing up his
attack on Grimm's speculations by stating:
Darüber werden alle Kenner einverstanden werden, daß wer solche Etymologien ans
Licht bringt, noch in den ersten Grundsätzen der Sprachforschung ein Fremdling ist.
(Schlegel 1815:738; Raumer 1870:452)
2
Recently, Elmer H. Antonsen has suggested to call the umlaut phenomenon in Germanic 'Rask's
Law' in deference to his findings in Vejledning (Rask 1811:44-45 et passim). Cf. his review of N. E.
Collinge's The Laws of Indo-European (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1985) in Journal of
English and Germanic Philology 86:4.590-592 (1986), p.592.
However, Schlegel did not merely provide a much deserved criticism of Grimm's early
and misguided efforts; he also advised him that in order to do an adequate job, it was
necessary to acquire a thorough grounding in grammar, concluding with the following
desideratum, which, as we know, Grimm soon set out to fulfill:
Es wäre ein sehr erwünschtes Geschenk für alle Freunde unserer alten Dichter, wenn
ein gründlicher Gelehrter, wie Hr. Benecke, eine deutsche Sprachlehre des dreizehnten
Jahrhunderts liefern wollte. Man kann es nicht genug wiederholen, die Beschäfti
gung mit den alten einheimischen Schriften kann nur durch Auslegungskunst und
Kritik gedeihen; und wie sind diese möglich ohne grammatische Kenntniß? Die
Schwierigkeiten eines solchen Unternehmens sind freilich nicht gering, wegen der
regellosen Schreibung ungelehrter Abschreiber, wegen des Mangels an prosaischen
Schriften aus diesem Zeitraume, endlich wegen der Unzuverlässigkeit der bisherigen
Ausgaben. (Schlegel 1815:743; Raumer 1870:453)
Schlegel was well aware of the problems facing the scholar embarking on philological
research of medieval German literature, and he demonstrated on the next page of his
review article that he was well aware of existing work on Germanic languages. He
referred in particular to Lambert ten Kate's (1674-1731) study on Gothic and Dutch and
George Hickes' (1642-1712) two-volume Linguarum veterum septentrionalium thesau
rus grammatico-criticus et archaeologicus (see ten Kate 1710; Hickes 1701-1705). At
the same time Schlegel criticized the work of Adelung, who in his view had misinter
preted a large number of verbs as 'irregular' where in fact they are "nur kunstreicher
regelmässig" (Schlegel 1815:744; Raumer 1870:454).
In that year of the battle of Waterloo, which freed Europe from the Napoleonic
yoke and created much patriotic fervor in the German lands, it appears that the elder
Schlegel's constructive criticism motivated Jacob Grimm to seriously follow this advice
and to launch himself into the enormous task of textual and grammatical study of Old
High German and Middle High German as well as other Germanic languages and
dialects. Grimm's discovery of the effects of the /-umlaut in Middle High German
forms such as hant vs. hende, not vs. nöte, and the explanation that he now could
provide, led him to be more confident about the regularities of grammatical structure
and to a reappraisal of Rask's earlier observations. As Gunhild Ginschel (1967:332)
points out, A. W. Schlegel's criticism and his own discovery of umlaut gave Grimm
the impetus to produce the Deutsche (read: Germanische) Grammatik, whose first 500-
page volume was completed two years later. (That Grimm had studied and consulted
the work of his predecessors, including not only that of ten Kate's and Hicke's, but
also the grammars and dictionaires of Edward Lhuyd (1660-1709), Johan Ihre (1707-
1780), and others, is obvious from the preface and his extensive list of sources - cf.
Grimm [1819:xxiii-iv], and elsewhere.) In a word, we may say that the year 1816
marks a turning point in Grimm's scholarly Werdegang. Following the period of his
early tâtonnements as a literary critic, collector of folk tales, and editor of old German
texts, he now had found his true vocation, namely, that of a Sprachforscher in the
widest possible sense of the term.
JACOB GRIMM 307
2.2 The Aufbau period: Toward a Germanic grammar (1816-1837)
In his account of Grimm's life and work cited earlier, Luigi Lun (1960)
distinguished only three phases, with 1819 and 1840 marking the beginning of the
second and third respectively. While 1819 suggests itself from a point of view of a
Rezeptionsgeschichte, since it is the year that Part One of Grimm's Deutsche Gram
matik appeared, 1840 appears at first sight to be a rather arbitrary date. 1840 was how
ever the date of the third edition of this first part of Grimm's Grammar as well as the
date of the appearance of the first part of his Weisthümer, a collection of old legal
traditions and texts. It was also the year of Jacob (and his brother Wilhelm) Grimm's
call to the University of Berlin, the final station of his career. Yet I believe that the
periodization of Grimm's scholarly life can be made differently, somewhere between
the extremes marked by Wilhelm Scherer's (1865, 21885) almost exclusive focus on
the dates of Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, on the one hand, and the frequent tendency
on the part of scholars to rely heavily on external factors, such as dates of appointments
to positions in different places (cf. Denecke 1971:42), on the other.
Having put ahead by three years the beginning of the second phase of Grimm's
development as a linguist, one may be inclined to choose an earlier end of this period of
his scholarly growth. Indeed, 1837, the date of the publication of Part IV of his
Deutsche Grammatik, seems to offer itself in a particularly convenient way since
another historical event can be referred to, namely, his participation (together with his
brother Wilhelm) in a protest with five other professors of the University of Göttingen
against Ernst August, the new King of Hanover. Shortly after his succession to the
throne, the King had arbitrarily abrogated his predecessor's liberal constitution, thus
abolishing certain rights and freedoms that the citizens of Hanover previously enjoyed.
All seven professors lost their job, and Jacob Grimm with two others had to leave the
country. These circumstances terminated, as Neumann (1984:25) has recently pointed
out, Grimm's work on the Deutsche Grammatik, whose fifth part on the syntax of
complex sentences, though mentioned in his projects as late as 1857 (cf. Denecke
1971:91), was never carried out.
However, the Germanic Grammar (1819-37), and the publicity surrounding his
dismissal from the University of Göttingen, had established Grimm not only as the
foremost scholar of German and Germanic linguistics in his homeland and abroad, but
also as a defender of personal liberty and as a champion of democratic reform. In the
present paper, Grimm's political engagements need not be expatiated on; suffice it to
place him in a general historical and intellectual context.
The first volume of Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, which appeared in spring
1819, was well received by his friends and (future) colleagues. Benecke in Göttingen
in particular published an enthusiastic review (Benecke 1819), calling it a 'Meister
werk', and pointing to its author's ability to bring order into a complex subject in the
following terms (p.665):
Der Verfasser ist seines Gegenstandes vollkommen mächtig. Sicher und ruhig wie
er selbst fortschreitet, folgt ihm der Leser mit Leichtigkeit, freut sich des immer
heller werdenden Lichtes, und erblickt endlich, wo er vorher nur eine verworrene
Masse sah, eine Welt voll unbegreiflicher Ordnung.
Achim von Arnim, Joseph Görres, and even Jean Paul, whom Grimm had criticized a
year earlier for his views on German compound construction, expressed themselves in
enthusiastic terms (cf. Schoof 1963:366-369, for details). However, what was
particularly significant of Grimm's Grammar was its avowed historical approach, of
which Grimm was very conscious. As he outlined in the informative Vorrede, with the
dateline "Cassel den 29. September 1818", he recognized three lines of scientific
research: philosophical, critical, and historical (p.xi). By philosophical and critical he
meant works such as August Ferdinand Bernhardi's (1769-1820) Sprachlehre (1801-
1803), which followed logical principles, and Johann Gottlieb Radlof s (1775-1824)
writings (e.g., Radlof 18122a) as well as Johann Christoph Adelung's (1732-1806)
German grammar (1782) which adopt a prescriptive line. By historical he characterized
his own approach to the subject matter, which however does not exclude the
comparative one developed by Bopp and others. Grimm was at the same time
advocating an empiricist, inductive procedure inspired by comparative anatomy ~
echoing Friedrich Schlegel's famous statement in lieber die Sprache und Weisheit der
Indicr (see Schlegel 1808:28):
Wird man sparsamer und fester die Verhältnisse der einzelnen Sprachen ergründen
und stufenweise zu allgemeineren Vergleichungen fortschreiten; so ist zu erwarten,
daß bei der großen Menge unsem Forschungen offener Materialien einmal
Entdeckungen zu Stande gebracht werden können, neben denen an Sicherheit,
Neuheit und Reiz etwa nur die der vergleichenden Anatomie in der Naturgeschichte
stehen. (Grimm 1819:xii)
In referring to comparative anatomy as a model science, Grimm obviously follows F.

Schlegel's program (cf. Koerner 1980:215-216), but Grimm emphasizes the historical
approach more than anyone before him, even to the extent of asserting that "jedes Wort
hat seine Geschichte und lebt sein eigenes Leben" (p.xiv). Indeed, Grimm attacks his
contemporaries who believed that they could assume the role of law givers, on the
grounds that such an attitude would hinder the natural development of language. His
own 'historische Richtung' recognizes an inquiry into the 'inneren Bau' of language as
the most urgent task of the investigator (p.xvi), an affirmation which again harks back
to Friedrich Schlegel (1808:28 et passim) and to pronouncements made by Wilhelm
von Humboldt from 1812 onwards (cf. Schoof 1963:364, 367-368). That Grimm
regarded the first volume of his Deutsche Grammatik as the first such attempt at a
historical grammar (which in his view would soon be superseded by subsequent
works) is obvious from his remark (p.xvii):
2a
Indeed, Radlof had no qualms about entitling his book Gesetzgebung der deutschen Sprache, i.e.,
"Legislation of the German language"!
JACOB GRIMM 309
Von dem Gedanken, eine historische Grammatik der deutschen Sprache zu

unternehmen, sollte sie auch als erster Versuch von zukünftigen Schriften bald
übertroffen werden, bin ich lebhaft ergriffen worden.
As a matter of fact, this happened directly through Grimm's own efforts. The first
volume had dealt with morphology almost exclusively. However, at least in part, as a
result of a careful study of Rask's Undersögelse, which appeared in 1818 and of which
he had received a copy only shortly before completion of his own book (cf. Grimm
1819: xviii), Grimm felt that he had to supplant the 1819 volume, as he stated in the
second entirely rewritten version of Part One of his Deutsche Grammatik:
Es hat kein langes besinnen gekostet, den ersten aufschuß meiner grammatik mit
stumpf und stiel, wie man sagt, niederzumähen; ein zweites kraut, dichter und feiner,
ist schnell nachgewachsen, blüten und reifende früchte läßt es vielleicht hoffen.
(Grimm 1822:v)
As a matter of fact, the 'zweite Ausgabe' constitutes an entirely new book, almost
exclusively devoted to phonology ("Von den Buchstaben", pp. 1-595), an area which is
no doubt particularly suitable for historical research as sound changes are the most
obvious features of language evolution. Yet it was no longer the area of vocalism in
Germanic -- the causes and mechanisms of /-umlaut and similar changes having been
recognized even before the completion of the 1819 volume — but the realm of particular
series of consonants, which had received his special attention. I am of course referring
to the evolution of the obstruents in Germanic. It has long been established that
Grimm's discovery of the regularity of these changes owed much to Rask's findings,
first announced in his 1811 Vejledning, and especially his 1818 Undersögelse (cf.
Raumer's [1870:507ff., especially pp. 510-515] balanced treatment of this rather com
plex issue). However, Grimm not only provided a general framework which demon
strated the systematicity of the shift of these consonants which set them apart from the
rest of the Indo-European language family, but established another regular Lautver
schiebung, which he saw as forming an integral part of the former, namely, the shift of
the Germanic voiceless stops to corresponding affricates or (double) fricatives in the
High German dialects.
The details of what since 1837 has become to be known as 'das durch Jacob
Grimm gefundene Gesetz' (Raumer 1837:1) or, simply, 'Grimm's Law' (Winning
1838:36), to cite what appear to be the earliest references to this term,3 are well known
3
Denecke (1971:90) states: "Die Bezeichnung 'Das Grimmsche Gesetz'findeich zuerst 1837 bei R.
v. Raumer: Die Aspiration ... (...), S.l." But Raumer (1837:1) actually said: "Unter allen
Entdeckungen der vergleichenden Grammatik hat kaum eine so nachhaltige Folgen gehabt wie das durch
Jacob Grimm gefundene Gesetz der Lautverschiebung"; however, it may well be that this observation
led to the expression 'Grimms Gesetz'. Interestingly enough, the term 'Grimm's Law' appears in A
Manual of Comparative Philology by a little known British scholar, Rev. William Balfour Winning
(c.1800-1845), as early as 1838, as the heading of a section (pp.36-39) of his 291-page book, without
any indication that he was coining it, thus suggesting that it must have been used by others before that
date. Indeed, Grimm's former pupil John Mitchell Kemble (1807-1857) referred to the Lautver
schiebungen as 'this law' as early as 1832, and an anonymous reviewer of Grimm's Deutsche
Grammatik did the same in 1834 (cf. Beyer 1981:169-170, for details). Another early location of the
and detailed in every textbook of historical linguistics. Suffice it therefore to refer to

W. P. Lehmann's translation into English of the original text (Grimm 1822:584ff.;
Lehmann 1967:48-60), and Lehmann's introductory comment (46-48), whose first
sentences succinctly state the importance of Grimm's discovery:
If non-specialists know anything about historical linguistics, it is Grimm's Law.

The history of views on the consonant shift is virtually a history of linguistic
theory until 1875 [when Karl Verner discovered the reasons behind the third and last
series of so-called exceptions to Grimm's Law];... (Lehmann 1967:46).
Although Grimm (1822:590) conceded that the "lautverschiebung erfolgt in der masse,
thut sich aber im einzelnen niemahls rein ab", his findings contributed to the
establishment of the historical component of comparative philology in a manner no
other pre-1875 discovery did. In addition, it was the second edition of his Deutsche
Grammatik which established the importance of phonology in historical linguistics, an
area largely ignored by Bopp, but pursued vigorously by Bopp's pupil August
Friedrich Pott (1802-1887) in his Etymologische Forschungen (1833-36) and, a gen
eration later, by the most important mid-19th-century linguist, August Schleicher
(1821-1868), in his Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik (1861-62).
However the stressing of the importance of 'Grimm's Law' — which he estab
lished during November 1820 and 1 April 1821 (Streitberg 1963:103), especially as
found in the traditional accounts in the literature, tends to isolate it from Grimm's
general approach. It is therefore important to supply here at least one quotation, which
indicates the methodological soundness of Grimm's historical reasoning, at a time
when the field was not yet the established discipline that it became a generation later.
Thus Grimm gave the following clear indication of the way 'family relationship'
between languages is to be ascertained:
[...] es liegt bei der Wortforschung weniger an der gleichheit oder ähnlichkeit
allgemein-verwandter consonanten, als an der Wahrnehmung des historischen
Stufengangs, welcher sich nicht verrücken oder umdrehen läßt. Ein hochd. wort mit
p, das im goth. b, im lat. ƒ zeigt, ist in diesen drei sprachen urverwandt, jede
besitzt es unerborgt; fänden wir aber/ in einem hochd., b in einem goth.,p in
einem lat. wort, so wäre die Verwandtschaft widersinning, unerachtet abstract genau
dieselben buchstabenverhältnisse vorliegen. Das griech.  fordert ein goth. p, das
goth. t aber nicht ein griech.δ,sondern d, und so beruht durch all die identität auf
der äusseren Verschiedenheit (Grimm 1822:588)
In the preface to the first edition Grimm had already acknowledged his indebtedness to
Rask's Undersögelse concerning the "Verhältniß der europäischen Sprachen unter
einander" (Grimm 1819:xix), but, as we may gather from this citation (and many
term is Robert Gordon Latham's (1812-1888) The English Language of 1841, where the author refers
to the consonant shifts by saying that they are "currently called Grimm's Law" (p. 190). At any rate,
the popular view - still maintained by Ruhlen (1987:43) - that Max Müller (1823-1900) was at the
origin of the term can no longer be upheld.
JACOB GRIMM 311
others), Grimm went much further in formulating the principles of historical in
vestigation.
In 1826, while still a librarian in Kassel (a post he had held since 1813), the
third volume of Grimm's Grammatik appeared, in which he returned to morphology,
his chief interest. It effectively replaced the 1819 volume, extending its scope, and
formed Part II of the enterprise. The next two volumes of Deutsche Grammatik belong
to Grimm's years at the University of Göttingen (1830-1837), Part III (1831)
continuing the morphology of the Germanic languages, and Part IV dealing with the
syntax of the simple sentence (Grimm 1837). The third edition of Part I saw the light
of day in 1840, but it was devoted to the section "Von den Lauten" only, replacing the
term 'Buchstabe' used in the 1822 edition, but not adding anything of importance. By
then Grimm's interest had shifted to lexicographical and other work; the Deutsche
Grammatik remained incomplete.
However, in the meantime Grimm's Germanic Grammar had become the model
for Friedrich Diez' (1794-1876) voluminous Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen
(1836-44), and similar undertakings followed in Grimm's lifetime, such as Franz
Miklosich's (1813-1891) Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen (1852-
1874), though Franz Bopp's comparative work (Bopp 1833-52) played a significant
role in the establishment of the field as well, of course.
2.3 The Ausbau period: Toward a dictionary and a history of the German
language (1838-1848)
A few months after Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm's dismissal from their profes
sorships in Göttingen in 1837, the Berlin publisher Karl August Reimer (1804-1858),
together with Salomon Hirzel (1804-1877), owner of the Weidmannsche Buch
handlung, in an effort to find suitable employment for these two illustrious scholars,
proposed the compilation of a major dictionary of the German language. The project
was intended to supplant previous works in the field, and given the historical approach
Jacob Grimm had been advocating, and practicing, since 1816, it was clear that the
lexicographical undertaking was to include all words in the German language that had
existed since its earliest times, even if they had fallen into disuse in the meantime. The
organizational and logistical problems were tremendous, and only those who have read
Elisabeth Murray's biography of her grandfather's work on the Oxford English
Dictionary (Murray 1977) can have an idea of what might have been involved in such
an ambitious undertaking. (The history of the Deutsches Wörterbuch by the Grimm
brothers has been amply documented by Kirkness 1980.)
Let it suffice here to mention that the preparation of the German Dictionary took
over 15 years for the first volume to appear, despite numerous collaborators and
considerable efforts (J. & W. Grimm 1854); for details on Jacob Grimm's method
especially, compare Helmut Henne's (1985) paper. As a matter of fact, instead of
launching himself with full force into this new venture, Grimm had gone on to further
research into the history of High German and Middle High German language and
culture -- we may recall that the 'Wörter und Sachen' approach in linguistics, taken up
only much later, has its origin in this voluminous work (cf. Grimm 1848, "Vorrede",
p.vii; Benfey 1869:454). In 1840 Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm accepted calls to the
University of Berlin (where they both were to Uve out their lives), and in 1848, the year
of revolutionary turmoil in Europe - Jacob had been a parliamentary delegate for the
area of Witten/Ruhr since 1846; both he and his brother served as members of the
Vorparlament of the assembly meeting in the Paulskirche at Frankfurt on the Main —
Grimm's two-volume Geschichte der deutschen Sprache appeared, probably not by
accident (cf. Cherubim 1985:680).
This history of the German language 'from Luther to Goethe', however, was
not a study of the kind we would expect under this title, like Hermann Paul's Deutsche
Grammatik (1916-20) and those written in the later 19th century that were no doubt
inspired by Grimm's work. I am thinking especially of August Schleicher's Die
Deutsche Sprache (1860; 31874) and the much more influential work by Wilhelm
Scherer (1841-1886), who, next to Rudolf von Raumer (1815-1876), followed
Grimm's footsteps to a considerable extent. But Scherer's Zur Geschichte der
deutschen Sprache (1868; 21878) — whose title recalls Grimm's History, while at the
same time implying a much more modest undertaking - was, unlike Grimm's work,
confined to the linguistic side of the subject, and, as a result, had a considerable impact
on the next generation of scholars who, while not neglecting literature (at least where
Germanists like Paul, Eduard Sievers, Wilhelm Braune, and others were concerned),
took a much more positivistic approach to language than found among linguists before
Schleicher. In Geschichte der deutschen Sprache Grimm tried to explain the history of
a people through the history of the language, thereby ignoring the fact that cultural unity
is achieved more often than not by extra-linguistic factors, including economic and
political ones, and that language development may be a reflection of certain of these
influences while not determining them. Grimm himself recognized his History of the
German Language as being "durch und durch politisch" (1848: Widmung, p.iv), and it
is clear that he hoped to achieve a unification of the divided German-speaking lands
through the demonstration of what he termed "die innern glieder eines volks" (ibid.,
P-v).
Denecke (1971:96) has called Grimm's Geschichte 'ein Alterswerk', and we may
feel justified in using the 1848 date to mark the end of Grimm's Ausbau period.
Theodor Benfey (1809-1881), by contrast, devoting ample space to an analysis of the
work (pp.455-466), regarded Grimm's History as his "wunderbarstes und vollendetes
Werk" (1869:450), assigning it the 'bedeutendste Stelle' in Grimm's linguistic œuvre
(p.451). But Benfey's Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft had been completed before
he had been able to appreciate Scherer's 1868 book mentioned above (cf. the brief
references to it on pages 595 and 658), which helped usher in a new era in the
development of linguistic science.
Looking back on the development of linguistics, we may come to believe that it
was perhaps more the general approach to the subject matter than specific ideas in the 2-
volume Geschichte der deutschen Sprache itself that served as an impetus for later
JACOB GRIMM 313
histories of the German language (though we should not overlook its influence on
Friedrich Kluge's Deutsche Sprachgeschichte of 1920 for instance). Grimm character
ized his attitude towards linguistics in the following manner: "Sprachforschung der ich
anhänge [...] hat mich doch nie in der Weise befriedigen können, daß ich nicht immer
gern von den Wörtern zu den Sachen gelangt wäre" (1848:vii). The work of Hugo
Schuchardt (1842-1927), Rudolf Meringer (1859-1931), and others during the first
third of the 20th century shows the impact of Grimm's Wörter-und-Sachen approach,
which is still today followed by scholars such as J. Peter Maher (e.g., Maher 1977)
who have made significant contributions to etymology and historical semantics.
2.4 The closing years (1849-1863)
The last fifteen years of Grimm's life fall within the period between 1850 and
1875 which saw the next generation of historical-comparative linguists come to the
fore. This new trend was led by Schleicher (whom I have mentioned twice already)
and Georg Curtius (1820-1885). Both became the fathers of the Junggrammatiker
movement which dominated the field of Indo-European linguistics from the last quarter
of the 19th to the first decades of the 20th century. Schleicher emphasized the historical
approach advocated by Grimm and, with an underpinning taken from the evolutionary
sciences of the period, introduced the reconstructive method into historical-comparative
linguistics. Curtius, a classicist at heart, followed more the tradition established by
Bopp, with whom most 19th-century scholars — including Grimm - shared a philoso
phy of science inspired by the natural sciences, in particular comparative anatomy,
botany, and (pre-Darwinian) biology.4 We may refer to Bopp's observations about the
4
Denecke (1971:45) notes: "Noch nicht untersucht ist... sein [i.e., Jacob Grimm's] Verhältnis zu
den Naturwissenschaften seiner Zeit, das offensichtlich nicht ohne Einfluß auf sein Denken geblieben
ist". In this connection, we may refer to Grimm's 1851 paper "Über den Ursprung der Sprache", where
we find observations like the following:
Man hat das Sprachstudium vielfach und auch nicht ohne grund dem der natur-geschichte an die
seite gestellt; sie gleichen einander sogar in der art und weise ihres mangelhaften oder besseren
betriebs. Denn ins auge springt, dasz gerade wie jene Philologen der classischen Sprach
denkmäler um ihnen critische regeln für die emendation beschädigter oder verderbter texte
abzugewinnen erforschten, so auch die botaniker ihre wissenschaft ursprünglich darauf anlegten
in einzelnen kräutern heilsame kräfte zu entdecken, die anatomen in die leiber schnitten, um des
innern baus sicher zu werden ... (Grimm 1984[1851]:66).
And further (ibid.): "[D]ie Sprachwissenschaft, wie mich dünkt, hat auf demselben weg, dessen betreten
die pflanzen und thierzergliederung ihrem engeren standpunct entrückte, und zu einer vergleichenden
botanik und anatomie erhob, endlich eben so durchgreifende Umwälzung erfahren." That Grimm's
reference to the natural sciences is not a passing metaphor which had become popular among mid-
century linguists, notably Schleicher, may be gathered from Grimm's much earlier remarks, for
instance the quotation from the "Vorrede" to his Deutsche Grammatik of 1819 cited in section 2.2
above, or from Benecke's review of the recast version of volume one (Grimm 1822), where he spoke of
Grimm's work in the following terms, in effect comparing him later on (Benecke 1822:2007f.) to
Linné:
nature of language and of linguistics made on the occasion of his review of Part  of
Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik (Bopp 1827), as well as the statement he made in the
preface to his Vergleichende Grammatik (Bopp 1833), to illustrate this.5
In the concluding phase of his life Grimm was not idle, but, together with his
brother Wilhelm (who died in 1859) and a large number of collaborators, devoted much
of his dwindling energies to the Deutsches Wörterbuch, the first instalment of which
appeared in 1852, with the second volume being published in 1860. The third volume
— Jacob managed to get as far as 'frucht' -- appeared posthumously in 1864. Jacob
Grimm's involvement with the project has been well documented by Alan Kirkness
(1980; see also Denecke 1971:120-124, with bibliography, 124-129). The reader will
find detailed information in Helmut Henne (1985) on the differences between Jacob and
Wilhelm Grimm concerning the methods adopted and the procedures followed in the
organization of and in the selections for their Dictionary. Ulrich Wyss (1979:175-182)
had earlier suggested that the Wörterbuch is not a model to be followed by subsequent
dictionary makers as it reflects best what he calls Jacob Grimm's 'wilde Philologie'.
However, the Deutsches Wörterbuch was soon to become an object of national interest
that occupied several subsequent generations of lexicographers; its concluding volume
appeared in Berlin in January 1961.
It is obvious that Jacob Grimm remained busy during these closing years,
immersed in data collection, its arrangement and interpretation, which throughout his
life had been his forte. Whenever he talked about general linguistic issues — as Jacob
Grimm did in the "Vorrede" to volume I of the Deutsches Wörterbuch of 1854 and in
papers presented to the Prussian Academy in Berlin ~ we are safe in saying that his
attitude towards language and its study (as well as towards matters of literature,
folklore and other subjects) becomes quite clear, but that we find little of theoretical
Eine solche Darstellung läßt sich nicht geben ohne die sorgfältigste und genauste Untersuchung
der ersten und einfachsten Bestandtheile. Dieser Theil der Naturgeschichte « denn so haben wir
nun die Grammatik ansehen gelernt - hat seine Anatomie, seine Physiologie, seine chemische
Analyse, so gut wie die übrigen. (Benecke 1822:2002f.)
Compare the following Statements made by Bopp:
Die Sprachen sind nämlich als organische Naturkörper anzusehen, die nach bestimmten Gesetzen
sich bilden, ein inneres Lebensprincip in sich tragend sich entwickeln und nach und nach
absterben, indem sie, sich selber nicht mehr begreifend, die ursprünglich bedeutsamen, aber nach
und nach zu einer mehr äußerlichen Masse gewordenen Glieder oder Formen ablegen oder
verstümmeln und mißbrauchen, d.h. zu Zwecken verwenden, wozu sie ihrem Ursprunge nach
nicht geeignet waren. Eine Grammatik in höherm, wissenschaftlichem Sinne soll eine
Geschichte oder Naturbeschreibung der Sprache sein; sie soll [...] besonders aber naturhistorisch
die Gesetze verfolgen, nach welchen ihre Entwicklung [...] vor sich gegangen. (Bopp 1827:251 =
1836:1)
Ich beabsichtige in diesem Buche eine vergleichende Beschreibung des Organismus der auf dem
Titel gennanten Sprachen, eine Erforschung ihrer physischen und mechanischen Gesetze und des
Ursprungs der die grammatischen Verhältnisse bezeichnenden Formen. (Bopp 1833:iii)
JACOB GRIMM 315
import in his work.6 Grimm's general empiricism, the inductive method he employed,
and the range of his interests does not allow the rigour so evident for instance in the
work of Schleicher and his followers. Indeed, we find Grimm more in line with late
18th-century ideas, in particular with those largely associated with Johann Gottfried
Herder (1744-1803), to whose 1770 prize essay on the origin of language Grimm
returned in his 1851 Academy address, "Über den Ursprung der Sprache". No doubt
this paper is an Alterswerk, but it is remarkable that Grimm did not adopt the position
of the Schlegel brothers and the many language typologists that followed them.
According to these theorists languages developed in essentially three stages, with the
morphologically richest reflecting the original structure best -- not to mention the Indo-
European superiority claims that they frequently made during the 19th century (cf.
Grimm 1984[1851]:86-87). It is also interesting that, unlike Schleicher and most
scholars of the period, Grimm did not deplore the loss of morphological complexity in
languages. He did not see this as decline ('Verfall'), but believed rather that language
is shaped to respond to the requirements of its speakers and may develop differently at
different times (ibid., 93-98).
It is impossible to assess Grimm's scholarly accomplishments in one short chapter,

even if we restrict ourselves to his linguistic work which was just one among many of
the fields to which he made lasting contributions. Although we should not under
estimate the importance of the work of such scholars as Adelung, Vater, Bernhardi, and
others (to whom Grimm was indebted in many ways), it remains a fact that it was only
from the early 19th century onwards, and with Rask, Bopp, Grimm, and few others,
that linguistic studies were developed into a recognized and organized profession. If
reviews of the period are a guide (see Storost [1985:309-315], for details),7 by the late
1820s, the significance of Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik — whose first part on
6
Compare Grimm's often quoted remark in the "Vorrede" to the second edition of Deutsche
Grammatik, Part I:
Allgemeinen logischen begriffen bin ich in der grammatik feind; sie führen scheinbare strenge
und geschloßenheit der bestimmungen mit sich, hemmen aber die beobachtung, welche ich als
die seele der Sprachforschung betrachte. Wer nichts auf Wahrnehmungen hält, die mit ihrer
factischen gewisheit anfangs aller theorie spotten, wird dem unergründlichen Sprachgeiste nie
näher treten. (Grimm 1822:vi)
7
Storost (1985:309-310) is neither aware of Bopp's (1827) review of Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik,
nor does he know the identity of the author of the two (anonymous) reviews of two editions of volume
I of Grimm's magnum opus: Georg Friedrich Benecke (1819, 1822; cf. section 2.2 above and note 2),
from whose Beyträge zur Kenntnis der altdeutschen Sprache und Litteratur (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1810)
quotations are made elsewhere in the volume (Bahner & Neumann 1985:339) and who is frequently
mentioned in various other connections (cf. the index, p.387, for locations).
morphology appeared in 1826 -- had become widely recognized. The most insightful
review came from a Gymnasiallehrer by the name of G.C.A. Lisch (1801-1883), who
in a 42-page survey of grammars of German, completed in spring 1829, and published
in Johann Christian Jahn's (1797-1847) Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik in
the following year, compared Grimm's work with those of his com-petitors, notably
the fourth edition (1827) of J.C.A. Heyse's (1764-1829) influential Theoretisch
praktische Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, Friedrich Schmitthenner's (1796-1850)
Teutonia: Ausführliche Teutsche Sprachlehre nach neuer wissenschaftlicher Begrün
dung (Schmitthenner 1828), and Heinrich Bauer's (1773-1846) voluminous Vollstän
dige Grammatik der neuhochdeutschen Sprache (Bauer 1827-33; cf. Dörner & Meder
1987 for a recent appraisal of this work). Although Lisch criticizes Grimm's pre
occupation with the earlier periods of the Germanic languages to the neglect of their
more recent stages, especially where German is concerned, he argues in favour of the
historical approach Grimm had taken to his subject. Lisch (1830:55) furthermore
points out that older forms and uses allow us to understand the new ones and, more
importantly, when in doubt about present-day usage, the grammarian has to go back to
earlier texts, failing this he must engage in a 'historische Untersuchung' which
comprises "alle Zeiträume der Sprachbildung" (p.59). Thus for Lisch it is evident that
Grimm's work constitutes a turning point in the study of language, giving the
following assessment of Grimm's importance:
Es entstand eine Opposition [against traditional grammar of the type represented by
Adelung], die unter dem Schutze eines mächtigen politischen Zeitgeistes stark war.
Lange tappte natürlich auch diese im Halbdunkel, zufrieden, einen blinden Autori
tätsglauben abgeschüttelt zu haben, bis ein Werk erschien, welches alle anderen
Grammatiken zu Schande machte: Jacob Grimm's deutsche Grammatik. Dieses
Werk, unsterblich in dem ganzen Gebiet der Sprachforschung, steht da, wie eine
Säule, nach der allein alle Wege gemessen werden können (Lisch 1830:55).
In other words, Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik had become, at least in Lisch's view,
paradigmatic for any serious work in the field.
Grimm, being a pioneer of linguistic science, could easily be criticized from a
modern vantage point. We usually identify the first 'paradigm' in historical-compar
ative linguistics, which largely stood for linguistics tout court, with the work of
Schleicher in the mid-19th century (cf. Koerner 1982). However, as pointed out earlier
in this paper, Grimm made a number of significant contributions to linguistics. In
particular, his dedicated historical approach to the study of language added an important
ingredient to the basically descriptive comparative work of Bopp. The special attention
Grimm paid to phonology, especially in the 1822 edition of his Deutsche Grammatik,
in conjunction with his formulation of the Germanic consonant shifts, led to a better
understanding of language change and to the development of the principles of its
treatment. On the other hand, it must also be mentioned that Grimm's prestige during
the 19th century was so strong that, as Wilbur Benware (1974b) has shown, he put a
brake on the development of phonology as regards the reconstruction of the original
system of Indo-European vowels. (Grimm had advocated the view that the original
JACOB GRIMM 317
language contained but three basic vowels, a view overthrown successfully only during
the 1870s.)
Another offshoot of Grimm's work was in the area of linguistic terminology. His
attitude toward innovation in matters of nomenclature is spelt out in the preface to the
first volume of his Deutsche Grammatik, in which, among other things, he in effect
favours the retention of the traditional Latin-derived terminology (Grimm 1819: xxi),
partly because of convenience, and partly because it was widely understood and gen
erally well defined. Referring to a number of terms introduced successfully (by him,
one should say), Grimm characterized his attitude in the following terms (p.xxiii):
Bei dem, was ich stark oder schwach, Umlaut, Rückumlaut, Ablaut nenne, sind mir
die genommenen Ausdrücke gleichgültig und es kommt auf die Sache an, welche sie
zu bezeichnen haben, die ich aber ohne eigenthümliche Benennung unzähligemale
hätte umschreiben müssen. (Italics for spread print in the original.)
In a nutshell, terminological coinage serves economy in scientific discourse. In the

second edition of Part One of his Grammar, Grimm added three other terms to the
description of what are essentially phonetic concepts, namely, anlaut, inlaut and auslaut
(Grimm 1822:40). These terminological shortcuts have become stock in trade of at
least German-speaking scholars. We may add the term Brechung ("breaking"), a
phenomenon he was the first to describe. All the same, one may be inclined to adopt
Ludwig Denecke's general assessment of Grimm: "Er [...] war ein Entdecker, nicht ein
Erfinder" (Denecke 1971:45). However, it should be stressed that he was always care
ful to supply ample evidence for any discovery he made — a procedure one is tempted
to strongly remind a number of today's linguists to adopt:
Der grammatiker soll von jedem einzelnen fall rechenschaft geben können; durch
beifügung des belegs werden die unbelegbaren fälle für den leser und nacharbeiter
hervorgehoben. Bei weiterem fortschritt ergeben sich nun ganze strecken als
ausgemacht und es würde lästig seyn, sie noch einzeln beweisen zu wollen; das
schwere bleibt nur, die grenze des scheinbar sicheren von dem wirklich sicheren zu
treffen. (Grimm 1822:xv-xvi)
In the face of often high-flying theoretical claims a bit of respect for data appears a
desirable antidote, and maybe N. R. Wolf is right in saying that "[d]ie Theoriediskus
sion der letzten anderthalb Jahrzehnte hat es uns wahrscheinlich ermöglicht, das
Aktuelle im Ansatz Jacob Grimms besser zu erkennen" (Wolf 1985:550).8
8
For a recent appraisal of Grimm's conception of the temporal system of German, see now Lindgren
(1986).
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
A. Works by Jacob Grimm*
1812. Review of Rask (1811). Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (Halle), Nos.31-34 (5-8
Feb. 1812), cols. 241-248, 249-254, 257-264, and 265-270. [Repr. in Kleinere
Schriften 4 (1869), 65-73 and 7 (1884), 515-530.]
1813. "Nachtrag zu Benecke's Abhandlung über eine vorzüglich der älteren deutschen
Sprache eigenen Gebrauch des Umlautes". Altdeutsche Wälder (Kassel) 1.168-173.
1819. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol.I. Göttingen: Dieterich'sche Buchhandlung. [2nd
ed., 1822; 3rd ed., 1840.]
1822. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol.I, 2nd entirely recast ed. Ibid. [Phonology.]
1825. Review of Rasmus Rask, Frisisk Sproglære (Copenhagen: Beeken, 1825),
Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen (1825), Nos.9-12, 81-107. [Repr. in Kleinere
Schriften 4 (1869), 361-376.]
1826. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol.II. Göttingen: Dieterich'sche Buchhandlung.
1831. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol.III. Ibid. [Morphology, together with vol.IL]
1837. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol.IV. Ibid. [Syntax of the simple sentence.]
1846a. "Über die wechselseitigen beziehungen und die Verbindung von drei in Versam
mlung vertretenen wissenschaften". Verhandlungen der Germanisten zu Frankfurt am
Main am 24., 25. und 26. September 1846 (Frankfurt/Main, 1847), 11-18. [Repr. in
KleinereSchriften 7 (1884), 556-563.]
1846b. "Über den wert der ungenauen wissenschaften". Ibid., 58-62. [Repr. in
Kleinere Schriften 7 (1884), 563-566.]
1848. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. 2 vols. Leipzig: Weidmann. (2nd rev. ed.,
Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1853; 3rd ed., 1868; 4th ed., 1880 [repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms,
1970].)
1851. "Über den Ursprung der Sprache. Gelesen in der Academie am 9. Januar 1851".
(= Abhandlungen der Königlich [-Preussisch]en Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Berlin; Philologisch-historische Klasse, 1851, 32:2.) Berlin: F. Dümmler, 38 pp. in-
40. (2nd ed., 1852, 56 pp. in-8°; 5th ed., 1862.) [Repr. in Kleinere Schriften 1
(1864), 255-98, and in Reden in der Akademie (1984), 64-100. -- English transl. by
Raymond A. Wiley as On the Origin of Language (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984), pp.1-
27.]
1864-84. Kleinere Schriften. Ed. by Karl Müllenhoff [vols. 1-5 (1864-71)] and
Eduard Ippel [vols. 6-7 (1882-84)], 7 vols., Berlin: F. Dümmler. [Vol. 8:
Vorreden, Zeitgeschichtliches und Persönliches, ed. by E. Ippel (Berlin &
Gütersloh:  Bertelsmann, 1890). - Repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1965-1966.]
1870-98. Deutsche Grammatik. Ed. by Wilhelm Scherer, Gustav Roethe & Edward
Schröder. 4 vols. Berlin & Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann. [Repr., Hildesheim: G.
Olms, 1967.]
1961. Vorreden zum Deutschen Wörterbuch, Bd. I und II [1854 and 1860]. Mit einem
Vorwort von Wilhelm Schoof. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
1968. Vorreden zur Deutschen Grammatik von 1819 und 1822. Mit einem Vorwort
zum Neudruck von Hugo Steger. Ibid.
For a full bibliography of Grimm's writings, see Kleinere Schriften 5.482-502 (1871).
JACOB GRIMM 319
1984. Reden in der Akademie. Ausgewählt und herausgegeben von Werner Neumann
& Hartmut Schmidt. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. [A collection of 10 papers given by
Grimm in the Berlin Academy between 1847 and 1860.]
(Together with Wilhelm Grimm, eds.) 1813, 1815-16. Altdeutsche Wälder. Vol. 1,
Cassel: Thurneissen; vols. 2-3, Frankfurt/Main: Körner. [Repr., Darmstadt: Wissen
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966.]
(Together with Wilhelm Grimm et al., comps.) 1854-1960. Deutsches Wörterbuch.
16 vols. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. [Vol.1 (1854); vol. 2 (1860); vol. 3 (1864); continued
by Rudolf Hildebrandt, Karl Weigand, and many others.]
B. Secondary Sources
Adelung, Johann Christoph. 1782. Umständliches Lehrgebäude der Deutschen
Sprache, zur Erläuterung der deutschen Sprachlehre für Schulen. Leipzig: J. G. I.
Breitkopf. [Repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1971.]
Amirova, T[atiana] .,  [oris] A. Ol'xovikov & Ju[rij] V. Rozdestvenskij. 1980.
Abriß der Geschichte der Linguistik. Transl. into German by Barbara Meier. Leipzig:
Bibliographisches Institut.
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1962. "Rasmus Rask and Jacob Grimm: Their relationship in the
investigation of German vocalism". Scandinavian Studies 34.183-194.
Bahner, Werner & Werner Neumann, eds. 1985. Sprachwissenschaftliche Germa
nistik: Ihre Herausbildung und Begründung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Bauer, Heinrich. 1827-33. Vollständige Grammatik der neuhochdeutschen Sprache. 5
vols. Berlin: K. Reimer. (Repr., Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1967.) [Vol.I (1827); vol.II
(1828); vol.III (1830), etc.]
Benecke, Georg Friedrich. 1813. "Ueber einen vorzüglich der altern deutschen Sprache
eigenen Gebrauch des Umlautes". Altdeutsche Wälder (Kassel) 1.168-173.
--------. 1819. Review of Grimm (1819). Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 67. Stück
(26 April 1819), 665-672.
-------. 1822. Review of Grimm (1822). Ibid. 201. Stück (19 December 1822),
2001-2008.
Philologie in Deutschland [...]. München: J. G. Cotta. [Repr., New York: Johnson,
1965.]
Benware, Wilbur A. 1974a. The Study of Indo-European Vocalism in the 19th
Century; from the beginnings to Whitney and Scherer. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
[2nd printing, 1989.]
--------. 1974b. "Jacob Grimm's Vowel Triad: A brake on 19th-century Indo-Euro
pean research". General Linguistics 14.71-85.
Bernhardi, August Ferdinand. 1801-1803. Sprachlehre. 2 vols. Berlin: H. Frölich.
[Repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1973.]
Beyer, Arno. 1981. Deutsche Einflüsse auf die englische Sprachwissenschaft im 19.
Jahrhundert. Göppingen: W. Kümmerle.
Bopp, Franz. 1816. Ueber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Verglei-
chung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen
Sprache. Frankfurt/Main: Andreäische Buchhandlung. [Repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms,
1975.]
--------. 1827. Review of Grimm (1822-26). Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik

(Berlin) of 1827, cols. 251-256 (Feb.) and 725-759 (May). [Repr. in Bopp 1836.]
-------- 1833. Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Send, Armenischen, Grie
chischen, Littauischen, Altslawischen, Gothischen und Deutschen. Vol. I. Berlin:
F. Dümmler.
— 1836. Vocalismus, oder sprachvergleichende Kritiken über J. Grimm's
Deutsche Grammatik und Graffs Althochdeutschen Sprachschatz mit Begründung
einer neueren Theorie des Ablauts. Berlin: Nicolai.
Cherubim, Dieter. 1986 (for 1985). "Hat Jacob Grimm die historische Sprachwissen
schaft begründet?". Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunika
tionsforschung 38.672-685.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1882. Introduction to the Study of Language: A critical survey... .
Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. [New ed., with an introduction by E. F. K. Koerner,
Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1974; 2nd corrected printing, 1989.]
Denecke, Ludwig. 1971. Jacob Grimm und sein Bruder Wilhelm. Stuttgart: J. B.
Metzler.
Diderichsen, Paul. 1976[1960]. Rasmus Rask und die grammatische Tradition: Eine
Studie über den Wendepunkt in der Sprachgeschichte.Transl.into German by Moni
ka Wesemann. München: W. Fink.
Diez, Friedrich. 1836-44. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Bonn: E.
Weber. [5th ed., 1885.]
Dörner, Andreas & Gregor Meder. 1987. "Heinrich Bauers 'Vollständige Grammatik
der neuhochdeutschen Sprache' (1827-1833): Ein Konjunktivsystem in den
Revolutionswirren der Grammatiktheorie". HistoriographiaLinguistica14.305-339.
Ginschel, Gunhild. 1967. Der junge Jacob Grimm, 1805-1819. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag.
Henne, Helmut. 1985. '"Mein bruder ist in einigen dingen [...] abgewichen'. Wilhelm
Grimms Wörterbucharbeit". Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kom
munikationsforschung 38.533-543.
Heyse, Johann Christian August. 1827. Theoretisch-praktische Grammatik der
deutschen Sprache. Zunächst zum Gebrauch für Lehrer und zum Selbstunterricht. 4th
"sehr vermehrte und verbesserte" ed. Hanover: Hahn. (5th ed., prepared by K.W.L.
Heyse, 2 vols., ibid., 1838-49; repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1972.) [First ed.,
1814.]
Hickes, George. 1689. Institutiones grammaticae Anglo-Saxonicae et Moeso-Gothicae
[...]. Oxford: e theatro Sheldoniano.
Ihre, Johan. 1769. Glossarium Suiogothicum. Uppsala: Typis Edmannianis.
Ivić, Milka. 1965. Trends in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
Jankowsky, Kurt R. 1972. The Neo grammarians: A re-evaluation of their place in the
development of linguistic science. Ibid.
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: Mac-
millan. [Repr., New York: W. W. Norton, 1964.]
Kirkness, Alan. 1980. Geschichte des Deutschen Wörterbuchs, 1838-1863: Doku
mente zu den Lexikographen Grimm. Mit einem Beitrag von Ludwig Denecke.
Stuttgart: S. Hirzel.
Kluge, Friedrich. 1920. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte: Werden und Wachstum unserer
Muttersprache von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
Koerner, E. F. Konrad. 1980. "Pilot and Parasite Disciplines in the Development of
Linguistic Science". Folia Linguistica Historica 1.213-224. [Repr. as chap. 15 in
this volume.]
JACOB GRIMM 321
--------. 1982. "The Schleicherian Paradigm in Linguistics". General Linguistics

22.1-39. [Rev. and enlarged version as chap.20 in the present volume.]
Latham, Robert Gordon. 1841. The English Language. London: Taylor. [5th rev. and
enl. ed., London: Walton & Maberly, 1862.]
Lehmann, Winfred P., ed. & transl. 1967. A Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical-
Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ.
Press.
Leroy, Maurice. 1971. Les grands courants de la linguistique moderne. 2nd rev. ed.
Brussels: Ed. de l'Univ. de Bruxelles.
Lhuyd, Edward. 1707. Archœlogica Britannica; giving some additional account to what
has been hitherto publish 'd, of the languages, histories and customs of the original
inhabitants of Great Britain. Vol.1: Glossography. Oxford: Author.
Lindgren, Kaj B. 1986. "Grimm's grammatische Konzeption in heutiger Sicht", Zeit
schriftfür Germanistik 7:1.41-46.
Lisch, Georg Christian August. 1830. "Neuhochdeutsche Grammatik". (Johann
Christian Jahn's) Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik: Eine kritische Zeitschrift
3:1 (5. Jahrgang = vol. 14 of the entire series) 53-94. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Lun, Luigi. 1960. Da Herder a Jacob Grimm: Diorama di mezzo secolo di storia delia
filología germanica. Roma: E. De S antis.
Maher, J. Peter. 1977. Papers on Language Theory and History I: Creation and
tradition in language. Foreword by Raimo Anttila. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Miklosich, Franz. 1852-74. Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen. 4
vols. Wien: W. Braumüller. [2nd ed., 1876-83.]
Müller, Wilhelm, ed. 1889. Briefe der Brüder Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm an Georg
Friedrich Benecke aus den Jahren 1808-1829. Mit Anmerkungen herausgegeben
[...]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Murray, K. M. Elisabeth. 1977. Caught in the Web of Words: James A. H. Murray
and the Oxford English Dictionary. With a Preface by R. W. Burchfield. New
Haven & London: Yale Univ. Press. [2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1982.]
Neumann, Werner. 1984. "Zum geschichtlichen Hintergrund der ausgewählten Aka
demiereden Jacob Grimms". Jacob Grimm: Reden in der Akademie ausgewählt und
herausgegeben von W. Neumann & Hartmut Schmidt, 7-36. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag.
Paul, Hermann. 1916-20. Deutsche Grammatik. 5 vols. Halle/Saale: M. Niemeyer.
Pedersen, Holger. 1983 [1916]. A Glance at the History of Linguistics, with particular
regard to the historical study of phonology. Transl. from the Danish by Caroline C.
Henriksen; ed. with an Introduction by Konrad Koerner. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
J. Benjamins.
Pott, August Friedrich. 1833-36. Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der
Indo-Germanischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Lemgo: Meyer.
Radlof, Johann Gottlieb. 1812. Gesetzgebung der deutschen Sprache, mit Rücksicht
auf andere noch lebende und sich f ortbildenden Sprachen. Burghausen & München:
E. A. Fleischmann.
Rask, Rasmus Kristian. 1811. Vejledning til det Islandske eller gamle nordiske Sprog.
Copenhagen: Schubote.
--------. 1818. Undersögelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprin-
delse. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
--------.1825. Frisisk Sproglœre. Ibid.: Beeken.
Raumer, Rudolf von. 1837. Die Aspiration und die Lautverschiebung: Eine sprach
geschichtliche Untersuchung. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. [Repr., Hildesheim: Ger
stenberg, 1972.]
-------. 1870. Geschichte der germanischen Philologie. München: J. G. Cotta.
[Repr., New York: Johnson, 1965.]
Raynouard, François Juste Marie. 1816. Recherches sur l'origine et la formation de la
langue romane; Grammaire de la langue romane. (= Choix des poésies originales de
troubadours, 1.) Paris: F. Didot.
Robins, Robert H. 1979. A Short History of Linguistics. 2nd [corrected] ed. London:
Longman.
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1987. A Guide to the World's Languages. Vol. I: Classification.
Stanford, Calif.: Standord Univ. Press.
Scherer, Wilhelm. 1865. Jacob Grimm. Berlin: K. Reimer. [Sep. publication of essay
in Preußische Jahrbücher 14.632-680, 15.1-32, and 16.1-47, 99-139 (1864-65); 2nd
rev. ed. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1885), newly ed. by Sigrid von der Schulenburg in
1921 (Berlin: Dom-Verlag), with a "Nachwort" (336-346).]
--------. 1868. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Weidmann. (New ed.,
with an introduction by Kurt R.Jankowsky, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 1989.) [2nd rev. ed., 1878.]
Schlegel, August Wilhelm. 1815. Review article on Altdeutsche Wälder, vol. 1
(Cassel, 1813). Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur Nos. 46-48.721-66.
Schlegel, Friedrich. 1808. Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indicr. Heidelberg:
Mohr & Zimmer. [New ed., with an introduction by Sebastiano Timpanaro, Amster
dam: J. Benjamins, 1977.]
Schleicher, August. 1860. Die Deutsche Sprache. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta. [5th ed.,
1888.]
--------. 1861-62. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. Weimar: H. Böhlau. [4th ed., prepared by August Leskien & Johannes
Schmidt, 1876.]
Schmitthenner, Friedrich Jacob. 1828. Teutonia: Ausführliche Teutsche Sprachlehre
nach neuer wissenschaftlichen Begründung. Nach neuer wissenschaftlicher Begrün
dung als Handbuch für Gelehrte und Geschäftsreisende und als Commentar über
seine kleinern Lehrbücher. Frankfurt/M.: Herrmann. [Repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms,
1984.]
Schoof, Wilhelm. 1963. "Jacob Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik in zeitgenössischer
Beurteilung". Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 82.363-377.
Storost, Jürgen. 1985. "Zeitschriften und Rezensionen". Bahner & Neumann 1985.
282-328.
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1963. Urgermanische Grammatik. 3., unveränderte Auflage.
Heidelberg: C. Winter. [First ed., 1898.]
Sverdrup, Jakob. 1920. "Av Sprogvidenskabens Historie: Ihre — Rask - Grimm".
Nordisk Tidsskrift (Letterstedt) 1920.459-477.
ten Kate, Lambert. 1710. Gemeenschap tussen de gottische spraeke en de neder-
duytsche vertoont. Amsterdam: J. Rieuwertsz.
Thomsen, Vilhelm. 1927 [1902]. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bis zum Ausgang
des 19. Jahrhunderts. Transl. into German by Hans Pollak. Halle/Saale: M. Nie-
meyer. [Repr., Frankfurt & Bern: P. Lang, 1979.]
Winning, William Balfour. 1838. A Manual of Comparative Philology, in which the
affinity of the Indo-European languages is illustrated, and applied to the primeval
history of Europe, Italy, and Rome. London: J. G. & F. Rivington.
JACOB GRIMM 323
Wolf, Norbert Richard. 1985. "Jacob Grimm — ein prätheoretischer Grammatiker?".

Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 38.
544-550.
Wyss, Ulrich. 1979. Die wilde Philologie: Jacob Grimm und der Historismus. Mün
chen: H. C. Beck.
AUGUST SCHLEICHER AND LINGUISTIC SCIENCE IN
THE SECOND HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY*
0.0 Introduction
The 1970s have witnessed a considerable revival of interest in the work of August
Schleicher (1821-1868), who during his lifetime was widely regarded as the leader of
comparative-historical Indo-European research in Europe. Without a doubt he was a
very influential figure in general linguistic theory and philosophy of science too.
Schleicher was not only a close contemporary of the archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann
(1822-1892), the anatomist and physiologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), the
physicist and acoustician Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894), and the physiologist
and phonetician Ernst Brücke (1819-1892), but also of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and
Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), to mention distinguished figures in his homeland.
Unlike these contemporaries Schleicher lived only to be 47 and saw few of the fruits of
his important work.1 He was never granted a full professorship at the University of
Jena, where he had moved from the University of Prague in 1857, after he felt unable
to live and work as professor of comparative linguistics and of Sanskrit because of
constant harassment by the arch-conservative Austrian administration which regarded
the non-Catholic freethinker, distinguished in Slavic studies and a fluent speaker of
Czech, with suspicion.2 The first chair for Slavic Philology (which Schleicher had had
This chapter is a thoroughly revised, enlarged, and updated version of the introductory material
prepared for the 1983 reprint of August Schleicher's Die Sprachen Europas (Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins). Another, much shorter version appeared in General Linguistics 22.1-39 (1982).
1
Schleicher's contemporaries in linguistics, e.g., Georg Curtius (1820-1885), F. Max Müller
(1823-1900), Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899), and Ernest Renan (1823-1892), reached an average age
of 70.
2
Cf. Rudolf Fischer, "Erlebnisse August Schleichers in der Bach'schen Ära", Zeitschrift für
Slawistik 1.101-107 (1956) for details. See also the account by the Czech Alois Vaniček (1825-1883),
a confidant and pupil of Schleicher's, "Erinnerungen an [...] August Schleicher in Prag", written in
1869 (cf. note 27 below, for full reference).
high hopes of obtaining) was established at Leipzig only in 1870, with August Leskien,
probably the most promising of Schleicher's students, as its first incumbent.
The revival of interest in Schleicher seems to stem from several sources. The
structuralist conception of language, traditionally associated with the names of
Ferdinand de Saussure and J. Baudouin de Courtenay, which swept most European
and North American linguistic schools from the 1930s onwards, appears to have paved
the way for a fresh appreciation of Schleicher's contribution to a general theory of
language, in which his own work on Indo-European phonology and morphology was
but one province. This recently reprinted book of 1850 (as well as the preceding one,
in which he made something like a tour around the world in order to show that
processes of assimilation and related phenomena could be reckoned with in all
languages) shows that Schleicher was not merely interested in historical-comparative
work on Indo-European, with particular emphasis on the Balto-Slavic group of
languages, but, more importantly, in the establishment of a clear method of linguistic
research, both synchronic and diachronic. Compare the following observation made in
Schleicher's Die Sprachen Europas (p.37) with what we have learned from Saussure's
posthumous Cours de linguistique générale:
It is [...] in the nature of a s y s t e m a t i c survey to present only co-ordinating

matter, i.e., co-occurrence, not succession; for the difference between System and
History is that the latter has succession as its object, showing the subject matter in
a vertical cut, whereas system executes, as it were, the horizontal cross-section of
adjacent matter.3
Another reason for a reappraisal of Schleicher's work may lay in the recognition of the
biological foundations of language; see, for instance, the historical survey that Otto
Marx added to the late Eric Heinz Lenneberg's (1924-1975) book on this subject (Marx
1967) or Robert David Stevick's earlier plea for a closer collaboration between biology
and historical linguistics.4 That Schleicher's conception of language derived largely
3
My free translation of the original: "Es liegt... im Begriff einer systematischen Uebersicht, dass
sie nur Coordinirtes enthalte, das Nebeneinander nicht aber das Nacheinander darstelle; denn dies ist ja
eben der Unterschied des Systems von der Geschichte, dass letztere das Nacheinander zum Objekt hat,
gleichsam den Gegenstand im Längsdurchschnitt zeigt, während das System nur das nebeneinander
Liegende zu ordnen hat, gleichsam den Querdurchschnitt ausführt." (Italics for spread print in the
original.) One wonders if this might be an important source for Saussure's view that language history
does not reveal a system.
4
Robert D. Stevick, "The Biological Model and Historical Linguistics", Language 39.159-169
(1963). Interestingly enough, almost 100 years earlier, Abel Hovelacque (1843-1896), who collaborated
with the physiologist and neurologist Pierre Paul Broca (1824-1880) at the Paris School of Anthro
pology, founded by the latter in 1876, pointed to the importance of Schleicher's (1865a) suggestion
that the study of the evolution of the human brain should shed significant light on the development of
language in man; cf. his review of the French translation of Schleicher's 'Darwinistic' essays of 1863
and 1865 (see Schleicher 1868a) in Revue de Linguistique et de Philologie comparée 2.276-80 (1869).
Only 100 years later, an anatomist with a special interest in language, Joachim Hermann Scharf of the
Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina in Halle, rediscovered Schleicher and his idea; cf. note 52
below, for details.
AUGUST SCHLEICHER 327
from the natural sciences, from their methods of analysis and their terminological and
conceptual tools, has recently received recognition and support (albeit qualified) from
an unexpected quarter, namely, Geoffrey Sampson, a linguist who received much of
his training within the Chomskyan framework. In Sampson's book, Schools of
Linguistics, Schleicher's name figures prominently, 5 and although the author tends to
fall into the traditional trap of not distinguishing between evolutionism and Darwinism
and is not very familiar with the literature on and by Schleicher, he interestingly
concludes his survey of 20th-century linguistic schools with the following prediction
(pp.241, 242):
Schleicher went wrong, perhaps, by thinking in terms of a struggle for survival

between languages of different morphological characteristics rather than different
syntactic characteristics [...]6
Doubtless Schleicher was wrong, too, in assuming that if Darwinism was to be
applicable to linguistics then languages had to be seen as genetically-determined
living 'organisms' [...]
In general, though, Schleicher wasright;and I venture to predict [...] that as the
linguistics of the immediate past has been psychological linguistics, so the
linguistics of the near future will be biological linguistics.
One further reason for the revival of interest in Schleicher, though still a limited and
more recent development, derives from the concern of scholars such as Henry M.
Hoenigswald (1963, 1974) and J. Peter Maher (1966, 1983) to correct errors of
interpretation concerning the history of 19th-century linguistics, to dispel myths and
misrepresentation, and to replace these with an informed picture of earlier linguists and
their work. We tend to forget, it would seem, that the Neogrammarians and their
associates and successors had a vested interest in maintaining the view that their
findings eclipsed those of their immediate predecessors, notably Georg Curtius and
August Schleicher, something like what we have been witnessing in regard to the
relationship between the transformational school led by Noam Chomsky and the Neo-
Bloomfíeldians, viz. the depiction of the latter in recent 'histories' written by partisans
of the former school as 'uninteresting' taxonomists concerned with only 'surface
structure' (cf. this volume, chap.8, for details concerning the historiography of the so-
called 'Chomskyan Revolution'.)
The Neogrammarians were at pains to demonstrate that they owed little to their
teachers. They wanted to write off the work of Schleicher — and we should remember
that he had been dead for more than 10 years by the time that Delbrück and others went
about to write the history of their school -- as little more than the working-out of ideas
5
G. Sampson, Schools of Linguistics: Competition and evolution (London: Hutchinson, 1980),
pp.8-24, 26, 28, 33, 47, and elsewhere, including notes on pp. 144-45.
6
Sampson is no better than Schleicher here! What possible connection could there be between
morphological typology and survival of the fittest (à la Schleicher) or between ability to survive and,
as Sampson would have it, syntactic type? (Remember that Schleicher 1869 [1863]: 16 refers only to
the "extinction of ancient forms, [and] the widely-spread varieties of individual species in the field of
speech".)
and methods propounded by Franz Bopp (1791-1867), the acknowledged founder of

historical-comparative linguistics.7 Delbrück (1882:45-53), for example, presents this
view still widely-held of Schleicher as a mere (Kuhnian) mopper-upper rather than the
genuine codifier that he was.
A distorted picture of Schleicher prevails in the textbook tradition in large part
because of his untimely death, in 1868, which prevented him from defending himself
when, in the mid-1870s, the new generation came to the fore, determined to play down
their indebtedness to their teachers. In this connection, it is interesting to note that of
the three most prominent pupils of Schleicher at Prague and Jena, i.e., Jan Baudouin de
Courtenay (1845-1929), August Leskien (1840-1916), and Johannes Schmidt (1843-
1901), only the last-named went out of his way to defend his teacher and indeed on
several occasions had running battles with the Young Turks of Leipzig. Baudouin
tended to denigrate Schleicher, to whom he owed so much.8 Leskien, whom the
Junggrammatiker regarded as their elder statesman, kept aloof of the debate between the
old and the young and abstained, at least in public writing, from taking sides.
Nevertheless in 1869 Leskien, together with Hermann Ebel (1820-1875) and Johannes
Schmidt, edited Schleicher's Indogermanische Chrestomatie, and in 1870 and 1876, he
and Schmidt collaborated to see the third and fourth editions of Schleicher's
Compendium through the press. In 1871, Leskien also edited Schleicher's work on
Polabian, a Slavic language extinct since the 18th century (and of which, Baudouin de
Courtenay reports, Schleicher had become a fluent speaker).
The brunt of the attack on Schleicher in his home country, however, came from
those members of the junggrammatische Richtung who, like Brugmann and Osthoff,
were former students of Curtius. Other members of the group, such as Delbrück,
Hermann Paul (1846-1921), and Gustav Meyer (1850-1900), played their part too.
Furthermore, these young linguists received support from a scholar of the older
generation, who had made his reputation as a Sanskritist and general linguist, i.e,
William Dwight Whitney of Yale (1827-1894), who, soon after Schleicher's death,
began polemicizing against what he termed Schleicher's 'physical theory of language'
(Whitney 1873:298-331) and his 'Darwinism' (Whitney 1874). These attacks were
obviously meant to demolish Schleicher's reputation in comparative-historical Indo-
European phonology and morphology, a field to which Whitney had contributed next to
nothing. In this area, however, Schleicher's methodological principles proved particu
larly fruitful, irrespective of the philosophy of science that Whitney was attacking, and
it is evident today that the Neogrammarians in fact built on these principles.
7
Cf. for instance Ingeborg Slotty's Breslau dissertation, Zur Geschichte der Teleologie in der
Sprachwissenschaft (Bopp, Humboldt, Schleicher) (Würzburg: K. Triltsch, 1935), who goes so far as
to speak of a "Vater-Sohn Verhältnis von Bopp und Schleicher" (p.15) with regard to certain views of
these two linguists, though she later characterizes Schleicher as a transitional figure between the old
school and the Neogrammarians (30ff.).
8
Cf. my review of the Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology ed. by Edward Stankiewicz (Bloom-
ington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1972) in Language Sciences No.27 (Oct. 1973), 45-50.
Saussure's pitiless ridicule of Schleicher's theory of language, made on the

occasion of a request from the American Philological Association to appraise Whitney's
work shortly after his death in 1894, reflects the importance that the Neogrammarians
attached to Whitney's polemic in the heyday of their revolutionary fervor. In his
lectures on general linguistics, however, Saussure conceded that it was more important
to have a system than a medley of confused notions, deploring at the same time that
until then little had been done in general linguistic theory to replace Schleicher's frame
of reference (cf. Saussure 1968[1908]:8; see Sect. 1.2 below for relevant quotations).
Indeed, Schleicher had taken a position of restraint in linguistic theory, quite in
agreement with Saussure's opinion on the matter, when he stated in 1863: "Besser
wenig, aber mit Kritik und Methode, als viel, aber Bedenkliches und Zweifelhaftes"
(quoted after Dietze 1966:210).
Outside the cartel of opinion controlled by the Neogrammarians, Schleicher
continued to be held in high esteem for his accomplishments, notably in the area of
Baltic and Slavic philology. His Compendium was translated into Italian and English
but, curiously enough, not into French. This omission appears to have been due to
Michel Bréal's (1832-1915) ambivalent attitude toward Schleicher and his work. On the
one hand, he wrote a preface to the French translation of Schleicher's 'Darwinistic'
essays of 1863 and 1865 (Schleicher 1868a) and, on the other, he decided against
translating Schleicher's Compendium, opting for a translation of Bopp's Comparative
Grammar instead,9 although the advances made in the field had superseded Bopp's
findings (cf. Meillet's [1936:218] 'explanation' of this decision on Bréal's part). A
certain ambivalence can also be detected in the fact that Schleicher was awarded in 1867
only half of the Prix Volney for his Compendium, a decision in which Bréal appears to
have played a role.10
This decision on the part of the éminence grise of historical and general
linguistics in France during the last third of the 19th-century in effect retarded the
development of comparative-historical grammar by more than one generation, until
Saussure's former student in Paris, Antoine Meillet (1866-1936), distinguished himself
through a series of grammars of individual Indo-European languages and language
famiies as well as a very influential introduction to comparative grammar.11 There is
little to support Hans Aarsleff s recent claim that Bréal was something of an avant-
9
François Bopp, Grammaire comparée des langues indo-européennes, 4 vols. (Paris: Hachette,
1866-72); Bréal secured the Volney Prize in 1866 for this translation. Ten years before, Bréal had been
a student of Bopp's in Berlin. (Bréal's Introduction to vol.1 of Bopp's work makes curious reading when
we see him offering an explanation why he translated Bopp's, not Schleicher's much more recent work.)
10
Cf. Joachim Dietze, "Briefe August Schleichers an Reinhold Köhler", Zeitschrift für Slawistik
5.267-80 (1960), p.279.
11
Cf. Antoine Meillet, Introduction a l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes (Paris:
Hachette, 1903; 8th ed., prepared by Emile Benveniste, 1937), whose 2nd enl. ed. -- chap.9, "Sur le
développement des dialectes indo-européens" had been added - of 1907 was translated into German in
1909.
gardist in general linguistics,12 since, as Bréal's writings clearly show, despite his
fight against the use of biological metaphor in linguistics, evolutionist naturalist
concepts (e.g., 'laws') and imagery abound in his own work, in particular in his Essai
de sémantique (Paris: Hachette, 1897; 6th ed., 1913).13
Interestingly enough, there was a group of scholars in France that followed
Schleicher's lead. They founded in 1867, the year of Bopp's death, the "Revue de
Linguistique et de Philologie comparée", which ran through 48 volumes until 1916, the
year of the 100th anniversary of Bopp's Conjugationssystem as well as of the first
appearance of Saussure's Cours.14 This periodical successfully rivalled the
establishment journal, the "Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris", which
began appearing one year later, with a number of distinguished scholars as regular
contributors. With the Belgian Indo-Europeanist and gentleman-scholar Honoré
Joseph Chavée (1815-1877) serving as elder statesman, it was Abel Hovelacque (1843-
1896) who was the most active promoter of Schleicher's naturalistic views. Apart from
editing the "Revue de Linguistique" for some thirty years, Hovelacque further
developed, in his book La Linguistique (Paris:  Reinwald, 1876; 4th ed., 1888),
Schleicher's typology of language, increasing in his treatment considerably the number
of languages by including a considerable number of 'exotic' ones.15 The other regular
contributors to the journal included the anthropologist, mythologist and Indologist
Julien Girard de Rialle (1841-1904), the general linguists Lucien Adam (1833-1918)
and Albert Terrien de la Couperie (1845-1895), the Romanist Emile Picot (1844-1918),
the Bascologist Julien Vinson (1843- 1926), and a number of others.16
12
See Hans Aarsleff, From Locke to Saussure: Essays in the study of language and in intellec
tual history (Minneapolis, Minn.: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1982), pp.293-334 passim. That the
author can be blinkered by preconceived ideas has recently been aptly shown by Wulf Oesterreicher,
"Wem gehört Humboldt? Zum Einfluß der französischen Aufklärung auf die Sprachphilosophie der
deutschen Romantik", Logos Semioticos, vol.I, ed. by Jürgen Trabant (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1981),
117-35. Regarding the story of the rejection of the organism concept of language by French linguists
in the 19th century, Wells (1987:59) has recently noted that it had been "described, though in
unacceptable biased fashion, by Aarsleff (1982, pp.293-334)."
13
Cf. J. Peter Maher's Introduction to Linguistics and Evolutionary Theory: Essays by Schlei
cher, Haeckel, and Bleek (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1983), esp. pp.xix-xxi), for a
refutation of Aarsleff s claims about Bréal as anti-Schleicher. More recently, Rulon Wells, with
reference to Schleicher's alleged Darwinism, has observed (1987:46): "Hans Aarsleff s interpretation
(1982, pp.294-95, 320 n3), though put forward with great confidence, is poorly researched and largely
mistaken."
14
For those who would like to dabble in a bit of numerology, we may insert the date of the
publication of Schleicher's Compendium (note that the title starts with a 'C' as is the case with the
other two books), namely, 1861, so that we have the sequence: 1816 - 1861 - 1916.
15
Note that only the 1922 reprint (Paris: A. Costes) carries the subtitle "Histoire naturelle du
langage".
16
For instance, Henri, Comte de Charencey (1832-1916), who also was an active member and, in
fact, one of the two founders of the Paris Linguistic Society, together with another 'amateur', Antoine
(Thompson) d'Abbadie (1810-1897) in 1863; cf. Meillet's (1936:216) remark on these scholars.
Apart from a remark here and there on Hovelacque, usually not commendable,
we hardly find a single mention of any of these scholars in the annals of linguistic
science, either in France (cf. Meillet's [1936:216] reference to Chavée's followers as
'amateurs éclairés') or abroad.17 The reason for this neglect, however, does not solely
lie in the fact that these men tended to espouse a Schleicherian view of language, but
probably more so because a number of them were not fully accredited university
teachers. This disdain on the part of the professionals (which in North America became
particularly pronounced following the activities of Franz Boas and Leonard Bloomfield)
appears to have been developing from around the late 1860s. In this Germany was no
exception; one example may suffice to illustrate the point.
In 1868, the year of Schleicher's death, August Boltz 18 published a
popularization of linguistics under the title Die Sprache und ihr Leben: Populäre Briefe
über Sprachwissenschaft (Offenbach/M.: G. André), to which the author appended a
two-page table depicting the Schleicherian Stammbaum, "Uebersichtstabelle der
indogermanischen Sprachengruppe", which, as a kind of innovation, included the pre-
historical development of language(s) in three stages of evolution, namely, monosyl
labic, agglutinating, and inflectional. Johannes Schmidt, Schleicher's former student,
though barely 25 years old, reviewed the book in Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprach
forschung 17.449-51 (1868), and although he acknowledged the author's respectable
efforts, he expressed the view that popularizations are better produced by professional
linguists.
Despite the success of the neogrammarian propaganda and the scorn that later
scholars heaped on Schleicher for comparing language to a living organism (which has
been commonplace, in Germany and abroad, since Schleicher's death ),19 he has been
regaining respect during the past few decades. Hans Arens appears to have been the
first historian of linguistics to accord Schleicher his rightful place in the annals of the
discipline (Arens 1955:224-42 = 1969:248-66). Brigit Benes (1958:81-124) presented
17
It would be of interest for a better understanding of the development of linguistics in France to
have the work of these scholars carefully analyzed, also in terms of a sociology of science, since a
number of them were aristocrats and gentleman scholars. Another interesting figure in this connection
is Raoul de la Grasserie (1839-1914), a judge by profession, who wrote dozens of books on language
typology, semantics, and other subjects. (Among other things, he employed the term 'synchronique' in
a semantics book of 1908.) La Grasserie is referred to in Davies (1975:655, 657, 680, 681, etc.).
18
Boltz (1819-1907), who had done his doctorate at Jena in 1845, indicates on the title-page of
his book that he had been "früher Professor der russischen Sprache an der Königlichen Kriegs-Akademie
zu Berlin". Boltz published works on literary history as well as grammars of Russian and German.
19
The most prominent follower of Schleicher in Italy appears to have been Domenico Pezzi
(1844-1905), who, besides translating Schleicher's Compendium (1869), published several books of his
own, e.g., a comparative grammar of Latin (1872) and of Greek (1888) as well as a 200-page survey of
Indo-European research (1877), which appeared in an English translation by Ernest Stewart Roberts
(1847-1913) two years later: Aryan Philology according to the Most Recent Researches (London:
Trübner, 1879). Pezzi, like so many other linguists mentioned earlier, receives at best a footnote in
the histories of linguistics available to the present day.
a detailed analysis of his work in comparison with that of two of his most prominent
predecessors, Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) and Jacob Grimm (1785-1863). In
1966, a comprehensive account of Schleicher's life and work appeared (Dietze 1966);
this was followed by Otto Zeller's appreciation of him as the scholar who perfected
comparative-historical research (Zeiler 1967:111-124). German-born scholars such as
Henry M. Hoenigswald (1963, 1974, 1975) and Werner F. Leopold (cf., e.g., Bar-
Adon & Leopold 1971:19-20) in North America have continued this recognition of
Schleicher's importance. Among non-Germans, J. Peter Maher appears to have been
one of the few scholars to defend Schleicher against unfair criticism and a traditionally
distorted picture of his theories (Maher 1966). Despite his efforts, we still see
repeated, ten years later, the old cliché: "Schleicher began as a Hegelian, but in the end
he totally rejected idealism and turned to Darwinism."20 A few years later, in 1971,
Jay H. Jasanoff (cf. Romance Philology 25.154-155) defended Schleicher against a
fellow-American's ridicule of Schleicher's Indo-European tale (Schleicher 1868b), the
same year that Andrew M. Devine (1971:360) recognized Schleicher's importance in
questions of method in historical linguistics.
Also in 1971, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Schleicher's birth, a
conference was held at Jena, the university at which he taught for the last eleven years
of his life, in which his contributions to various branches of linguistic research are
evaluated by modern-day specialists (Spitzbardt 1972). Many years earlier, Paul
Diderichsen (1905-1964) had analyzed Schleicher's views of language; written in
Danish, this paper has become more widely accessible only when a German translation
appeared (Diderichsen 1976:232-36). From 1972 onwards I have myself undertaken
several studies in which I discussed Schleicher's theory of language and philosophy of
science.21 This chapter and a number of other recent papers (e.g., Koerner 1980a, b;
1981b; 1982) are part of an ongoing attempt to correct Schleicher's image in the annals
of our discipline and to secure his rightful place in the history of linguistics. I
20
Cf. James Henry Stam, Inquiries into the Origin of Language: The fate of a question (New
York & London: Harper & Row, 1976), p.234. Apart from this statement and one or two others,
there is an attempt (pp.234-41) at a fair analysis of Schleicher's theoretical argument. One of the few
scholars, however, who recognized the value of Maher's (1966) findings is A. Morpurgo Davies
(1975:633) who states that Maher has "rightly argued against the common belief in Darwin's influence
on Schleicher and has shown that the chronological data, Schleicher's own statements about his
intellectual development, and, above all, his non-Darwinian approach to the theory of evolution,
conflict with this assumption."
21
At the 11th International Congress of Linguists held in Bologna in August 1972, I gave a
paper entitled "Paradigms in the 19th and 20th Century History of Linguistics: Schleicher - Saussure -
Chomsky" (cf. Proceedings ... ed. by Luigi Heilmann vol.1, 123-132. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1974).
In October of the same year, I published a paper covering roughly the same grounds, "Towards a
Historiography of Linguistics: 19th and 20th century paradigms", in Anthropological Linguistics 14.
255-280 (1972); Koerner (1976a) constitutes a thoroughly revised and extended version of this paper.
Koerner (1975) was in fact completed in June 1972; the section on Schleicher is on pp.745-759.
especially hope that these recent articles will contribute to a revision of the traditional
picture of Schleicher.22
A few words of explanation may be in order with regard to the choice of title of
my paper "The Schleicherian Paradigm in Linguistics" (Koerner 1982a). Against the
view propagated by the Neogrammarians and frequently reiterated in the literature over
the past 100 years (most recently by Amsterdamska 1987 passim), I said in an earlier
paper (Koerner 1976b), that it was Schleicher (and to some extent also Curtius), who
prepared the ground for the subsequent research and findings in Indo-European
philology. Indubitably it was August Schleicher's work that provided the 'disciplinary
matrix' (Kuhn) for subsequent generations of comparative-historical linguists. In my
opinion, this interpretation of Schleicher's position in the history of linguistics is not
contradicted by the fact that we find in his work traces of ideas he took over from his
predecessors, notably Bopp and Grimm, and also Humboldt, or by the other fact that
the outlook of the phonological system of the Indo-European protolanguage changed
considerably between, say, 1876 and 1885 (cf. Benware 1974a:54 and elsewhere).
Contrary to widespread belief, Schleicher's views on language and linguistics
were fixed early in his career. Shortly after the publication of his first book, Zur
vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte (1848), Schleicher worked out (what was already
announced in this first work) a naturalistic conception of language and a research
program inspired by the methods of the natural sciences, in particular botany and
geology. His Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht (1850) documents
this very well. In his Die Deutsche Sprache of 1860 and several other publications of
the following period Schleicher repeated almost verbatim what he had first pronounced
in his 1850 book. In other words, later statements of method and philosophy of
science constitute nothing more than rearticulations of what Schleicher had arrived at in
the course of the year 1849, when he was just 28 years old. (This view appears to be
shared by Wells [1987:47], though I am not sure that Wells is right in affirming that
"Schleicher did his linguistic work without self-conscious influence from biology".)
Schleicher's Die Sprachen Europas not only provides us with a general expo
sition of his views, of the sharp lines he is drawing between linguistics and philology
(cf. Koerner 1982c), of the concept of 'Sprachengeschichte' (language history) in
contradistinction to 'Sprachentwicklung' (language evolution), of the methodology of
linguistic research, etc. (cf. Schleicher 1850:1-39), but also with an attempt at language
typology, a fact that is often overlooked. Inspired by proposals made by Friedrich and
August Wilhelm Schlegel as well as Wilhelm von Humboldt, Schleicher tries to provide
a material, scientific basis for language classification. Thus he presents the traditional
22
One notices with regret that the 2nd ed. of R. H. Robins' influential book, A Short History of
Linguistics (London: Longman, 1979), contrary to Schleicher's own statements, still maintains:
"Schleicher's theory of linguistic history, whatever its original inspiration may have been, was in line
with Darwinian ideas prevalent in the second half of the 19th century" (p.181), and "Schleicher, despite
an emphasis on regularity, allowed apparently irregular developments to pass as etymological evidence"
(p. 183); this latter affirmation is however much less unjustified than the affirmation found in the first
ed. of 1967, according to which Schleicher was not "troubled by apparent exceptions to the general run
of sound changes in the language".
tripartite division between monosyllabic, agglutinative, and inflectional language types,

giving at the same time a survey of all European languages and language groups. Since
none of the languages found in Europe exhibit the characteristics of monosyllabic
structure (he did not wish to acknowledge, it would seem, that modern English may
exhibit such traits — probably because it might have been seen as a counter-example to
his view that monosyllabic languages remained at an earlier stage of language
development), Schleicher is obliged, in order to complete his scheme, to include a fairly
detailed treatment of Chinese ("Einsylbige Sprachklasse", 40-56). It is only then that
the main part of the book begins; the book-title is repeated (p.57), followed by two
major sections; one dealing with the so-called 'agglutinirende Sprachklasse' (57-112),
the other with the 'flectirende Sprachklasse' (133-234).
Among the 'agglutinating' or 'agglutinative' languages he counts Mongolian,
Finno-Ugric, and Cheremiss; in a subsection (104-112) Schleicher adds a detailed
description of Basque, which he calls an 'incorporating' (einverleibende) language. (In
his 1848 book [pp.9-10] Schleicher had already rejected the division between
incorporating and agglutinating languages on the ground that both language types make
use of the principle of affixation.) Quite in line with his premise (cf., e.g., Schleicher
1848:4-5 and passim; 1850:15, 37) according to which system and history are but a
different viewpoint of one and the same thing, Schleicher hoped to account for the
development of language with the help of language typology.
The 'inflected' or 'flexional' type of languages concerns almost exclusively the
Indo-European language family; the Semitic group is represented by Maltese only
(p. 122). Here we find a most careful presentation of the various branches of Indo-
European; the only thing missing, it seems, is the family-tree diagram, which
Schleicher began to draw so frequently from 1853 onwards (cf. Priestly 1975:301,
302, 315, for relevant reproductions).23 Indeed, I do not know of an earlier classi
fication of the languages of Europe prior to Schleicher's Die Sprachen Europas, which
is of comparable lucidity in its attempt at scientific accuracy.
Anna Morpurgo Davies, who has written the most valuable survey of language
classification in the 19th century, stated that "for Schleicher typological classification
was not simply a side interest", finding confirmation "inter alia, [in] some work which
has often been neglected" (Morpurgo Davies 1975:665). She refers to Schleicher's
book of 1848 and a much later article of his (Schleicher 1865b), but she might as well
have referred to Die Sprachen Europas (1850), which is much more explicit on this
subject. More importantly, Schleicher developed his system of structural classification
in various subsequent publications not included in Morpurgo Davies' (1975:708)
bibliography. Although the author states (p.635): "It is regrettable that no attempt has
23
The section on Romance languages ("Romanische Sprachfamilie", 144-187) was written by
Nikolaus Delius (1813-1888), a colleague of Schleicher's at Jena. As Schleicher (144n) indicated, the
section got somewhat longer than anticipated, but it may be gathered from the style in which this
section is written that Schleicher found it to his liking; indeed, it appears that especially the harsh
comments on the linguistic corruptedness of Romanian and Romansh (pp. 185-87) were largely due to
Schleicher.
been made to analyze the full import of Schleicher's ideas about language classi
fication", we find little in her otherwise well-researched survey that fills the lacuna.
Since the present chapter does not allow for space to elaborate on Schleicher's
typological theories, let me at least refer to the most important places where such a
discussion and, at times, rigorous presentation can be found. Probably the most
exhaustive statement of his theory of morphological typology of languages is in his
monograph, Zur Morphologie der Sprache, written in 1858 (see Schleicher 1859b), in
which he developed mathematical formulae to express the different combination types.
Whitney, who later chose to attack his more general views on the nature of language,
regarded this work of Schleicher as "a very noteworthy attempt" (Whitney 1867:364)
and presented his readers with Schleicher's schema in some detail (pp.364-67). In his
Die Deutsche Sprache of 1860 (pp.11-26), we find a simplified presentation of
Schleicher's classificatory system, to which he added a number of corrections a year
later (Schleicher 1861a). 24
The remainder of Schleicher's 1850 book consists of an Appendix (214-65), in
which he publishes German translations of papers which had previously appeared in
Czech only, and which address particular aspects of Slavic grammar (e.g., the supine
and certain forms of the participle). The index is little else than an alphabetical listing of
the languages and the language groups treated in the study, together with a few of the
key terms used in the discussion (e.g., 'agglutinating', 'analytical', etc.). (To the 1983
re-edition of Die SprachenEuropas an index of authors was added on pages 271-274.)
Since little biographical information on Schleicher is provided in most accounts
of his work, and also since I believe that Schleicher's biography matters in an overall
understanding of his accomplishments, reference should at least be made to a number
of valuable studies of Schleicher's life, work, and personality. Rudolf Fischer's
(1910-1970) important paper has already been mentioned earlier (cf. note 2), to which
another article by the same author may be added. 25 It was Fischer who led Joachim
Dietze to undertake various studies of Schleicher (cf. note 10; Dietze 1966). Important
sources for Schleicher's biography are Salomon Lefmann's sketch (1870), for which
however Lefmann did not have access to Schleicher's private papers. 26 Therefore, this
100-page account must be supplemented by Johannes Schmidt's Nachruf (1869) and
by his entry in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (1890). A revealing document ~
because it shows Schleicher as a man of integrity and honesty engaged in matters
24
In the 2nd ed. of Die Deutsche Sprache (1869) we may note a change in the notation from A B
 to R R' R", etc., and from A, A' + A, A + A', A' + A + B', etc. to R [for 'radix'], R, r+R, R+r,
+R+r', etc. (1860 = 21869:12ff.). Johannes Schmidt, the editor, must have found these changes in
Schleicher's Handexemplar of the first edition.
25
Rudolf Fischer, "August Schleicher 19.2.1821 - 6.12.1868: Zur Feier seines 140. Geburts
tages", Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl Marx-Universität Leipzig; Gesellschafts- u. Sprachwis
senschaftliche Reihe 10:5.811-815 (1961).
26
Cf. Joachim Dietze, "Salomon Lefmann -- der Biograph August Schleichers", Forschungen und
Fortschritte 30:1.19-20 (1965).
concerning political freedom and justice, as a man of humanity in matters personal and
public - is Alois Vanicek's personal reminiscences.27 Although Schleicher had taken
lessons in Czech from him on his first visit to Prague in 1849 (as a journalist reporting
on the events surrounding the effects of the 1848 Revolution), Vanicek became one of
his students following Schleicher's appointment at the University of Prague in 1850,
where, from 1851 until his departure in 1857, he held the newly established chair for
comparative linguistics and Sanskrit (cf. Schleicher 1851). Pictures of Schleicher can
be found in various places, only some of which will be listed here.28
Schleicher's father was a country doctor, and the son developed an early
interest in nature, especially in botany. Indeed, he was an avid horticulturist
throughout his life, growing a variety of flowers in his gardens in Prague and in Jena,
but those who affirm, like Merritt Ruhlen (1987:44) that Schleicher "[o]riginally trained
as a botanist" and that he therefore "considered language as a living organism, and
linguistics a branch of the natural sciences" are wrong on both counts. However,
Schleicher, as will be shown in what follows, was fully aware of the main principles of
biological research and definitely wished that linguistics would become a discipline as
principled as the natural sciences of his day. (A handy chronology of Schleicher's life
can be found in Tort 1980:43-52.)
1.0 The Schleicherian Paradigm in Linguistics
1.1 First considerations
In his preface to the second edition of Franz Bopp's Vergleichende Grammatik

(1833ff.), published in 1854, the translator pointed out that the work had "created a
new epoch in the science of Comparative Philology, [...] corresponding to that of
'Newton's Principia in Mathematics, Bacon's Novum Organum in Mental Science, or
Blumenbach in Physiology'."29 This statement -- which, in respect to the choice of
the tertium comparationis, appears strikingly close to T. S. Kuhn's (1970:10) paradigm
27
The "Erinnerungen an Prof. Dr. August Schleicher in Prag", first published in the weekly
"Bohemia", Nos.16-18 (1869), were reprinted "auf den freundlichen Rath des Prof. G. Curtius" in Karl
Glaser's A. Vanicek: Biographische Skizze (Vienna: . Konegen, 1885), 55-66. Schleicher's Offenes
Sendschreiben eines ausländischen Linguisten an einen tschechischen Slawen (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Härtel, 1849) appears to be addressed to Alois Vanicek.
28
Cf. Revue de Linguistique et de Philologie comparée 3.261 (1869); the paper by Fischer
(mentioned in n.25 above), p.812; Othmar Feyl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der slawischen Verbindungen
und internationalen Kontakte der Universität Jena (Jena, 1960), p.350; the paper by J. H. Scharf of
1975 (cf. n.52 below), p.324, and, of course, in the 1983 re-edition of Schleicher (1850).
29
See Edward Backhouse Eastwick's (1814-1883) Preface to vol.1 of Bopp's Comparative
Grammar, 2nd ed. (London: Madden & Malcolm, 1854), p.[v]. Eastwick was quoting from an
anonymous review of the first edition in the Calcutta Review 12.468-493 (July-Dec. 1849), p.472.
concept — may be taken as an indication that 19th-century scholars, one generation

before Benfey (1869) and almost two before Delbrück (1880), felt that an important
step in making linguistics a science had been taken by Bopp. It is worth noting,
however, that, despite the attention usually given to (the linguistic portion) of Bopp's
Conjugationssystem of 1816, which is commonly referred to as marking the beginning
of comparative linguistics (cf. also Bopp 1820), the revolutionary act of having
provided a framework for linguistic research was attributed to Bopp's later work, and
rightly so, as Szemerényi (1971:11) has stressed. A similar observation could be made
with regard to the early work of August Schleicher whose theory of language and,
more importantly, linguistic methodology, represented something like a 'paradigm' or
'disciplinary matrix' in the sense of Kuhn (1970:184) for historical-comparative
linguistics in the second half of the 19th century. However, such a viewpoint should
not lead the historian of linguistic thought to ignore the author's earlier writings, which
often reveal his sources of inspiration much more clearly. As a matter of fact,
Schleicher's conception of language as well as his philosophy of science were clearly
fixed by 1850, when he asserted that Linguistics — in contradistinction to Philology, an
historical and intellectual ('geisteswissenschaftlich') discipline — was, at least with
regard to its method of investigation, a natural science ('Naturwissenschaft'). Indeed,
while Bopp and especially Grimm characterized their work as 'neue Philologie', i.e.,
more like a further, rejuvenated development of traditional philological work, Schlei
cher was opting for a clear-cut division of labour (cf. Schleicher 1850:1-5; Arbuckle
1973:18-19).
In what follows, I will try to show that, contrary to the manner in which
Schleicher has been depicted in the histories of linguistics from the late-19th century
onwards, his work indeed served as a model for scientific research for more than one
generation after him and, in fact, as far as historical-comparative linguistics is
concerned, for much that has been done in the 20th century, whether acknowledged or
not.
1.2 The origin of Schleicher's naturalistic views, and the question of

his alleged 'Darwinism'
The fact that most writers of histories in linguistics have had at best a nodding
acquaintance with disciplines outside their own field, seems to be the main reason for
the allegation that Schleicher, originally an ardent Hegelian, embraced Darwinism as the
basis for his theory of language later in his life, could have become common currency
in the annals of linguistic science. Since traditional accounts (e.g., Benfey 1869,
Thomsen 1927, Pedersen 1931) do not say that Schleicher followed Darwin's lead -- in
fact not one of them does mention the British biologist - we must look to other sources
from which later writers took this distorted view. To some at least it must come as a
surprise to note that Pedersen, who has been referred to as the authority on 19th-
century historical-comparative linguistics, simply stated, without making a single
reference to Darwin, that "in all seriousness Schleicher conceives of language as an
organism" (Pedersen 1931:242).
Some linguists have felt that Delbrück was instrumental in the cementing of
what appears to have become the received opinion about Schleicher's theory of
language (cf. Maher 1966:1-2). However, Delbrück (1880:44) stated clearly:
Die Wirkung der Darwin'schen Anschauungen iässt sich nicht an Schleicher

beobachten, sie wird uns vielmehr in der Adaptationstheorie seines Gegners Alfred
Ludwig ([1832-1912]) entgegentreten. (Italics for spread print in the original)30
In later editions, in particular in the sixth and last of Delbrück's Einleitung (1919),
Darwin is not even mentioned. It would therefore be difficult to put the blame on
Delbrück for the mistaken belief about Darwin's influence on Schleicher. However,
Delbrück (1842-1922) no doubt was influential in the propagation of the view that
Schleicher remained in effect a 'philologist' (contradicting what Schleicher had said of
himself again and again from 1850 onwards), that his theories represented nothing but
a development of the Boppian view of language, and that the Neogrammarians
provided for 'new endeavours' in linguistic science (cf. Delbrück 1882:53ff.).
There is, however, another 19th-century scholar who, at least as far as the
generation of the Neogrammarians is concerned, played an important role. I am
referring to the American Sanskritist and general linguist William Dwight Whitney
(1827-1894). Whitney began, soon after the German scholar's death in December
1868, repeated attacks on what he regarded as Schleicher's 'physical theory of
language' (Whitney 1871). It appears that the Young Turks at Leipzig gladly accepted
Whitney's disparagement of the linguist who without doubt had dominated the field of
historical-comparative linguistics during the 1860s and early 1870s. In their youthful
arrogance and patricidal predisposition the Junggrammatiker were ready to either
completely ignore their debt to Schleicher or to ridicule him. Interestingly enough,
perhaps because August Leskien (1840-1916), the acknowledged leader of the
Neogrammarians, was himself a former pupil of Schleicher's, few attacks on
Schleicher were actually published, though there is every reason to believe that it was
frequently done orally — both in the classroom and in the Bierkeller, for Ferdinand de
Saussure (1857-1913), who was a close associate of the Young Turks during the
heyday of the 'junggrammatische Richtung', had this to say about Schleicher in a never
completed account of Whitney as a 'comparative philologist':
... lorsqu'enfin cette science [du langage] semble <triompher> de sa torpeur, elle
aboutisse à l'essai risible de Schleicher, qui croule sous son propre ridicule. Tel a
été le prestige de Schleicher pour avoir simplement essayé de dire quelque chose de
générale sur la langue, qu'il semble que ce soit une figure hors pair <encore
aujourd'hui> dans l'histoire des études linguistiques, [...]>.31
30
This passage is conspicuously absent from the English translation of the Einleitung (Delbrück
1882).
31
Quoted after the text established in Rudolf Engler's édition critique of the Saussurean Cours,
tome I (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968), p.8.
Saussure's attack on Schleicher indicates at least two things: first (as is clear from the
text of the manuscript), Saussure was of the opinion that little advance had been made
by 1894, the year of Whitney's death, in terms of a general theory of language, and,
second, that the influence of Schleicher's ideas about language and linguistic science
was still felt and, for Saussure, felt oppressively.
As a matter of fact, we may refer to statements made by contemporaries of the
Junggrammatiker which suggest that Schleicher was still widely regarded as the scholar
on whom later generations of linguistics had built. In this section, I am quoting from
the writings of two German linguists, though, as will be shown later (see 4.0 below),
Schleicher had a large following abroad, notably in Italy and France.
For example, Hermann Collitz (1855-1935), who 40 years later served as the
first President of the Linguistic Society of America, asserted in 1883 that Schleicher's
work provided a 'pattern' for subsequent work in the field:
Das Erscheinen von A u g u s t S c h l e i c h e r s Compendium der

vergleichenden grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (1861) bezeichnet, wie
auf den übrigen gebieten der vergleichenden grammatik, so vor allem auf dem des
vocalismus den beginn einer neuen epoche der forschung. Zwar kann man nicht
sagen, dass Schleicher den früheren ansichten32 gegenüber in allen punkten das
richtige getroffen habe; wol aber bildet seine darstellung ein eigenartiges, in sich fest
gefügtes und nach allen seiten ein abgeschlossenes system, das von der ursprache
bis zu den einzelsprachen herab in der entwicklung des vocalismus feste
gesetzmässigkeit aufzuweisen suchte, jeder einzelnen vocalischen erscheinung ihren
Platz anwies, und vor allem durch die art und weise, in welcher es die erforschung
der sprachlichen tatsache vornahm, fürdiefolgezeit ein muster abgab. (Spread print
in the original; italics mine: KK)33
Interestingly enough, Saussure, when teaching the second series of his lectures on
general linguistics in 1908-1909, softened his critique of Schleicher of 1894 (from
which I quoted above), conceding that he had "un coup d'œil assez long pour avoir des
vues d'ensemble", adding that nowadays "ces vues ne nous satisfont plus, mais il y a
une tentative vers le général et le systématique", and concluding with the following
insightful statement: "Il est plus intéressant d'avoir un système même qu'un amas de
notions confuses." In other words, Saussure was willing to recognize Schleicher's
importance even though he did not agree with either the premises or the results of his
theory.
Another German scholar of the period, Theodor Siebs (1862-1941), who is best
remembered for his work on Frisian and on account of his development of a modern
German code for theatre speech (Bühnenaussprache), in 1902, after having spoken at
32
In a footnote, Collitz referred to contemporary accounts, by Hermann Berthold Rumpelt (1821-
1881) and Christian Wilhelm Michael Grein (1825-1877), of the linguistic views of Grimm, Bopp, and
others.
33
H. Collitz, "Der germanische ablaut und sein Verhältnis zum indogermanischen vocalismus",
Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 15.1-10 (1883), on p.2. (For an English translation, see Koerner
1981a.)
length about Georg Curtius (1820-1885), the acknowledged teacher of almost all
original members of the Junggrammatiker group, affirmed, some twenty years after
Collitz:
Der grösste Teil der heute führenden Sprachforscher sind von ihm [i.e., Curtius] oder
von A u g u s t S c h l e i c h e r beeinflusst worden. Und dieser [i.e., Schleicher]
ist es am allermeisten gewesen, der Zucht und Methode für die Sprachwissenschaft
verlangte, und zwar so scharf und so zwingend, wie sie bis dahin niemals gefordert
worden waren. Schleicher betrachtete die Sprachwissenschaft im letzten Grunde als
eine mit historischem Material arbeitende Naturwissenschaft; [...] Mit gewaltiger
Kenntnis lebender Sprachen, besonders der slawischen und litauischen, verband er
eine klare Übersicht über den Besitzstand auch der älteren Perioden der
indogermanischen Idiome. Und so war er der Mann, um "einmal Bilanz machen und
in systematisch-kurzer Übersicht mit zwingender Anschaulichkeit die Resultate und
Ergebnisse reichlich darlegen zu können" [Siebs is quoting Schleicher]. Dies
geschah im "Kompendium der vergleichenden Grammatik".34
Neither Collitz in 1883, nor Siebs in 1902 make mention of Schleicher's 'Darwinism'.
Such a label, however, had earlier been given to Schleicher by Whitney (1874), and it
appears that later historians of linguistics based their opinion on his judgement.
Interestingly enough, in Whityney's first book, Language and the Study of Language
(1867), Schleicher was cited on various occasions (e.g., pp. 293, 364-366) with ap
proval whereas in his second book, Life and Growth of Language, Schleicher was only
mentioned in passing, together with several other scholars of the period (Whitney
1875:318).
Schleicher's alleged 'Darwinism' can only be explained by the importance
accorded to Whitney in matters of general linguistic theory (cf. Koerner 1980b, for
details), and, perhaps even more so, by the confusion of chronological facts in the
minds of later generations of Unguists. These latter did not realize that in Schleicher the
development of his naturalistic views of language and his appraisal of Darwin's
evolution theory did not occur at one and the same time, but that Schleicher embraced
the English biologist's theories as essentially identical with his own convictions long
after he had established his own concept of language. A few statements made by
Schleicher prior to the appearance of Origin of Species in November of 1859 will
suffice to illustrate this fact. But let us first see how Whitney's opinion was transmitted
in subsequent statements about Schleicher's 'Darwinism'.
Max Müller (1823-1900), probably the most influential 19th-century linguist
writing in English, in 1887 noted about Schleicher that "though a Darwinian", he was
"also one of our best students of the Science of Language". 35 In the preface to his
34
Th. Siebs, "Die Entwicklung der germanistischen Wissenschaft im letzten Viertel des
neunzehnten Jahrhunderts", Ergebniss und Fortschritte der germanistischen Wissenschaft im letzten
Vierteljahrhundert ed. by Richard Bethge (Leipzig: O. R. Reisland, 1902), iii-lxxviii, on p.ix (spread
print in the original).
35
F. Max Müller, Science of Thought, vol.I (London: Longmans, etc.; New York: Scribner's
Sons, 1887), p.160 (emphasis in the original).
Science of Thought, however, he had noted about his own work (and thus extended the
meaning of 'Darwinism'):
If Darwinism is used in the sense of E n t w i c k e l u n g , I was a Darwinian, as

may be seen from my "Letter on the Turanian Languages [published in 1854]", long
before Darwin. No student of the Science of Language can be anything but an
evolutionalist, for, wherever he looks, he sees nothing but evolution going on
around him.36
In this interpretation of the term Schleicher too was no doubt a 'Darwinian', namely,
someone subscribing to the idea that language evolved organically in a manner
comparable to, but by no means identical with, living organisms in general. As he
himself pointed out in his famous 'open letter' to Haeckel:
Of course no more than the Principles of Darwinism could be applied to the

languages. The realm of speech is too widely different from both the animal and
the vegetable kingdoms to make the science of language a test of all Darwin's
inductions and details. (Schleicher 1869:65-66 = 1863:31)
Some twenty years after Müller's observations, we find a much more forceful
affirmation concerning Schleicher's treatment of language, an affirmation which
appears to have stuck with many later writers on the history of linguistics. In his
History of Classical Scholarship, vol.III (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1908) John Edwin
Sandys (1844-1922) passed on the following opinion concerning Schleicher (p.209):
He was not a classical scholar [...], he "was at heart a Darwinian botanist, who
handled language as if it were the subject-matter of natural and not of historical
science." (Note that Sandys was in effect quoting a statement made by another
scholar, A. S. Wilkins, in The Classical Review 1.263 [London, Nov. 1887].)
Maybe we have here the source of many later affirmations that Schleicher was a
"botaniste devenu linguiste" (Mounin 1967:193) and that he "had also been a biology
professor" (Blumenthal 1970:3).
In his pamphlet of 1863, written at the instigation of his colleague at the
University of Jena, the biologist and enthusiastic follower of Darwin, Ernst Haeckel
(1834-1919), that he read the German translation of Origin of Species, Schleicher
stated that he had completed his book, Die Deutsche Sprache (1860), before having
seen Darwin's book; in fact, he read Darwin for the first time in 1863, in the second
German translation by Heinrich Georg Bronn (1800-1862). The 'missive' addressed
to Haeckel, 37 is revealing in many ways, in particular since Schleicher shows himself
quite well informed about Darwin's predecessors. About his own background in the
natural sciences, especially botany and zoology, he said that, in matters concerning
36
Science of Thought, vol.1 (London & New York, 1887), p.xi. Curiously enough, Müller claimed
later on (cf. Indogermanische Forschungen, Anzeiger 5:10 [1895]) that Schleicher had taken his
evolutionary ideas from Müller's work, a claim which, I believe, the present study will refute.
37
For a detailed study of Schleicher's influence on Ernst Haeckel, see Koerner (1981b).
method and minute observation, he had learned much from the work of Matthias Jacob
Schleiden,(1804-1881), who was professor of botany in Jena from 1839 until 1863
(cf. Schleiden 1849), and of Carl Vogt (1817-1895), who published a 2-volume
popular study of physiology in 1845-47 (3rd revised ed., 1861). Schleicher also
recognizes Sir Charles Lyell's (1797-1875) Principles of Geology, first published in
1830-32, as one of the major sources of Darwin's inspiration, stating:
It appears, therefore, to me, that Darwin's theory is but the unavoidable result of
the principles recognised in the modern science of nature. It is founded upon
observation, and is indeed an attempt at a history of development. Just what Lyell
has done for the history of the life of the earth, Darwin has attempted for that of the
inhabitants of our planet. The theory of "the origin of species" is [...] but the true
and legitimate offspring of our inquiring age. Darwin's theory is a necessity.
(Schleicher 1869:29-30= 1863:11-12)
Moreover, Schleicher (1869:16 = 1863:4) refers to passages in his 1860 book, in

which he had expressed ideas about the nature of language which, in his view, are quite
in line with Darwin's theory. In his Die Deutsche Sprache, Schleicher had noted
(quoted here from the English translation that Alexander Bikkers appended to his 1869
translation of Schleicher 1863):
During so long a period, extending over thousands of years, the primitive

relations might easily be shifted and disturbed, for languages are not as plants tied to
their respective habitats; their bearers are nations capable of any change of seat and
even of vernacular. Since we see in a less distant period, nay, up to the present day,
how languages disappear and how the boundaries of speech are shifted, nothing is
more natural than to suppose that many more languages disappeared, and that the
shifting of the primitive relationship of the geographical distribution of speech was
much more violent, at a time when each language was the vernacular of a
comparatively limited number of individuals. Thus arose the now observable
anomalies in the distribution of languages over the earth, particularly in Asia and
Europe.
We assume therefore that languages arose in a very great number; such as were
neighbours resembling each other, although arising independently, and -- taking
Indo-Germanic or Semitic, say, as the centre — spreading more or less in this or the
other direction. Many of these primitive languages now, or perhaps the greater part
of them, died out in the course of ages; owing to this others gradually extended their
territory, and the geographical distribution of languages was so much disturbed that
it became impossible to discover hardly any traces of the primitive law of
distribution.
Whilst therefore the surviving idioms, with the increase of the people that spoke
them, gradually divided themselves into different branches (languages, dialects &c),
many of the primitive languages which had arisen independently of each other,
gradually died out This very process -- the decrease of the number of languages ~ is
going on speedily and incessantly, even in our days, for instance in America. Here,
likewise, let us be satisfied with the observation of the fact and leave it to
philosophy to search for a clearer conception and explanation from the essence of
mankind. (Schleicher 1869:67-69 = 1860:43-44)
This lengthy quotation from Schleicher's Die Deutsche Sprache (which was intended as
a popular introduction to the history of the German language and to linguistic science)
may serve as the basis for a comparison between his evolutionist theories of language
and Darwin's theory of the evolution of the animal kingdom. Scrutinized very closely,
it appears that the similarities that would point to a convergence between Darwin's and
his own views are far less conclusive than even Schleicher himself (1869:16-17 =
1863:4) made out. In the next section, we will see that Schleicher's evolutionist
conceptions are essentially pre-Darwinian in nature, and that they remained that way
even after his acquaintance with Origin of Species.
2.0 The Development of Schleicher's Linguistic Theory
In the section heading I have used the (in fact ambiguous English) expression
'linguistic theory' since I would like to retain the two possible interpretations it permits,
namely, "theory of language" and "theory of the science of language", since both
concepts are closely connected in Schleicher's thought. If language is seen as evolving
like a natural organism, linguistics must be a natural science, and, conversely, if the
science of language derives its methods of investigation from the natural sciences,
language will inevitably be seen through the eyes of a natural scientist — the latter
viewpoint may not be as misleading as it seems at first sight, if the field of study is
restricted to certain phenomena and certain levels of language which may be open to
rigorous, formal analysis.
2.1 The reader of August Schleicher's first book may be struck by explicit
references to the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) in Zur verglei
chenden Sprachengeschichte (Bonn, 1848), which appeared when its author was just
twenty-seven years old. Schleicher had begun his studies in the fall of 1840, first at
Leipzig (which he left after only one semester) and then at Tübingen (1841-43), though
not in the field of linguistics but in theology - his father had hoped he would become a
country parson — and philosophy. It appears that he was introduced to Hegelian
philosophy at Tübingen, the 'hotbed of Hegelism' (Arbuckle 1973:25) at the time.
Delbrück, in his account of Schleicher (1882:40-55), felt compelled to investigate to
what extent this German philosopher might have influenced Schleicher's linguistic
thought. Delbrück (p.40) believed that Schleicher was "an adherent [of Hegel] in his
youth", and that he showed "in the latter part of his life a passionate predilection" for
"modern natural science". Such a view, which seems to be the standard view of
Schleicher's intellectual development, is quite misleading and shows a lack of
biographical knowledge (cf. the account of Schleicher's life in Dietze 1966). Schlei
cher, whose father was a medical doctor, had a deep interest in nature, especially in
botany, even as a schoolboy (Dietze 1966:16), and although Schleicher originally
subscribed to the view that the study of language had to do with phenomena of a
historical kind, his 1848 book makes many references to the sphere of nature, as will
become obvious in our analysis below.
Schleicher's frequent references to Hegel may be taken as an indication of the
intellectual climate of the period, and also that the young author was in search of a
philosophy of science on which the study of language could build. Most of Hegel's
writings appeared posthumously during 1833 and 1845, and translations into the major
European languages followed soon after. Hegel, a contemporary of Wilhelm von
Humboldt (1767-1835), August Wilhelm Schlegel (1767-1845), his brother Friedrich
Schlegel (1772-1829), and other members of the Romantics in Germany, did not play
an important role in the philosophical discussions for the greater part of his life. An
exception was his Encyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse
(Heidelberg: A. Osswald, 1817), which had two further editions during the author's
lifetime (1827 and 1830). Significantly, Schleicher refers to two posthumously
published works of Hegel; the one, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte,
consisting of a compilation of students' notes as well as notes by Hegel himself from
his lectures on "Philosophie der Weltgeschichte" held five times at the Universities of
Heidelberg, Jena, and Berlin between 1822 and 1831 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot,
1833-36; 2nd ed., 1840-44);38 the other, Vorlesungen über Naturphilosophie (ibid.,
1842; 2nd ed., 1847), constitutes an extension of Hegel's earlier Encyclopädie and is in
effect a compendium of the accumulated knowledge in the natural sciences of the early
19th century.39
As noted earlier, the standard opinion about Schleicher's intellectual develop
ment is that in his early work he embraced Hegelian philosophy only to abandon it later
in favour of the natural sciences. It is true that his first book, Zur vergleichenden
Sprachengeschichte (1848), does not yet exhibit the frank materialism and in effect
scientism characteristic of Schleicher's subsequent work, but it can be shown — and the
references to Hegel do not refute but in effect support this claim — that the seed for the
naturalistic views he expounded from 1850 onwards had already taken root in this
earlier study. In the introductory pages, Schleicher makes an argument in favour of
linguistics as an historical science, and rejects as applying to language what Hegel had
identified as the characteristics of nature:
Wie sollte auch die Sprache, die durch so enge Bande mit dem Geiste des Menschen
verknüpft ist, einen anderen Weg gehen als dieser und dem Gange der Organismen
der Natur folgen, bei welchen dasselbe Leben wieder da Platz greift, wo es eben
geendet hat, um den unzählige Male wiederholenden Lauf von Entstehung zu
Vernichtung von Neuem durchzumachen. (Schleicher 1848:2)
In contrast to the perpetually cyclic movement from birth to death in nature, language as
an intellectual and typically human faculty follows the analogue of history, since, as
Hegel had asserted, "in beiden zeigt sich stetiges Fortschreiten zu neuen Phasen".
What is, however, characteristic of history is that it is defined by the regularities (das
Gesetzmässige) which prevail and are open to reasoned description despite constant
38
Schleicher (1848:4n) merely refers to 'Hegel, Einleitung zur Philosophie der Geschichte', which
seems to suggest that he was citing Hegel from memory rather than from a printed source.
References in the text are made to the modern edition (Hegel 1970).
changes occurring in its progression. The same, Schleicher argues (p.3), should hold
true of the history of language.
From the close association of language with human life, Schleicher deduces
that, since man, despite certain individual dissimilarities, exhibits constant features
which are common to all, language should do likewise. Therefore, since history
reveals by and large the same path of development, a comparative approach to the
history of languages would reveal these general aspects (das Allgemeine) in contrast to
the individual ones (alles Einzelne) of each separate language (Schleicher 1848:3-4).
But there are also differences between historical developments in general and the
history of languages. Having characterized history as "das successive Hervortreten der
Momente", Schleicher argues as follows concerning the relationship between an
historical and a non-historical ('systematic') viewpoint:
Was in der systematischen Betrachtung neben einander erscheint, das tritt in der
Geschichte nach einander auf; was dort Moment ist, ist hier Periode. Natürlich,
denn das System ist die Darstellung des Seienden, die Geschichte des Werdenden, das
Sein aber setzt das Werden voraus; [...]. Keine Periode im geschichtlichen Werden
wird durch das folgende vernichtet, die folgende bringt nur etwas Neues zu dem
schon Bestehenden hinzu, wodurch freilich das Frühere mehr oder minder verändert
wird: in jeder höheren Entwicklungsstufe sind sämmtliche frühere als aufgehobene
Momente enthalten. Wenn aber die nach einander eintretenden Momente fortbe
stehen, so treten sie sofort in das Verhältnis des Nebeneinander: die Identität von
Geschichte und System ergiebt sich von selbst. Es gilt also bei dieser materiellen
Identität von System und Geschichte der Schluss vom Einen auf das Andere, ist mir
das Eine bekannt, so mag ich aus ihm das Andre mit Sicherheit erschliessen; oder,
es bedarf gar keines Schlusses, sondern nur einer veränderten Anschauung oder
Darstellung, eines formellen Umgiessens. (Schleicher 1848:4-5)
This lengthy quotation is revealing in many ways. It is not necessary to follow the
logic, or lack of it, of Schleicher's argument (which is strongly reminiscent of Hegel).
What is important, however, is both his terminology and his theoretical conclusions, as
they are characteristic of his procedure. To begin with, Schleicher clearly realizes the
distinction between system and history (in a way anticipating Hermann Paul, Saussure,
and other late 19th-century theorists of language); in fact, he speaks on several
occasions of the 'Nebeneinander des Systems' in contrast to the 'Nacheinander der
Geschichte' (Schleicher 1848:5, 6, 22, 23; cf. also p.27), repeating the distinction in
subsequent writings (e.g., Schleicher 1850:15; 1860:33, 46). In a very Hegelian
fashion Schleicher believes that the system reveals itself in co-existing terms, whereas
history consists of successive stages of events, of a 'Nacheinander der Momente'
(1848:22). Indeed, he claims a substantive identity to exist between history and
system, presupposing little else than what we may refer to as a change of 'point de vue'
(Saussure) on the part of the analyst.
When Schleicher expresses his conviction that knowledge of either of the two
would suffice to deduce the other, he seems to be expressing a view which is known in
geology as 'uniformitarianism', which found its most influential promoter in Charles
Lyell (cf. Wells 1973, for details). At the same time it may be asked whether
Schleicher, subconsciously at least, was not concerned with reconciling the opposing
views of his predecessors, the one emphasizing the comparison of languages (which
presupposes the establishment of an ahistorical moment of a given set of two or more
languages) represented by Bopp, the other stressing the historical development of
individual languages or language groups (viz. Grimm). It is also likely that Schleicher
was under the deep influence of Hegel's view of the essentially systematic nature of
historical development, as frequent references to his Philosophie der Geschichte would
suggest (Schleicher 1848:4, 16, 20).
Two further ideas put forward in the above quotation deserve special attention.
Both, I think, lead nolens volens to a naturalistic, in contrast to an historical (geistes
wissenschaftlich), view of language, despite Schleicher's claim that these observations
apply particularly to the study of history. The one is that each stage of development
contains all previous stages (and that there is a kind of progress by accumulation); the
other, closely related to the former, denies that a replacement, the annihilation of earlier
periods, takes place. In order to give support to his views, Schleicher (1848:5)
suggests the "systematische Betrachtung des organischen Lebens" as an analogue,
distinguishing between three stages of development, i.e., mineral, vegetable, and
animal organisms. In other words, the plant contains the stage of the mineral, and the
animal contains the characteristics of the plant, a claim which he finds confirmed
through fossil remains from earlier periods of our planet.
It is important to note that, in the subsequent discussion, Schleicher fails to
corroborate his claim that the same relation between history and system applies to the
"rein geistige Sphäre", although he reiterates his assumption that it is "das Charak
teristische der Geschichte überhaupt, dass sie uns das Nebeneinander des Systems, die
Momente des Begriffes als ein Nacheinander, als Perioden vorführt" (p.6). Having
made this assertion, Schleicher asks whether the same applies to language, and indeed
he finds that Humboldt's (original)40 tripartite distinction between isolating, agglutina
tive, and inflectional types of languages supports his view.41 Language, in Schlei
cher's understanding, is made up of meaning (Bedeutung) and relation (Beziehung) or,
perhaps more correctly, of carriers of meaning, i.e., roots, and carriers expressing
relationships, i.e., all other morphological entities, prefixes, endings, etc.: "Die
'Bedeutung ist das Materielle, die Wurzel; die Beziehung das Formelle, die an der
Wurzel vorgenommene Veränderung" (p.7); the vocal expression of the relation, he
adds, may be absent. In language, either meaning alone is designated, as is
characteristic of the isolating languages (e.g., Chinese), or the sound showing the
meaning (Bedeutungslaut, i.e., the formative syllable or element) is affixed to the
40
According to Eugenio Coseriu, "Sulla tipologia linguisüca di Wilhelm von Humboldt", Lingua
e Stile 8.235-66 (1973), the fourfold distinction is due to August Friedrich Pott (1802-1887), not
Humboldt.
41
Schleicher (1848:9-10) states that he fails to see the difference between incorporating and
agglutinative languages since both follow the principle of affixation. As early as 1909, Wilhelm
Streitberg (1864-1925) noted, in his article "Kant und die Sprachwissenschaft", Indogermanische
Forschungen 26.382-422, pp.l6ff., that Humboldt's influence on Schleicher was much more important
than Hegel's.
sound indicating the relation (Beziehungslaut), as happens in the agglutinating

languages (e.g., Polynesian), or, finally, the two components form a close union, as in
the inflectional languages (e.g., Indo-European and Semitic). Since the 'Beziehungs-
laut' cannot stand by itself, there can only be three different basic classes of languages
(cf. Schleicher 1848:6-12, for further elaboration).42
According to Schleicher's axiom of the substantive identity of system and
history, these three 'systems of language' (p.12) must correspond to three distinct
periods of development. As a result, it must be assumed that the isolating languages
represent the oldest form, that the agglutinative languages have arisen from them, and
that from these, in turn, the inflectional languages, the third and final stage containing
the two previous types of language. However, Schleicher has to admit himself that the
languages known to the analyst do not substantiate this theory in every detail (p.13),
and he attempts to rescue his idea by introducing a distinction, drawn from Hegel (cf.
Schleicher 1848:15), between two periods in the life of language, the prehistorical time
of language growth, and the historical period characterized by gradual decay of the
linguistic organism (p.14, cf. also pp. 16ff., 24ff.). In contrast to 'evolution', the
other product of the activities of the human mind, language, is 'history' and shows a
downward development.
The reader of Schleicher's Die Deutsche Sprache (1860), including the second
edition (1869), which his pupil Johannes Schmidt (1843-1901) revised according to
emendations which Schleicher had made in his Handexemplar, will find that he never
abandoned essential portions of this somewhat peculiar reasoning about the nature of
language (cf. Schleicher 1860:3-26 passim, 33-37). In fact, Schleicher himself (see the
2nd ed., 1869:33n) refers to his first book in matters dealing with "Vom Leben der
Sprache", thus refuting Arbuckle's (1973:28) assertion that Schleicher "must be read
within the context of the idealist philosophy of his student days, and the positivism or
Darwinism of his maturity." Indeed, it appears to me that Schleicher's views on
language and the nature of linguistic science evolved but little after 1848, and that
Hegel's philosophy in effect led him to adopt a 'positivist', 'materialist', and
'scientistic' viewpoint (cf. Koerner 1982, for details). I therefore shall dwell a little
more on Schleicher's so-called earlier views.
It is evident from his later writings on questions of theory and method in
linguistics that in his first book Schleicher laid down much of his future frame of
reference, with only certain changes of emphasis and refinements being made later. It
is true that the naturalism so characteristic of Schleicher's writings from 1850 onwards
only occupies a minor place in his linguistic argument of 1848. However, it is there
and cannot be overlooked. Thus, when describing the first (i.e., monosyllabic) class
of languages in his typological scheme, Schleicher says (p.8):
42
The bulk of Schleicher's 1850 book (on which see 2.2 below) is in effect concerned with
language classification on the basis of morphological criteria.
Das Wort ist hier durchaus nicht gegliedert, es gleicht dem einfachen Krystall, der
uns ebenso als strenge Einheit erscheint im Gegensatze zu den höheren Organismen
von Pflanze und Thier.
Although he does not yet define language as an organism with clearly biological
connotations, but only in the Humboldtian sense of grammar (cf. p.19), it is striking to
see Schleicher making use of metaphors derived from the natural sciences, especially
geology and botany, in the course of his theoretical argument. Most conspicuously, the
term 'Organismus' or, plural, 'Organismen' occurs quite frequently in his Zur
vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte, which is a monographic study of the phenomena
of assimilation, loss, vocalization, etc. of/j/ in the various languages of the world (cf.
Schleicher 1848:2, 5 [3 times], 8, 10 [twice], 11, etc.). Interestingly enough, on the
same page where Schleicher quotes from Hegel's Naturphilosophie (p.18) he makes
use of the term 'dissimilation' (introduced by Pott in the early 1830s into the linguistic
nomenclature). 43 In this book Hegel (1970[1842]:464-98) treats the subject of assim
ilation at considerable length in a subsection to the third part of his treatise entitled "Der
tierische Organismus" (pp.430-539), a part in which extensive references are made to
the work of Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) in anatomy and to Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck
(1744-1829) in biology (pp.505ff. and 509ff., respectively). There is therefore a very
good reason to believe that Schleicher was led by Hegel's work (if not by his own
personal predilections) to the study of the natural sciences themselves.
Though language is still defined as a mental phenomenon, Schleicher (1848:18)
describes its development in the following terms:
Wie die Erde, nach Erschaffung des Menschen, so ist die Sprache nach dem Eintreten
in die Geschichte ein Leichnam, preisgegeben dem Einflusse den jene höhere
Organismen, auf diese der Geist ausüben.
This deterministic view of language evolution needs to receive little else than a
naturalistic motivation to make it characteristic of Schleicher's subsequent work; in fact,
the physical laws of the vocal organs, resulting in assimilations for example, are
already cited here as explaining the forces of morphological decay within words (cf.
p.163 and elsewhere).
Schleicher argues that language decay (Verfall der Sprache) or the history of
languages in general, though in an inverse relation to language evolution, must follow,
like history, a regular, in fact 'lawful' (gesetzmässig) course which is essentially the
43
Cf. A. F. Pott, Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Indo-Germanischen Sprachen,
vol.II (Lemgo: Meyer, 1836), p.5, followed by illustrations from Sanskrit and other languages, p.6ff.
Klaus Grotsch (forthcoming) found an earlier use of 'Dissimilation' by Pott, namely, in a review
published in 1832 in the Berliner Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik Nos.48/49, cols.382-383,
and even in this review there is no indication that Pott is using the term for the first time. As regards
the term 'assimilation', it can be found in the first Akademie-Abhandlung of Pott's teacher, Franz Bopp,
"Vergleichende Zergliederung des Sanskrit und der mit ihm verwandten Sprachen", Abhandlungen der
Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin; Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1824.117-48,
on p.143 (= page 27 in F. Bopp, Kleinere Schriften zur vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft: Gesam
melte Berliner Akademieabhandlungen, 1824-1854, Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR, 1972).
same in all languages (Schleicher 1848:25). 44 He does not seem to realize that his
claims — that the essential identity of these phases of language development can be
deduced from the "im Wesentlichen identischen Natur des Menschen" and that the
method of the scientist of language must be empirical, based on minute observation ~
may contrast sharply with his view that linguistics is a 'historical' discipline (pp.25-
26). It may be taken as an indication of his strong bent towards a naturalistic
interpretation of language that Schleicher again takes up the distinction between a
historical and a systematic approach, this time without attempting to bridge these
contrasting views in a dialectic fashion:
Der systematische Theil der Sprachforschung im Gegensatze zum historischen hat -

irre ich nicht, so sagt diess [sic] Bopp irgendwo -- eine unverkennbare Ähnlichheit
mit den Naturwissenschaften. (Schleicher 1848:27-28)
Schleicher argues that this observation manifests itself in the division of languages into
classes, and he continues, reverting to his previously introduced comparison between
the structure of language families and the structures found in the realm of fauna and
flora:
Wie in der Botanik gewisse Merkmale - Keimblätter, Beschaffenheit der Blühte -

vor anderen sich als Eintheilungsgrund tauglich erweisen, eben weil diese Merkmale
gewöhnlich mit anderen coincidiren, so scheinen in der Eintheilung der Sprachen
innerhalb eines Sprachstammes, wie z.B. des Semitischen, Indogermanischen, die
Lautgesetze diese Rolle zu übernehmen. Anders bei Vergleichung ganzer
Sprachstämme, wo viel bedeutendere Unterschiede sich geltend machen. Und nun ist
die Thätigkeit des Sprachforschers, der eine noch unerklärte Sprache untersucht, ganz
analog der des Botanikers, der eine ihm unbekannte Pflanze bestimmt. (Schleicher
1848:28)
Consequently, though he follows an historical approach for the most part of the
analysis, Schleicher proposes to make use of the "den Naturwissenschaften entlehnte
Methode" wherever a still poorly known language like Ossetic for instance is con
cerned. Indeed, the position which he will maintain from now on throughout his career
begins to take shape when he affirms that the "naturwissenschaftliche Theil der
Sprachenkunde ist [...], im Gegensatz zum historischen, der systematische" (pp.28-
29). The next step, as will become evident in what follows, was to claim that
linguistics belongs to the natural, and not to the historical, sciences.
2.2 To the uninitiated reader of today, Schleicher's writings published after he had
been appointed 'extra-ordinary' professor of classical philology and literature at the
University of Prague in March 1850 (cf. Dietze 1966:28), seem strongly influenced by
(apparently 'Darwinian') evolutionary ideas and by the natural sciences in general.
44
What Schleicher is really referring to is that there is a tendency in modern languages toward
what A. W. Schlegel had termed the 'analytical' type, i.e., the development from a morphological type
of language with a fairly free word order (e.g., Sanskrit) to a syntactical type of language with a fairly
strict word order (e.g., Modern English). Cf. Schleicher (1869[I860]:69-70), where he is more explicit
on this issue.
Language is now clearly conceived as something like a living organism characterized by

periods of growth, individualization, and gradual decay. Indeed, Schleicher, in his
second book, repudiates his earlier view that linguistics is a historical discipline because
language has a development (cf. Schleicher 1850:10-11, note).
By the time Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht appears,
Schleicher's views on the nature of language and the status of linguistics have become
fixed. Later statements of theory and method are little more than elaborations on the
same theme. In this second book, Schleicher (1850:1-5) argued strongly for a sharp
distinction (and a separation of labour) between 'Linguistik' (a term which he uses here
to replace the imprecise term 'Sprachvergleichung' of his first book) and 'Philologie'.
For Schleicher, 'Philologie' was a 'historical discipline'; it regards language
(usually in the form of written texts) as a means of investigating the thought and
cultural life of a people. By contrast, 'Linguistik' — and Schleicher uses the term
almost polemically in his argument 45 — is a field that concerns itself 'with the natural
history of man'. Linguistics, in Schleicher's understanding, is a natural science, both
because its object is open to direct observation and because language is outside the
45
From 1849 onwards (cf. the title of the pamphlet mentioned in note 27 above) Schleicher
favoured Linguistik' to 'Sprachwissenschaft', 'vergleichende Sprachforschung' and other terms, probably
because it sounded more like 'Botanik', 'Mathematik', and 'Physik' and suggested an alignment of the
subject with the natural and exact sciences; cf. his note, "Sprachwissenschaft, glottik", Beiträge zur
vergleichenden Sprachforschung 2.127-128 (1860), especially p.l28. His (1850:1-5) polemic shows
that he regarded linguistics as a natural science, in contradistinction to 'Philologie', a historical
discipline. (Note that Die Sprachen Europas has as its subtitle "Linguistische Untersuchungen ",
whereas the 1848 book appeared as volume I of "Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen", perhaps also
because Schleicher recognized that comparison cannot be the sole task of linguistic science.) What
Schleicher found unattractive about 'Linguistik' was its hybrid composition; he called it "ein ... übel
gethanes wort" in his note of 1860 referred to above. He was therefore glad to employ a term, namely
'Glottik', which he found already in use at the University Library in Jena, following his appointment
there in 1857 (cf. Schleicher's acknowledgement in a footnote on p.1 of volume I of his Compendium
of 1861). (Prof. J. Dietze, Director of the Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle,
informed me that the Jena Library did use 'Philologica' in contrast to 'Glottica' prior to Schleicher's
arrival.) It appears that Schleicher first used this term in his monograph Zur Morphologie der Sprache
(Schleicher 1859:37), submitted to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences on 27 August 1858,
although there is no hint that he is in effect introducing it. 'Glottik' was first discussed in the short
paper written in 1859 (already referred to in this footnote), in which he apologizes for having used
'Linguistik' "mit Vorliebe", since it is twice as bad for a linguist to employ such a term to describe his
field. Whatever its merits, 'Glottik' did not become regular currency in Germany, where
'Sprachwissenschaft' remained the more usual term, and 'Linguistik' its less frequent synonym. It
appears that Schleicher's 'Glottik' was unsuccessful in German-speaking lands chiefly because it was
associated with his naturalistic conception of language, a conception the next generation of linguists
were at pains to avoid and, later on, to oppose. In Britain, we find 'glossology' and 'glottology'; cf. for
instance George Grote (1794-1871), "On Glossology", Journal of Philology 4.55-66, 157-166; 5.153-
182 (1872-73), and for glottology, see John Rhys' (1840-1915) review of Saussure's Mémoire in The
Academy (London) 16.234 (27 Sept. 1879); however, these terms that did not find general acceptance.
By contrast, 'Glottik' was successfully implanted in Italy by Graziadio Isaia Ascoli (1829-1907), the
praeceptor of linguistic science during the last third of the 19th century. He immortalized it in his
Archivio Glottologico Italiano (1873ff.), and 'glottologia' remained the unrivalled term until, in the
wake of the strong impact of structuralism in the 1960s, 'linguistica' came frequently into use by the
younger anti-establishment generation (cf. Koerner 1982c, for details).
realm of free will. In his opinion, language is subject to unalterable, natural laws.
Schleicher concedes that this applies especially to phonology and 'Formenlehre' (he
introduced the term 'Morphologie' only in 1858), and much less to the level of syntax
and still less to the sphere of stylistics, which is part and parcel a subject matter for the
philologist to investigate (Schleicher 1850:4; cf. also Arbuckle 1973:18-19, for an
exposition).
Whereas 'Philologie' has to do with 'Kritik', with the interpretation of
historically transmitted texts, 'Linguistik' is at its best when it has to do with those
languages (such as the Amerindian languages) which have no literary tradition.
Linguistics is concerned with the investigation of an area in which "das Walten
unabänderlicher natürlicher Gesetze" (p.3) can be observed, and where words for
instance develop like "Naturorganismen der Pflanze" (p.9). Linguistics, like the natural
sciences, is founded on observation; the investigator has to be familiar not just with one
particular language (like the philologist who could do his work knowing only one
language). In fact, he should aim at universality (p.4), and at least should have an
overview and a practical knowledge of the languages of a given area before he
endeavours to analyze them. In that way 'Linguistik' becomes synonymous with
'Sprachvergleichung' (p.5).
Schleicher is to repeat essentially the same argument throughout his lifetime, in
individual articles (cf., e.g., note 45) as well as in book-length works (e.g., Schleicher
1869[1860]: 119-129). In the second chapter of his Die Sprachen Europas in systemat
ischer Uebersicht (1850:5-10), "Wesen und Eintheilung der Sprachen", Schleicher
takes up the findings of his 1848 book. However, in the subsequent chapter,
"Sprachengeschichte" (10-20), the idea that language belongs to the mental sphere of
man is rejected, even though he reiterates his earlier view that the system of a given
language type reflects previous stages of its development (pp.10-11). Such a position
is, as we have seen above (2.1), entirely compatible with a naturalist view of language.
The simple fact that every known language constitutes a complete entity necessitates
that two essential aspects in the history of language are distinguished: "1, Geschichte
der Entwicklung der Sprache, vorhistorische Periode; 2, Geschichte des Verfalls der
Sprache, historische Periode" (Schleicher 1850:13). Characteristically, Schleicher is
not interested in glottogenesis, in any speculation about the origin of language, but
confines his research to the development of language, in its formal-material substance.
The so-called 'prehistorical period', the period about which we have no record, can
only be reconstructed on the basis of the attested languages, and these show, for
Schleicher (p.14), that there has been a development from monosyllabic, to
'agglutinative', and finally to 'inflectional' languages.
In the chapter on "Methode der Linguistik" (21-28) Schleicher argues in favour
of an approach derived from the natural sciences, and what he says about the basis of
scientific research in linguistics is something many of us would like to put on the desk
in front of certain 'modern linguists':
Wer selbst linguistische oder überhaupt naturwissenschaftliche Studien gemacht

hat, wird gewiss oft genug erfahren haben, dass alles Wissen ohne eigene
Beobachtung, d.i. in der Linguistik ohne selbständiges Studium der betreffenden
Sprachen, keinen Werth hat. Wer ein Urtheil eines Anderen über eine Sprache
annimmt, ohne es durch eigene Kenntnisnahme jener Sprache controlirt zu haben,
ist eben so wenig ein Linguist als der ein Philolog ist, der einem Anderen ein Citat
nachschreiben kann ohne es nachgeschlagen zu haben etc. (1850:21-22, note)
The method of linguistic comparison was succinctly described by Schleicher in the

preface to his Die Formenlehre der kirchenslawischen Sprache published two years
later:
This procedure, like the method of linguistic science in general, agrees with the
method of the natural sciences, of which linguistic science forms a part. The
comparative anatomist never compares the form of the skull of two animals by
taking the skull of a newborn specimen of the one sort, and the skull of an adult of
the other; if the needful material is wanting, as is often the case in fossil remains,
he does just what we do; according to known laws he reconstructs what is lacking,
on the same plane of age with the specimen before him. (Schleicher 1852b:VII,
quoted after Delbrück 1882:54)
It is curious to learn that Delbrück deleted this quotation from later editions of his
Einleitung, much to the regret of the translator of the first edition of his book, Eva
Channing, 46 who criticized him for suppressing this 'picturesque statement' which
Delbrück had added, namely:
[...], I should be inclined, despite my slight acquaintance with anatomy, to assert

that in the passage above quoted SCHLEICHER views the proceedings of the
anatomist through philological spectacles. (Delbrück 1882:54)
As a matter of fact, Delbrück did not believe that Schleicher "was inspired by the
anatomist to emulate his example"; instead, he thought that Schleicher "sought among
the scientists for analogies to his own procedure, after it was already complete." (Ibid.;
my italics: KK). It appears that Delbrück -- who in 1873 had received Schleicher's
former position at the University of Jena -- could not accept that Schleicher had directly
borrowed from the natural sciences to develop his theory of language and method of
linguistic analysis, since he wanted to believe that Schleicher was - quite in contrast to
what he himself asserted in the introductory pages of Die Sprachen Europas (1850) and
in many subsequent publications - "in the essence of his being, — a philologist."
(Delbrück 1882:55).
Archibald Henry Sayce (1845-1933), author of The Principles of Comparative
Philology (London: Trübner, 1874; 3rd ed., 1885) and the two-volume Introduction to
the Science of Language (London: Paul, 1880; 4th ed., 1900), writing a review of the
1882 translation of Delbriick's book, states that "full justice is done to the contributions
made to linguistic science by his [i.e., Bopp's] successors down to Schleicher, who
46
See her review of the second ed. of Delbriick's Einleitung (Leipzig, 1884) in American Journal
of Philology 5.251-52 (1884), p.251. (I have so far been unable tofindout more about Eva Channing,
who appears to have been a pupil of W. D. Whitney, than what I said in the foreword to the 1974
reprint of Delbriick's book, especially on pp.xii-xiii and xiv-xv, note.)
marks an era in its history" (emphasis added: KK).47 To the histor-ian of linguistics it
must seem puzzling when he realizes that Delbrück entitled his next chapter (devoted to
the development of the 'junggrammatische Richtung') "New Endeavours", thus clearly
setting the work of Schleicher apart from the next generation of linguists.
The attentive reader of Schleicher's post-1848 publications will notice that his
references to the natural sciences were not merely a metaphor. Quite in contrast to
Hoenigswald's (1963:5) conjecture that "he seems to have known little about Darwin's
predecessors" — a view which, by the way, he later altered upon the present writer's
suggestion (cf. Hoenigswald 1974:356, n.7) — we have seen earlier (1.0) that
Schleicher was quite well versed in the natural sciences of his day. Apart from
cultivating special types of flowers, he was a member of various associations
concerned with plant cultivation; in fact he published articles and reviewed books on
gardening and the like (cf. the bibliography of Schleicher in Dietze 1966, especially
pp.173, 177-178, and 180). How else could he maintain, after having familiarized
himself with Darwin's evolution theory, that it constituted "the unavoidable result of the
principles recognized in the modern science of nature" (Schleicher 1869:29 = 1863:11-
12) and that it had been "called forth by the tendency of our age" (1869:21) or, to cite
the German original (1863:7), that it was "durch die Geistesrichtung unserer Tage
bedingt"?
Schleicher's reference to what Goethe termed the 'Geist der Zeiten' is signifi
cant. In fact, Darwin himself acknowledged his debt to Lyell, whose Principles of
Geology appeared in its eighth edition by 1850. Maher (1966:3) has pointed out that
evolutionalism was made explicit in the work of the French naturalist Lamarck from
1801 onwards, for instance in his Système des animaux sans vertèbres, ou tableau
général des classes, des ordres et des genres de ces animaux (Paris: Deterville) and his
two-volume Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants (Paris: Dentu, 1802),
though in these earlier works (as the titles already suggest) the systematic aspect
remains predominant.48 Although Lamarck was by no means the first to suggest a
genealogical tree to depict organic evolution, we find in his two-volume Philosophie
zoologique of 1809 (cf. Uschmann 1967:13) probably one of the first 'arbres
généalogiques', an expression used earlier, and perhaps for the first time in naturalist
47
See The Academy 21, No.541 (London, 16 Sept. 1882), 207-208, p.207, where Sayce also
lauded the presentation for its 'impartiality'.
48
For further details on Jean-Baptiste de Monet, chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), see Erik
Nordenskjöld, The History of Biology: A survey (New York & London: A.A. Knopf, 1932), 316-330,
esp. pp.324ff., on his idea of the evolution of man. Nordenskjöld (p.320) is in error when he attributes
the creation of the term 'biologie' to Lamarck. In fact, both the terms 'Morphologie' and 'Biologie'
were used in print by Karl Friedrich Burdach (1776-1847) - and not by Goethe - in 1800 (cf. Schmid
1935:605). As a matter of fact, the latter term was already used by Theodor Georg August Roose
(1771-1803), the Braunschweig professor of anatomy, in the preface to his Grundzüge der Lehre von der
Lebenskraft in 1797; cf. Gerhard H. Müller's note, "First Use of Biologie", Nature 302.744 (28 April
1983), for details. (There are indications that this might not be the first use after all, as Dr. Müller
suggested in private correspondence.)
nomenclature, by the French botanist Antoine Nicolas Duchesne (1747-1827) in

1766. 49
Although Cuvier's rather static model in comparative anatomy put a
considerable brake on the evolutionist theories in the first half of the 19th century, it is
interesting to note that by 1851, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) in his Social Statics
compared societies with organisms as inevitably evolving (Maher 1966:3). In other
words, at least from the early 19th century onwards, evolutionist ideas were 'in the
air'; 50 in fact so much so that Darwin's compatriot Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913)
developed a theory of evolution by natural selection independently of Darwin, thus
forcing the latter to publish the result of his findings earlier than he had intended. 51
Schleicher's work makes it abundantly clear that there was no need for him to read the
Origin of Species (cf. also section 3.0 below); that he found support of his convictions
in Darwin's theory constitutes an incident post rem, and offers no basis for the
traditional contention that Schleicher's naturalism was the result of his reading of
Darwin's book.
2.3 Another set of notions in Schleicher's work which became influential in the
19th-century linguistic theory, especially between 1860 and 1880, are the concept of
language as an organism, the particular interest in morphological classification of
languages, and the family tree idea (cf. Koerner 1987) which must be seen in the light
of the 'climate of opinion' of the time, the general impact that the discoveries of the
natural sciences, notably botany, comparative anatomy, and geology, had exerted on
the minds of the educated classes. In Schleicher's case, we must add to the intellectual
atmosphere then prevailing a personal predilection for the natural sciences as factors
which at times carried him far beyond the evidence in matters of language. However,
as will become clear in the next section, what is interesting to note is that, irrespective
49
Cf. his Histoire naturelle des fraisiers (Paris: Didot le jeune, 1766); cf. Uschmann (1967:12).
50
Cf. Walter Baron and Bernhard Stricker, "Ansätze zur historischen Denkweise in der Naturfor
schung an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert", Sudhoffs Archiv 47.19-35 (Wiesbaden, 1963), and
also Arthur Oncken Lovejoy's (1873-1962) article, "The Argument for Organic Evolution before the
'Origin of Species', 1830-1858", in an excellent collection of papers brought together under the
auspices of the Johns Hopkins History of Ideas Club, Forerunners of Darwin, 1745-1859 ed. by Bent-
ley Glass et al. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), pp.356ff. - Schleicher, at the beginning of
chap. V of his Die Sprachen Europas (1850:28n), referred thirteen years before his essay on Darwin
(1863) to the German translation (Leipzig: Voss, 1840-48) of another work which might have played
an important role in the dissemination of evolutionary ideas: James Cowles Prichard's (1786-1848)
Researches into the Physical History of Man [after the second edition: ... of Mankind], first published
in London in 1813 (2nd ed., London: J. & A. Arch, 1826; 3rd rev. and enl. ed., 5 vols., London:
Sherwood, Gilbert & Piper, 1836-47). See also Prichard's The Natural History of Man (London: H.
Ballière, 1843; 2nd ed., 1845; 3rd ed., 1848). The translation of the first-mentioned work,
Naturgeschichte des Menschengeschlechts, was done by Rudolf Wagner (1805-1864) and Johann Georg
Friedrich Will (d.l868).
51
Cf. Everett Mendelsohn, "The Biological Sciences in the Nineteenth Century: Some problems
and sources", History of Science 3.39-59 (1964), p.51.
of its biologistic ingredients, his theory of linguistic science was a self-contained,

rigorous system, at least part of which has become an essential ingredient of any
serious work in historical-comparative linguistics. Certain other proposals, notably his
mathematical notations in linguistic typology and the relationship between language
development and the evolution of the human brain (cf. Schleicher 1865a: 18-21), still
await full exploitation.52
3.0 Schleicher's General Theory of Language and Its Contribution

to Linguistic Science
In a recent paper devoted to Schleicher as an Indo-Europeanist and a general

linguist, Theodora Bynon (1987:145) noted that, after him, "at least in Germany, these
two roles tended no longer to be united within a single scholar", and that "from the
Neogrammarians onwards Indo-European studies tended to espouse his empiricism to
the extent of developing an oversensitivity towards theory ('speculation')". It thus
appears that Schleicher was not only a major theoristt in the mid-19th century, but that
his influence continued well after his death in 1868, probably until the mid-1880s,
when Hermann Paul's (1846-1921) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (1880; 51920)
began to make itself felt in the discussion of general principles of language study and
their socio-psychological underpinnings. In matters concerning historical-comparative
linguistics, however, Schleicher's ideas and procedures are still with us, albeit
modified or refined by subsequent generations of scholars. In what follows, several of
his legacies are discussed.
3.1 Although Schleicher was by no means the first linguist to hold naturalistic
views — these can be found not only in the work of Bopp (referred to by Schleicher
[1848:27-28] with approval), but also in the writings of Friedrich Schlegel (1808),
Jacob Grimm (1819ff.) and others of the preceding generation - he probably was the
first to make an organicist concept of language the basis for his theory of language.
For him, languages could be analyzed like organisms because they can be classified
into genera, species, and subspecies. His construction of a genealogical tree to depict
both their genetic relationship, the proximity and the distance, and the historical
52
A recent rediscoverer of Schleicher's ideas on the subject is the anatomist Joachim-Hermann
Scharf of the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina in Halle. Cf. his articles, "Gedanken
zum Problem der Sprachevolution", Gegenbaurs morphologisches Jahrbuch 119.944-53 (1973);
"Bemerkenswertes zur Geschichte der Biolinguistik und des sogenannten Sprach-Darwinismus als
Einführung zum Thema Aspekte der Evolution menschlicher Kultur'", No va Acta Leopoldina N.F. 42,
Nr.218, 323-41 (1975), pp.324, 327, and elsewhere, and "August Schleicher und moderne Fragen der
Glottogonie (Dualisierung und Ergativismus) als biologische Probleme", Beiträge zur Geschichte der
Naturwissenschaften und Medizin: Festschrift für Georg Uschmann (= Acta Historica Leopoldina, 9),
ed. by Gerhard Mothes & J.-H. Scharf (Leipzig: J. A. Barth, 1975), 137-219. - The only 19th-century
scholar to take up Schleicher's suggestions concerning the evolution of the human brain was his avid
follower Abel Hovelacque (1843-1896); cf. his 1876 book La Linguistique (see Hovelacque 1877:22-
38).
development of the Indo-European languages is closely associated with the acceptance

of this view. 53 As early as 1850, Schleicher spoke of the Indo-European languages in
terms of family relationship, while at the same time suggesting what he soon after de
veloped as the 'comparative method' in historical linguistics:
Eine Vergleichung der ältesten Formen, der den Familien zugrunde liegenden
Sprachen beweist die gemeinsame Abstammung aller dieser Familien von einer
indogermanischen Stammutter, deren Wesen nur aus den Töchtern erschlossen
werden kann. (Schleicher 1850:124)
In 1853 - six years before the appearance of Origin of Species, which, by the way,
contained only a fairly schematic 'genealogical tree' (cf. the reproduction in Uschmann
1967:16) - Schleicher published two Stammbäume (cf. the reproductions in Priestly
[1975:301, 302]), one in an article written in Czech and devoted to Lithuanian with
particular regard to Slavic (Schleicher 1853a), 54 the other in a two-page note published
in a popular monthly for the educated layman (Schleicher 1853b). 55 It appears,
however, that the 'family tree' became more widely known among linguists after
Schleicher had included several of these diagrams in Die Deutsche Sprache (1860:28,
53
Whether Schleicher's philological training at Bonn University under Friedrich Ritschi (1806-
1876), which included the establishment of stemmata depicting the descent of manuscripts from a
common source, had an impact on his ideas (as Hoenigswald [1963:5] suggested) or not, must remain
an open question since Schleicher never referred to the analogue (cf., however, Koemer 1987, where a
distinction is made between the family tree idea, on the one hand, and the method of triangulation in
linguistic reconstruction, on the other; it is quite possible that the latter had been conceived - pace
Timpanaro [1971:75-76] - under the influence of the 'Lachmannsche Methode'). It is interesting to
read in Dietze's scientific biography of Schleicher (1966:18): "Die Keime zu seiner späteren den
Naturwissenschaften ähnlichen Forschungsmethode hat Ritschi gelegt." (Unfortunately, Prof. Dietze
has not expanded on this statement and when asked, could not offer specific support for his
observation.)
54
This paper goes back to a presentation made in the Philological Section of the Czech Academy
of Sciences, Prague, on 6 June 1853, i.e., one year after the death of Frantisek Ladislav Celakovsky
(1799-1852), in whose posthumously published lectures on comparative Slavic grammar we find a
family diagram as well (cf. Celakovsky 1853:3, reproduced in Priestly 1975:303). Although there is
no doubt that Schleicher and the Czech Slavicist knew one another, no evidence has as yet been
brought forward to suggest that Schleicher took the tree diagram from Celakovsky. This coincidence
may well be an example of a given 'climate of opinion' combined with personal interests producing the
same results in different people working in related areas.
55
It is regrettable that Uschmann, who wrote an otherwise very informative study, appears not to
have been aware of Schleicher's contribution; cf. his article "Zur Geschichte der Stammbaum-
Darstellungen" (1967), in which he cites the following interesting observation made by the naturalist
Peter Simon Pallas (1741-1811), otherwise known as the main editor of the famous Russian linguistic
enterprise Linguarum totius orbis vocabularia comparativa (St. Petersburg, 1786/87-1789): "Unter
allen übrigen bildlichen Vorstellungen des Systems der organischen Körper würde es aber wohl die
beste sein, wenn man an einen Baum dächte, welcher gleich von der Wurzel an einen doppelten, aus den
allereinfachsten Pflanzen und Tieren bestehenden, also einen tierischen und vegetabilischen, aber doch
verschiedentlich aneinanderkommenden Stamm hätte" (Uschmann [1967:11] translating from the Latin
of Pallas' Elenchos Zoophytorum [The Hague: P. van Cleef, 1766]). It seems that Uschmann took
note of Schleicher only several years later (cf. Uschmann 1972).
58, 82, and 94). Interestingly enough, already in his Antrittsvorlesung at the Uni
versity of Bonn in 1846, when he was just 25 years old, Schleicher expressed his
conviction that "Wir sind also im Stande, gewissermassen einen Stammbaum der
Sprachen aufzustellen" (Schleicher 1850[1846]:18). From 1860 on, if not earlier, the
genealogical tree was an established device for demonstrating language relationship.
Schleicher added such a diagram depicting the Indo-European language family in the
various editions of his Compendium (1861-62; 4th ed., 1876) and later in his 'open
letter' (Schleicher 1863) to his fellow-in-arms in defending Darwin's evolution theory
and colleague at Jena, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). Still today, the idea of the
'Stammbaum', despite various attempts at revision if not replacement, has retained a
role in the discussion concerning genetic relationship in linguistics (cf. Ruhlen 1987:2,
5, and elsewhere). The 'Stammbaumtheorie' has remained perhaps one of the most
conspicuous achievements attributed to Schleicher, even though there have been some
doubts whether he should be credited for its invention (cf. note 54).
3.2 It could be shown that the understanding of language as an organism, both in its
naturalistic and philosophical interpretations, was shared by the first generation of
comparative and historical linguists. We can find references to botany, comparative
anatomy, physiology and other natural sciences in the work of Grimm, Rask, and
Bopp as well as the Schlegels and Humboldt (cf. Koerner 1975:729-734, 723-724,
741-744; Picardi 1977:40-46, for details). The terminological kit of 19th-century
linguistics (still with us today) clearly suggests the deep influence of the natural
sciences on the study of language. Once the relationship between certain Asian and
most European languages was discovered, the metaphor of family relationship became
the appropriate concept; linguists spoke of daughter and sister languages to characterize
their relation-ships. The idea of the genealogical tree (Stammbaum) was introduced
into linguistic debate by Friedrich Schlegel in his influential Ueber die Sprache und
Weisheit der Indicr (1808:84; cf. the relevant quotation in Koerner 1980a:216), and we
find terms such as 'root' (Wurzel) — a traditional notion (cf. Delbrück 1882:9ff.), now
susceptible to biological interpretation — 'stem' (Stamm), 'branch' (Zweig), and related
concepts in the linguistic Uterature from around 1800 onwards.
Schleicher was, to a considerable extent, a child of his time and imbued with the
naturalist tradition in linguistics, using the natural science terminology of his prede
cessors and incorporating them in his overall theory of language. If Bopp introduced
the term 'assimilation', and Pott the term 'dissimilation' into linguistics (cf. Grotsch
1985), we will see in Schleicher's work that these concepts now function as major
agents in the evolution of language (e.g., Schleicher 1848:18; 1850:87; 1860:54-57,
and elsewhere). It is quite significant that in his attempt to develop a mathematical,
rigorous system of language classification Schleicher introduced the term 'morphology'
into linguistics (Schleicher 1859b, 1861a). But Schleicher was not just adding to
scientific nomenclature; what is more, he was drawing from naturalist assumptions
important theo-retical conclusions for the study of language.
If language was to be regarded as a natural phenomenon, its development must
follow definite laws. Bopp, under the influence of Humboldt, spoke of 'phonetische
Gesetze' as early as 1826, using the term 'sound law' (Lautgesetz) from 1824
onwards; these he described as physical and mechanical laws in the preface to his
Vergleichende Grammatik of 1833 (cf. Kovács 1971:224-226). In Schleicher's teach
ing from 1848 onwards (cf. Wechssler 1900:62-65) the concept of 'Lautgesetz'
becomes a cornerstone of his linguistic theory. As early as 1850, he stated:
Wie die Naturwissenschaften, so hat auch die Linguistik die Erforschung eines
Gebiets zur Aufgabe, in welchem das Walten unabänderlicher natürlicher Gesetze
erkennbar ist, an denen der Wille und die Willkür des Menschen nichts zu ändern
vermögen. (Schleicher 1850:3)
Indeed, one may wonder whether this affirmation (repeated by Schleicher on numerous
occasions) does not constitute the source of Hermann Osthoff's (1847-1909)
frequently-cited contention that "die lautgesetze wirken blind, mit blinder notwen-
digkeit" (Osthoff 1878:326). Schleicher's subsequent work shows that he worked out
the concept of 'law' in phonological and morphological change. How much he thought
of the importance of 'strict adherence' to the 'sound laws' in historical research, is
evident already from an auto-correction dating back to 1856:
Dieser fall ist sehr lehrreich, denn er zeigt, dass es vom übel ist deutungen gegen die
lautgesetze zu unternehmen; ein punkt, gegen den so viel und so oft verstossen wird,
weil es den meisten schwerer ankömmt einzugestehen: "das weiss ich noch nicht"
als eine Sünde gegen die sprachwissenschaftliche methode zu begehen. (Quoted from
Schmidt 1887:306).
Schleicher, in contrast to many of his colleagues, including Georg Curtius (1820-

1885), his personal friend, thought much of methodological rigor in linguistics, an
approach traditionally associated with the Neogrammarians in the histories of lin
guistics. Indeed, his demand for strictness of method at times took on polemical
proportions, as may be illustrated in the following quotation from his essay on
Darwin's theory and the science of language — the attack on etymology appears to be a
veiled criticism of the work of August Friedrich Pott (cf. also the note added on p.128
to the second edition of Schleicher's Die Deutsche Sprache):
We may learn from the experience of the naturalist, that nothing is of any
importance to science but such facts as have been established by close objective
observation, and the proper conclusion derived from them; nor would such a lesson
be lost upon several of my colleagues. All those trifling, futile interpretations,
those fanciful etymologies, that vague groping and guessing -- in a word, all that
which tends to strip the study of language of its scientific garb, and to cast ridicule
upon the science in the eyes of thinking people — all this becomes perfectly
intolerable to the student who has learned to take his stand on the ground of sober
observation. Nothing but the close watching of the different organisms and of the
laws that regulate their life, nothing but our unabated study of the scientific object,
that, and that alone, should form the basis also of our training. All speculations,
however ingenious, when not placed on thisfirmfoundation, are devoid of scientific
value. (Schleicher 1869:19-20 = 1863:6; italics are those of the translator)
With respect to Schleicher's conception of 'sound laws', the following lengthy footnote
added to the second edition (1866) of his Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik
der indogermanischen Sprachen (pp.15-16) is quite revealing. There he states:
Die genaue ermittelung der lautgesetze so wie den fortschritt unserer disciplin
überhaupt kann man verfolgen in der Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung
[...] und in den beitragen zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung.
Schleicher continues:
Gegenwärtig stehen sich in der indogermanischen sprachwißenschaft zwei richtungen

gegenüber. Die anhänger der einen haben sich strenges festhalten an den
lautgesetzen zum grundsatze gemacht (s. G. Curtius in Leipzig, [Wilhelm] Corssen
[(1820-1875)] in Pforte, der Vfr. des vor ligenden comp. u.a.); die andere richtung
(Benfey in Göttingen, Leo Meyer [(1830-1910)] in Dorpat u.a.) glaubt sich durch die
bisher erkannten lautgesetze bei deutung und erklärung der sprachformen nicht
wesentlich hindern laßen zu dürfen. [...] Die fernere geschichtliche entwicklung
unserer disciplin wird zeigen, auf welcher seite die sichere, wahrhaft wißenschaftliche
grundlage für das künftige gedeihen der sprachwißenschaft zu suchen ist. (English
transl. in Lehmann 1967:87-88)
It is therefore not surprising that §148 for instance in Schleicher's Compendium is

entitled "Andeutungen einiger für die vergleichende grammatik wichtigen lautgesetze"
(pp.226-236), and the bulk of it is devoted to various kinds of assimilation (226-234).
Indeed, references to 'sound laws' and instances in which Schleicher insists on their
importance to linguistic analysis, abound in Schleicher's work (cf. Schleicher 1848:
119-20; 1850:15-16; 1857:225; 1858b; 1860:47, 57, etc.; cf. Wechssler [1900:62-65]
for a detailed account of Schleicher's treatment of sound laws).
The role attributed by Schleicher to the 'Lautgesetze' can be seen not only in his
theoretical pronouncements (cf. also Schmidt 1887, Streitberg 1897), but also, and
perhaps even more convincingly so, in his practical work. It is already evident in his
Morphology of Old Church Slavonic (Schleicher 1852b), but still more clearly in
evidence in his Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen of 1861-62 (2 vols.; Italian transl., 1869; English transl., 1874-77). Indeed,
his technique for the reconstruction of proto-forms relies on the regular application of
sound laws.
3.3 The other major pillar of the alleged neogrammarian doctrine concerns the
analogy principle. Again, we find early pronouncements on this subject in Schlei
cher's Die Sprachen Europas (1850:101, 143n, etc.) as well as in Die Deutsche
Sprache (1860), where Schleicher described the forces behind simplification and
uniformization of linguistic forms in the following terms:
Allein schon in älteren Sprachperioden, zu einer Zeit, in welcher die Laute noch
standhafter sind, beginnt sich eine Macht geltend zu machen und feindlich auf die
Mannigfaltigkeit der Formen zu wirken und sie mehr und mehr auf das aller-
nothwendigste zu beschränken. Dieß ist die oben schon erwähnte Anähnlichung
namentlich der weniger häufig in der Sprache gebrauchten, in ihrer Besonderheit aber
wohl gerechtfertigten Formen, an andere, vor allem an vielfach gebrauchte und so
sich stark ins sprachliche Gefühl einprägende, die Analogie. Das Streben nach
bequemer Uniformierung, nach Behandlung möglichst vieler Worte auf einerlei Art
und das immer mehr ersterbende Gefühl für die Bedeutung und den Ursprung des
Besonderen hat zur Folge, daß der Bau der Sprache mit der Zeit sich immer mehr
vereinfacht. (Schleicher 1860:60 = 1869:60-61)
In his discussion of strong verb forms in German in the same book (p.170) he makes
use of the analogy principle as the source for changes which do not follow a given
'durchgreifende sprachliche Veränderung'. Perhaps the best proof of the importance
that Schleicher attached to the concept of analogy is that he suggested a dissertation on
this phenomenon to one of his most promising students, Jan Baudouin de Courtenay
(1845-1929), who completed the work in Jena in February 1868.56 Schleicher's
view of the 'analogy' principle can be found in his observations on child language as
well (see Schleicher 1861b; English transl. in Bar-Adon & Leopold 1971:19-20).
3.4 I tend to agree with the opinion generally held by later generations of linguists
that Schleicher's strength did not lie in inventiveness and originality of ideas. In fact,
his innovativeness lay in the systematization of the knowledge accumulated since the
inception of what Grimm referred to as 'die neue Philologie'. As Delbrück (1882:43-
47) showed, Schleicher on many occasions followed suggestions made by Bopp,
Theodor Benfey (1809-1881), Curtius, and others. However, it cannot be sufficiently
stressed that Schleicher, taking up ideas coming from outside the realm of linguistics,
worked out an overall theory of language based on his conviction that linguistics should
imitate the natural sciences and therefore adopt a methodology no lessrigorousthan that
of botany — in matters of formal classification — and comparative anatomy — in matters
of systematic comparison of languages and, in effect, matters concerning linguistic
reconstruction.
Schleicher's lasting achievement — and Delbrück (1882:47) regards it a point
"which at all events brings [his] originality into the clearest light" — is the method of
reconstruction of earlier language stages on the basis of attested forms in the daughter
languages and, in particular, the attempt to reconstruct the Indo-European Ursprache.
As early as 1852, Schleicher had proposed the following principles to be followed by
the historical-comparative linguist, which today, some 135 years later, still have lost
little of their general validity:
When comparing the linguistic forms of two related languages, I first try to trace the
forms to be compared back to their probable base forms, i.e., that structure [Gestalt]
which they must have [had], exception made of the sound laws [Lautgesetze] that
had an impact on them, or at least I try to establish identical phonetic situations in
historical terms for both of them. Since even the oldest languages of our language
56
Cf. J. Baudouin de Courtenay, "Einige Fälle der Analogie in der polnischen Deklination",
which appeared in Adalbert Kuhn (1812-1881) and Schleicher's Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprach
forschung 6.19-88 (1869), and for which Baudouin received, at the instigation of his former fellow
student at Jena, August Leskien (1840-1916), a doctorate from the University of Leipzig in 1870. For
subsequent developments, see Koerner (1975a:756-57, n.67).
family are not available in their oldest shape - this is also true for Sanskrit! -- and
since in addition the existing languages are known to us in very different stages of
development [Altersstufen], we must first eliminate the different ages of the
languages as much as possible before there can be any comparison. (Schleicher
1852b:iv-v; my translation: KK)57
3.5 Although it was not Schleicher who introduced the use of 'starred' forms into
linguistics (cf. Koerner 1975b for at least a partial history), it was he who made
rigorous use of the asterisk in linguistic reconstruction. His attempt to present "Eine
fabel in indogermanischer ursprache" (Schleicher 1868b), therefore, was not simply
'ein Scherz', as Delbrück (1880:53) surmised, or something to chuckle about, as King
(1969:154-155) believed, but was in fact a consistent expression of his belief that the
rigorous application of his principles would permit the re-establishment of forms
characteristic of the Indo-European matrix.58 Schleicher's confidence in the unerring
uniformity of the laws governing phonetic change (which clearly underlies his
reconstructed text) — and it should be remembered that it was he who made phonology
the centre of linguistic analysis (Pedersen 1931:265-66) ~ was evidently shared by no
less a scholar than Karl Brugmann (1849-1919). Brugmann, from 1886 onwards,
sought to replace Schleicher's Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der
indogermanischen Sprachen of 1861-62 — on whose constant revision the older scholar
worked until his death in 1868 (cf. the addenda in Schleicher 1869) — with his
Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (2nd ed.,
1892-1916). Interestingly, although Delbrück did not share Schleicher's (and, by
extension, Brugmann's) optimism, but expressed doubt concerning the scientific status
of reconstructed forms admitting only their heuristic value (cf. Delbrück 1880:53, but
also pp.75, 90, 91, 100, and elsewhere), he collaborated with Brugmann on the first
edition of the Grundriss and contributed widely to the promotion of the neogrammarian
cause. Brugmann and many of his colleagues, ironically, were finally engaged in
working within the "hypothesentrüben Dunstkreis der Werkstätte, in der man die
indogermanischen Grundformen schmiedet", an activity which he and Osthoff had
strongly denounced in their manifesto of 1878, more so indeed than Schleicher, who
had a practical knowledge of a number of living languages and who was one of the first
linguists to engage in field work.
57
For a different translation, see Delbrück (1882:48).
58
This reconstructed text of Schleicher's was revised two generations later by Herman Hirt (1865-
1936) in accordance with the state of the art; cf. his posthumous work, Die Hauptprobleme der
indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft ed. by Helmut Amtz (Halle/S.: M. Niemeyer, 1939), pp.113-15,
and was again revised two generations later by Winfred P. Lehmann and Ladislav Zgusta, "Schleicher's
Tale after a Century", Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic, and Typological Linguistics: Festschrift for
Oswald Szemerényi ed. by Bela Brogyanyi (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1979), 455-66, on p.462, with
a commentary on pp.462-64. Ruhlen (1987:45) is therefore wrong when he states that "today an
awareness of the overwhelming difficulties involved in such an enterprise discourages even the
attempt", though he is quite right in saying: "Yet for all its flaws, Schleicher's reconstructed fable
served a useful purpose in focussing attention on the existence of the parent language itself' (ibid.).
4.0 Conclusion: The Schleicherian Paradigm and its Extension
In recent years a consensus appears to have been developing that the work of
August Schleicher produced a framework for comparative-historical research for
subsequent generations of linguists. Indeed, if one accepts the view that the science of
language as an autonomous discipline developed during the 19th century, it would
probably be accurate to say that the first 'paradigm' or, as Kuhn (1970:184) suggested
in an elaboration on his earlier term, 'disciplinary matrix' in linguistics was produced
by Schleicher during the 1860s. This consensus appears to be shared by a variety of
scholars who have written on 19th-century linguistcs, beginning with Beneš (1958),
and followed by Putschke (1969), Jankowsky (1972), Hoenigswald (1974), and
others (cf. Koerner 1981a: 168-169 and below, for relevant quotations), and most
recently, it would seem, Bynon (1987).
Outside of the circle of the junggrammatische Richtung it had always been
accepted that the Neogrammarians were heirs to Schleicher's legacy. I quote below
from a statement made by Hermann Collitz (1855-1935), but I could cite similar
observations made by other contemporaries of the members of the 'Leipzig School'.
Thus it was clear for Otto Jespersen (1860-1943), writing in 1894 that Schleicher was
"the spiritual father of every comparative philologist of our times", and still in the
1920s Hugo Schuchardt (1842-1927) refers to Schleicher, because of his "Auffassung
der Lautgesetze", as the "Vater der Junggrammatiker" (Schuchardt 1928:452). Later,
Jespersen, in his 1922 book Language, sees Schleicher in a double role, as marking
"the culmination of the first period of Comparative Linguistics, as well as the transition
to a new period" (p.71). This is not contradictory for, as in the work of all innovators,
traces of preceding accomplishments, standpoints, and procedures of analysis can
always be found; this holds true for the work of Saussure as well as of Chomsky.
Quite naturally Schleicher produced something like a synthesis of the different currents
of the first half of the 19th century, i.e., Bopp's essentially descriptive comparative
work, Grimm's historical approach, and Humboldt's philosophical-theoretical
proposals, especially in the area of language typology, albeit considerably reduced to
their positivist-materialist base (cf. Bynon 1987:134-145, for a detailed discussion of
Schleicher's typological theories).
It is true that this first 'paradigm', this first general framework for comparative-
historical and indeed typological research took a long time to develop. It started at the
very beginning of the 19th century, it was already sketched in Friedrich Schlegel's
work of 1808; it was continually worked on by the first generation of the comparative-
historical philologists, and it finally received its codification in the work of Schleicher.
However, Schleicher's linguistic theory most importantly constituted the basis for
comparative-historical work for subsequent generations of linguists; not merely, as we
now read in most histories of linguistics beginning with Delbrück (1880),59 the
59
It appears that many histories written to the present day have tended to rely on those accounts
that have put stress exclusively on Schleicher's indebtedness to his predecessors, to the extent that a
culmination of previous ideas about language and its study. I have written about
Schleicher's contribution to the science in the previous section (see 3.0 above), and I
would like to illustrate my point only with reference to two major aspects of his
teachings, namely, the importance he and others (e.g., Curtius) attached to a strict
adherence to the 'Lautgesetze', and the value of his method of reconstruction.
Neogrammarian Whig history and subsequent history-writing in linguistics
(which usually has relied on these earlier accounts uncritically) depict August Leskien's
(1840-1916) methodological pronouncement of 1876 as marking the beginning of a
new era in linguistics. In light of what Schleicher has said regarding linguistic method,
it would be difficult to see anything revolutionary in Leskien's statement below:
In my investigations I have started with the principle that the form of a certain case,
as we meet with it, can never result from an exception to phonetic laws which are
observed elsewhere. To prevent misunderstanding, I will add: if by 'exception' be
understood those cases where the expected phonetic change has not taken place from
definite ascertainable causes, such as the absence of Lautverschiebung in German
phonetic groups like st etc., where one rule to a certain extent interferes with
another, - then of course there is nothing to be said against the statement that
phonetic laws are not infallible. For the law is not nullified in such circumstances,
and works as we should expect it would do wherever these or other disturbances, i.e.,
the influence of other laws, are not present. But if we admit arbitrary, accidental
deviations, such as are incapable of classification, we virtually confess that
language, which forms the object of our research, is inaccessible to scientific
investigation.60
We may recall that Leskien, the first incumbent of a chair in Slavic Philology at the
University of Leipzig in 1870, was a student of Schleicher's during 1866-67. 61 We
may also note that Curtius, who did not subscribe to Schleicher's naturalistic views and
who was more of a philologist than a linguist with a definite theory-orientation, stated
as early as 1858, in the first volume of his Grundzüge der griechischen Etymologie
(Leipzig: B.G. Teubner), p.67: "... nur das gesetzmässig und innerlich zusammen
hängende lässt sich wissenschaftlich erforschen, das willkürliche höchstens errathen,
nie erschliessen."
Considering the accumulation of knowledge in the field, and the refinement in
method brought about during the decades following Schleicher's early death in 1868,
an acknowledgement of debt to him by a second-generation Neogrammarian can be
regarded as a significant documentation of Schleicher's accomplishment. As it
sine ira et studio evaluation of his importance for the generations of linguists following him was not
made (cf., however, Benware 1974:54ff., for a measured view).
60
A. Leskien, in the preface to his study, Die Declination im Slavisch-Litauischen und Germani
schen (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1876), p.xxviii, quoted here in the English translation taken from Delbrück
(1882:60-61, note 1). The German original is cited in Wilbur (1977: xxv-xxvi).
61
Dietze (1966:63) reports among other things: "Wahrhaft väterlich hat er [Schleicher] sich z.B.
um eine akademische Stellung für Leskien bemüht". How much Schleicher cared for another student of
his can be gathered from his letters, written during the last four years of his life, to Johannes Schmidt
(Zeil 1984).
happens, in an important study on the principle and method of reconstruction, Eduard

Hermann (1869-1950), a former pupil of Delbrück, made the following statement:
Aus der Hinterlassenschaft Schleichers ist abgesehen von seiner litauischen
Grammatik [= Schleicher 1856] ... für den heutigen Sprachforscher nichts von
grösserer Wichtigkeit als sein Versuch, die Formen der indogermanischen
Grundsprache zu rekonstruieren. Zwar gehen wir heutzutage bei dem Rekonstruieren
vorsichtiger und konsequenter zu Werke als Schleicher, und daher sehen die
erschlossenen Formen meist anders aus als zu Schleichers Zeiten; aber Schleichers
Grundgedanke ist geblieben: daß es möglich sei, durch Vergleichung der verschie
denartigen Formen der überlieferten Sprachen die einheitlichen Formen des Urindo
germanischen, aus denen jene entstanden sind, wiederherzustellen.62
Hermann could have added that the procedure of reconstruction, not only its idea, goes
back to Schleicher, as Pisani (1954:344ff.) has emphasized (and as I hope to have
demonstrated in this chapter). Unlike Curtius, who lived long enough to take up battle
with the Junggrammatiker in 1885 (cf. Wilbur 1977, for cogent analysis and
documentation), Schleicher had few immediate followers to go to his defence during
the 1870s and 1880s, when the Neogrammarians clearly dominated the field and its
historiography.63 One of the few exceptions was Johannes Schmidt (1843-1901),
who had studied with Schleicher at Jena during 1862-66 (cf. Dietze 1966:63). He
sensed that the Neogrammarian 'manifesto' of 1878 was directed against Schleicher
without mentioning his name (cf. Schmidt 1887:304), and pointed repeatedly to
Schleicher's importance in the development of the theories and methods on which the
Neogrammarians based their work (e.g., Schmidt 1890).
I have shown previously (Koerner 1975a:757-60; 1981a) the Neogrammarians'
indebtedness to Schleicher. Interestingly, Brugmann himself, in 1885 when the major
battle had been won, was prepared to concede that the difference between his and his
colleagues' view and that of their predecessors was really not considerable, arguing in
fact for continuity instead of discontinuity:
Ich für meine Person habe die neueren Anschauungen immer nur für die organische
und folgerechte Fortentwicklung der älteren Bestrebungen gehalten, [...]. Wenn wir
Jüngeren auf absolut strenge Beobachtung der Lautgesetze dringen und die Aufgabe
der sprachgeschichtlichen Forschung immer erst dann für gelöst erachten, wenn den
lautlichen Unregelmässigkeiten gegenüber die Antwort auf das Warum? gefunden
ist, so ziehen wir nur die letzte Consequenz von dem, was man schon vorher
verlangt hatte und was in Gemeinschaft mit Schleicher und Andern namentlich
62
E. Hermann, "Über das Rekonstruieren", Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 41.1-64
(1907), p.l. In Schleicher's defence it should be pointed out that he stated himself (1869:342): "Daß
diese Grundformen [i.e., the reconstructed Indo-European proto-forms] wirklich einmal vorhanden
gewesen sind, wird durch die Aufstellung derselben nicht behauptet."
63
Everyone familiar with the present situation in linguistics in North America would attest to the
same phenomenon, namely, that fairly young scholars engage in pro-domo history writing, with other
lending support to this type of Whiggish distortion of recent developments in the field by uncritical,
and frequently glowing reviews of these concoctions.
gegen Bopp und Benfey erfolgreich vertreten zu haben eines der Hauptverdienste
gerade von Curtius ist.64
In addition to the aspects of Schleicher's contribution to linguistic theory and method

already discussed at some length in this paper, it appears desirable to refer to other of
his works, in which he could be regarded as a pioneer. From his fieldwork in
Lithuania in the summer of 1852 (cf. Schleicher 1852c, for his report) Schleicher
brought back not only linguistic material and a good practical knowledge of Lithuanian
— his Papageientalent, as he called it, allowed him to pick up foreign languages within a
matter of weeks — but also literary material, fairy-tales, proverbs, riddles and songs
(cf. Schleicher 1857). Almost thirty years later, Brugmann and Leskien were to
undertake a similar trip to collect Lithuanian folklore. 65 In 1857, while convalescing
from one of his fairly frequent fits of 'Brustleiden' (probably tuberculous in nature,
which brought about his death at age 47), he wrote an account of his home dialect (cf.
Schleicher 1858a), 66 something repeated only in the mid-1870s in the writings of
Georg Wenker (1852-1911) and Jost Winteler (1846-1929). 67
Yet the work with which Schleicher's name will be most widely associated is
his Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen
(1861-62), which ran through four editions until 1876, and was translated into Italian
(1869) and English (1874-77), with a small portion also appearing in Russian
translation in 1866 (Dietze 1966:171). Interestingly enough, although Schleicher
received at least half of the Prix Volney in 1867 for the second revised edition (1866) of
his Compendium, Michel Bréal (1832-1915), who did not like Schleicher's naturalistic
conception of language, deciding instead to translate Bopp's Comparative Grammar
(Paris: Hachette, 1866-72), obtained the full Volney Prize in 1866 on the basis of
64
K. Brugmann, Zum heutigen Stand der Sprachwissenschaft (Strassburg: . J. Trübner, 1885) ~
repr. in Wilbur (1977) -- p.125.
65
See their publication Litauische Volkslieder und Märchen gesammelt von A. Leskien und K.
Brugmann (Strassburg: K. J. Trübner, 1882). -- Whether Saussure actually undertook any fieldwork on
his (apparently rather short) trip to Lithuania, following his doctorate in Leipzig in February 1880, is
still unclear; but it is clear that following the publication of Schleicher's Handbuch der litauischen
Sprache in 1856-57, it had become very fashionable to study this Baltic language; cf. Georges Redard,
"Le voyage de F. de Saussure en Lituanie: Suite et fin?", Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 30.141-150
(1976), esp. pp.149-150.
66
We might also add that Schleicher was the first linguist to write on child language (Schleicher
1861b), a subject later investigated extensively by his former pupil Baudouin de Courtenay; cf. his
article (by the same title as Schleicher's), "Einige Beobachtungen an Kindern", (Kuhn & Schleicher's)
Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 6.215-222 (1869), and the select edition, provided by the
late Maria Chmura-Klekotowa, of the vast amount of material Baudouin had accumulated during many
years of his life entitled Spostrzezenia nad jezykiem dziecka [Observations on child language]
(Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1974).
67
We should not forget to mention the work of Johann Andreas Schmeller (1785-1852) on
Bavarian dialects; however Schmeller's monograph (1821) and dictionary (1827-28) are based, almost
exclusively, on written material, not on field research.
volume I his former master's Grammaire comparée. (This way, the éminence grise of
French linguistics contributed significantly to the delay in scientific advance in France
by at least two decades.) Hermann Collitz (1855-1935), who had read Schleicher's
writings very attentively (and who did not appreciate the 'eclipsing stance' of the
Neogrammarians), five years after his first public pronouncement in favour of the
'scientific paradigm' created by Schleicher's Compendium (see the relevant quotation
in section 1.0 above), made the following affirmation in 1886:
Die methode der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft hat einmal und meines

wissens, solange diese wissenschaft besteht, nur einmal eine wesentliche
Umgestaltung erfahren. Sie rührt her von Schleicher, der zuerst den versuch gemacht
hat, die indogermanische ursprache nach ihren lauten und formen aus den einzelnen
überlieferten sprachen zu reconstruieren. Dieses unternehmen war für die methode
der vergleichenden Sprachforschung deshalb so überaus wichtig, weil es erst dadurch
möglich geworden ist, die grundsätze der historischen Sprachforschung auf die
vorhistorische epoche [i.e., the period about which there are no texts available] der
indogermanischen sprachen anzuwenden.68
Collitz continues by showing how this method allowed the gap between the oldest
attainable structure of Indo-European to be filled and how Schleicher prepared the way
for the principles of historical-comparative research, on which the next generation of
linguists — including the Neogrammarians ~ built.
A re-appraisal of Schleicher, which few linguists in the late 19th and the first
half of the 20th century were willing to consider, began only in the 1950s (e.g., Pisani
1954; Benes 1958). It may have begun with Bohumil Trnka's (1895-1984) 1952
paper on Schleicher, in which he characterizes his place in the annals of linguistics in
the following terms:
[Schleicher's importance] does not lie in his linguistic metaphysics, but in his
positive linguistic research [...]. One cannot say that he had been able to discover
diachronic sound laws in therigidneogrammarian sense, but he was well capable of
grasping the linguistic facts, and this exactly.69
68
H. Collitz, "Die neueste Sprachforschung und die erklärung des indogermanischen ablautes",
Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 11.203-242 (1886) - repr. in Wilbur (1977) -- on
p.206. Collitz (pp.206-212 passim) adduces evidence for his claim, both from Schleicher's writings
and from statements made by Brugmann and others. He quotes a statement made by Victor Henry
(1850-1907) in 1885, which supports his view - and mine - of the dependence of the Neogram
marians on Schleicher (p.212): "Il n'en reste pas moins que Schleicher, par la tournure scientifique de
son esprit, par sa méthode consistant à descendre des formes primitives restituées aux formes histo
riques, par l'erreur même qui lui faisait ranger la linguistique au nombre des sciences naturelles, a
préparé le mouvement actuel, s'il n'en a à son insu donné le signal. Ceux qui avaient accepté sa forte
discipline se sont pliés sans peine à elle, plus rigoureuse encore, que leur imposent les temps
nouveaux; et, pour me résumer, j'oserai presque dire que, si une mort prématurée ne l'eut ravi à la
science, il serait aujourd'hui l'un des plus fermes tenants des doctrines que condamne M. Curtius
[(1885), also repr. in Wilbur 1977]".
69
My translation of the following original: "[Schleichers Bedeutung liegt] nicht in seiner lin
guistischen Metaphysik, sondern in seiner positiven Forschung [...] Man kann nicht sagen, daß er
diachronische Lautgesetze im Sinne der strengen junggrammatischen Methode hätte finden können, aber
It is clear from what has been presented earlier in this chapter that Schleicher was much
more aware of what he was doing in matters of linguistic theory and method (in
addition to his practical research) than Trnka and many others have made out. How
else could he have laid down the principles of comparative-historical analysis in such a
manner that we have been building on his proposals? It is now for more than five
generations after his death that devices such as the use of the asterisk, the technique of
reconstruction of proto-forms, the rigorous application of the sound laws, the
Stammbaum theory, and many other concepts have been with us.
It is only fairly recently, however, that statements like the following appear in
the literature: "Die methodischen Grundsätze der junggrammatischen Schule können
höchstenfalls als eine Absolutsetzung der um 1870 bestehenden Methodenpraxis ange
sehen werden" (Putschke 1969:21), or "Their work is much more comprehensive
conclusion and selective intensification of what has been taught and practiced -- more
taught than practiced though — before them" (Jankowsky 1972:126). Similarly,
Hoenigswald observed (1974:351): "Until more is known we shall say that it is in the
[eighteen] sixties, and with August Schleicher, that the great change occurred".70
Finally, Christmann, summarizing the findings of one of his former students
(Schneider 1973), affirmed in 1977: "die Lehre der sogenannten Junggrammatiker
[stellt] eine direkte Fortsetzung und Weiterführung der Konzeption Schleichers dar."71
Quod erat demonstrandum.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Writings by August Schleicher72
1846. "Ueber den Wert der Sprachvergleichung: Eine Rede, vorgetragen am 27. Juni
1846 in der acad. Aula zu Bonn". (Christian Lassen's) Zeitschrift für die Kunde
des Morgenlandes 7.25-47 (1850).
den linguistischen Tatsachen wußte er sich in aller Vollständigkeit und Genauigkeit leicht zu
bemächtigen." (Trnka 1952:141).
70
In this context it is interesting to note that Salomon Lefmann (1831-1912), who, in 1870, had
published a biographical sketch of Schleicher of some 100 pages (Lefmann 1870) -- cf. Heymann
Steinthal's review in Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 7.349-350 (1871) -
argued in part II of his voluminous Bopp biography (Lefmann 1891-95) that the years following the
publication of Kuhn's Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung in 1852 marked a new phase in
linguistics (1895:277-278).
71
Hans Helmut Christmann, "Einleitung" to his anthology, Sprachwissenschaft des 19. Jahr
hunderts (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977), ..
72
For a fairly complete bibliography of Schleicher, see Joachim Dietze, August Schleicher als
Slawist (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966), 165-182. For translations of Schleicher's works into
English, see entries 1861b, 1869[1863], 1874-77[1870 -- see Schleicher 1861-62], and 1983b[1865a].
1848. Zur vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte. (= Sprachvergleichende Untersu

chungen, 1.) Bonn: H. B. König, ix, 166 pp. [On 'Zetacismus'.]
1850. Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht. (= Linguistische Untersu
chungen, 2.) Ibid., x, 270 pp. (New ed., with an introduction by Konrad Koerner,
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1983.)
1851. Ueber die Stellung der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft in mehrsprachigen
Ländern: Eine Rede beim Antritte der neuerrichteten Lehrkanzel der vergleichenden
Sprachwissenschaft und des Sanskrit. Prague: J. G. Calve, 24 pp.
1852a. Les langues des l'Europe moderne. Traduit de l'allemand par Hermann
Ewerbeck. Paris: Ladrange & Garnier frères, viii, 324 pp. [Fr. transl. of Schleicher
1850.]
1852b. Die Formenlehre der kirchenslawischen Sprache, erklärend und vergleichend
dargestellt. Bonn: H. B. König, xxiii, 376 pp.
1852c. "Briefe an den Sekretär über die Erfolge einer nach Litauen unternommenen
wissenschaftlichen Reise". Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien;
Philos.-hist. Classe, Sitzungsberichte 9.524-558.
1853a. "O jazyku litevském, zvláste ohledem na slovansky [On the Lithuanian
language, especially with reference to Slavic]". Casopis Ceského Musea 27.320-
334. [Presented in the Philological Section of the Czech Academy of Sciences on 6
June 1853.]
1853b. "Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes". (Kieler) Allgemeine
Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und Literatur (Sept. 1853), 786-787. [Signed,
"Sonneberg, den 15. Aug. 1853".]
1853c. "Lituanica". Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien; Philos.-hist.
Classe, Sitzungsberichte 11.76-156. (Separate ed., Vienna: . . Hof- und Staats-
druckerei, 1853, 83 pp.)
1855. "Kurzer abriß der geschichte der slawischen sprache". Österreichische Blätter
für Literatur und Kunst; Beilage zur österreichisch-kaiserlichen Wiener Zeitung, 7.
Mai 1855, No.19. (Rev. version published in Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprach
forschung 1.1-27, 1856.) [For Russ. and Serbo-Croatian transl., see Dietze
1966:168.]
1856-57. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. 2 vols. Prague: J. G. Calve. [Vol.1:
Litauische Gram-matik, xvii, 342 pp.; vol.11: Litauisches Lesebuch und Glossar,
xiv, 351 pp.]
1857a. "Brechung vor r und h und mehrfacher umlaut des a und â in der nord-
ränkischen mundart der stadt Sonneberg am südhange des düringer [= Schleichers
orthography for 'thüringer'] waldes". (Adalbert Kuhn's) Zeitschrift für verglei
chende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Latei
nischen 6.224-230.
1857b. Litauische Märchen, Sprichworte, Rätsel und Lieder. Gesammelt und
übersetzt. Weimar: H. Böhlau, ix, 244 pp. [Essentially a German transl. of
Schleicher 1856-57, vol.II.] (Repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1975.)
1858a. Volkstümliches aus Sonneberg im Meininger Oberlande. Weimar: In Com
mission bei H. Böhlau, xxvi, 158 pp. (2nd ed., Sonneberg:  Albrecht, 1894.)
1858b. "Das auslautgesetz des altkirchenslawischen und die behandlung ursprünglich
vocalischen anlautes in der genannten sprache". (Schleicher & Adalbert Kuhn's)
Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen,
celtischen und slawischen Sprachen 1.401-426, 508 ("Berichtigungen").
1859a. "Kurzer Abriss der Geschichte der italischen Sprachen". (Friedrich Ritschel's)
Rheinisches Museum für Philologie N.F. 14.329-346.
1859b. Zur Morphologie der Sprache. (= Mémoires de l'Académie impériale des

Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VIIe série, tome I, No.7.) St.Petersburg: Eggers &
Co.; Riga: S. Schmidt; Leipzig: L. Voss, 38 pp. in-4°. [Presented on 27 Aug.
1858; see also 'Selbstanzeige', with corrections, in Beiträge zur vergleichenden
Sprachforschung 2.256-257 [1860]. See also Schleicher 1861a.]
1860. Die Deutsche Sprache. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, vii, 340 pp. (2nd rev. ed. by
Johannes Schmidt, 1869, xi, 348 pp.; 3rd ed., 1874; 4th ed., 1879; 5th ed., 1888;
repr., Niederwalluf: M. Sändig, 1974.)
1861a. "Zur Morphologie der Sprachen". Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung
2.460-463. [Correcting details in 1859b and 1860.]
1861b. "Einige Beobachtungen an Kindern". Ibid., 497-498, and 4.128 (1865).
[English transl. in Child Language: A book of readings ed. by Aaron Bar-Adon &
Werner F. Leopold, 19-20. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.]
1861-62. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Spra
chen: Kurzer Abriss einer Laut- und Formenlehre der indogermanischen Ursprache,
des Altindischen, Alteranischen, Altgriechischen, Altitalischen, Altkeltischen,
Altslawischen, Litauischen und Altdeutschen. Weimar: H. Böhlau, iv, 764 pp.
(2nd rev. ed., 1866, xlvi, 856 pp.; 3rd rev. ed. by Johannes Schmidt & August
Leskien, 1870, xlviii, 829 pp.; 4th ed., 1876.) (Repr., Hildesheim: G. Olms,
1975.) [For Italian and English transl., see Schleicher 1869[1866] and 1874-
77[1870], respectively.]
1862. "Das ansichsein in der sprache". Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung
3.282-288.
1863. Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft: Offenes Sendschreiben
an Herrn Dr. Ernst Häckel, a.o. Professor der Zoologie und Director des zoolo
gischen Museums an der Universität Jena. Weimar: Böhlau, 31 pp., 1 table. (2nd
and 3rd ed., 1873; repr. in Nova Acta Leopoldina N.F. 42, No.218, 377/378-393
[1975].)73
[1863. "Der wirthschaftliche Culturstand des indogermanischen Urvolkes". Jahrbücher
für Nationalökonomie und Statistik (Jena: G.Fischer) 1.401-411.]
1865a. Die Bedeutung der Sprache für die Naturgeschichte des Menschen. Weimar:
H. Böhlau, 29 pp. (Partly reprinted in Sprachphilosophisches Lesebuch comp. by
Heinrich Junker, 186-91. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1948.) [There appeared trans
lations into Russian (1868), French - on which see 1868a (below) - and Hun
garian (1878).]
1865b. "Die Unterscheidung von Nomen und Verbum in der lautlichen Form".
Abhandlungen der Königlich-Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften [zu
Leipzig]; Phil.-hist. Klasse 4:5.497-587.
1868a. La théorie de Darwin et la science du langage. De l'importance du langage pour
l'histoire naturelle de l'homme. Traduit de l'allemand par Charles de Pommayrol
[recte: Pomairols]. Avant-propos de Michel Bréal. (= Collection philologique.
Recueil de travaux originaux ou traduits relatifs à la philologie et à l'histoire
littéraire, 1.) Paris: Franck, iv, 31 pp. (Repr. in Tort 1980:55/57-91.)
1868b. "Eine fabel in indogermanischer ursprache". Beiträge zur vergleichenden
Sprachforschung 5.206-208. (Largely reprinted in Problemgeschichte der verglei
chenden (indogermanischen) Sprachwissenschaft by Otto Zeller, 122-123.
Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967.)
73
For translations into Russian (1864) and Hungarian (1878), see Dietze (1966:173); for trans
lations into French (1868) and English (1869), see this list below.
1869. Indogermanische Chrestomathie: Schriftproben und Lesestücke mit erklärenden

Glossaren zu August Schleicher's Compendium der indogermanischen Sprachen.
Bearbeitet von Heinrich Ebel, August Leskien, Johannes Schmidt und August
Schleicher. Weimar: H. Böhlau, vii, 387 pp.
1869[1863]. Darwinism Tested by the Science of Language. Transl. from the German,
with preface and additional notes, by Alexander V. W. Bikkers. London: J. 
Hotten, 69 pp., 1 table. (Repr. in Schleicher [et al.] 1983b:l-71.)
1869[1866]. Compendio di grammatica comparativa delVAntico Indiano, Greco ed
Itálico [e lessico delle radici indo-italico-greche di Leone Meyer]. Traduzione di
Domenico Pezzi. Turin & Florence: E. Loescher, lxxx, 600 pp.
1871. Laut- und Formenlehre der polabischen Sprache. Ed. posthumously by August
Leskien. St. Petersburg: Commissionäre der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissen
schaften, Eggers & Co.; Leipzig: L. Voss, xix, 353 pp. (Repr., Wiesbaden: M.
Sändig, 1967.)
1874-77[1870]. A Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European,
Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin Languages. Transl. from the third German ed. by
Herbert Bendall, 2 parts. London: Trübner & Co., xxiii, 160 pp.; viii, [161-] 263
pp.
1975a. See 1857b (above).
1975b. See 1861-62 (above).
1983a. See 1850 (above).
1983b. "On the Significance of Language for the Natural History of Man". Linguistics
and Evolu-tionary Theory: Three essays by August Schleicher, Ernst Haeckel, and
Wilhelm Bleek ed. by Konrad Koerner, 75-82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[English transl. of Schleicher (1865a) by J. Peter Maher.]
B. Secondary Sources 7 4
Amsterdamska, Olga. 1987. Schools of Thought: The development of linguistics from
Bopp to Saussure. Dordrecht & Boston: D. Reidel.
Arbuckle, John. 1973. "August Schleicher and the Linguistics/Philology Dichotomy:
A chapter in the history of linguistics". Word 26:1.17-31 (for 1970).
Arens, Hans. 1955. Sprachwissenschaft: Der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike
bis zur Gegenwart. Freiburg & Munich: . Alber. (2nd rev. and enl. ed., 1969.)
Bar-Adon, Aaron & Werner F(riedrich) Leopold, eds. 1971. Child Language: A book
of readings. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Benes, Brigit. 1958. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Jacob Grimm, August Schleicher: Ein
Vergleich ihrer Sprachauffassungen. Winterthur: P. G. Keller.
Benfey, Theodor. 1869. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philo
logie in Deutschland seit dem Anfange des 19. Jahrhunderts mit einem Rückblick
auffrühere Zeiten. Munich: J. G. Cotta. (Repr., New York: Johnson, 1965.)
Benware, Wilbur A. 1974. The Study of Indo-European Vocalism in the 19th Century,
from the beginnings to Whitney and Scherer: A critical-historical account. Amster
dam: J. Benjamins. (2nd printing, 1989.)
74
The list excludes references given in full in the body of the text. For additional bibliographical
references, consult Morpurgo Davies (1975:683-716), Koerner (1975:809-827), and Priestly (1975:322-
333). There the reader may find any reference that inadvertently might have been omitted in the present
bibliography.
Blumenthal, Arthur L. 1970. Language and Psychology: Historical aspects of psycho-

linguistics. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Bopp, Franz. 1820. "Analytical Comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and
Teutonic Languages, shewing the original identity of their grammatical structure".
Annals of Oriental Literature 1.1-64. (Repr., with a biobibliographical account of
Bopp by J. G. Guigniaut, an introduction by F. Techmer, and a letter by W. von
Humboldt, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1974; 2nd ed., 1989.)
Brugmann, Karl [& Berthold Delbrück]. 1886-1900. Grundriss der vergleichenden
Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 5 vols. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
(2nd rev. ed., 1892-1916.)
Bynon, Theodora. 1987. "August Schleicher: Indo-Europeanist and general linguist".
Studies in the History of Western Linguistics: In honour of R.H. Robins ed. by T.
Bynon & F. R. Palmer, 129-149. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Celakovsky, Frantisek. 1853. Cteni  srovnavací mluvnici slovanské na universite
Prazské [Lectures on comparative Slavic grammar at Prague university]. Prague:
F. Rivnác.
Curtius, Georg. 1885. Zur Kritik der neuesten Sprachforschung. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
(Repr. in Wilbur 1977.)
Darwin, Charles. 1859. Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or the
Presentation of the favoured races in the struggle for life. London: J. Murray.
---------. 1860. Über die Entstehung der Arten im Thier- und Pflanzen-Reich durch
natürliche Züchtung [in later editions: Zuchtwahl ]; oder, Erhaltung der vervoll
kommneten Rassen im Kampfe ums Dasein. Transl. and annotated by Georg
Heinrich Bronn. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart. (2nd rev. ed., 1863.)
---------. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: J.
Murray.
Davies, Anna Morpurgo, see Morpurgo Davies, A.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1880. Einleitung in das Sprachstudium. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Härtel. (6th rev. and enl. ed., 1919.)
---------. 1882. Introduction to the Study of Language: A critical survey of the
history and methods of comparative philology of Indo-European languages. Ibid.
(Repr., with an introd. by E. F. K. Koerner, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1974; 2nd
printing, 1989.)
----------. 1919. Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen: Ein Beitrag
zur Geschichte und Methodik der vergleichenden Sprachforschung. Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Härtel. (Repr., Hildes-heim & New York: G. Olms, 1976.)
Devine, A(ndrew) M(ichael). 1971. "Ausnahmslosigkeit and Stammbaumtheorie:
Questions of method". Lingua 26.348-369.
Diderichsen, Paul. 1976. "Darwin und die Sprachwissenschaft". Ganzheit und Struk
tur: Ausgewählte sprachwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen by P. Diderichsen, transl.
by Monika Wesemann, 273-287. Munich: W. Fink.
Dietze, Joachim. 1966. August Schleicher als Slawist: Sein Leben und Werk aus der
Sicht der Indogermanistik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Grimm, Jacob. 1819-40. Deutsche Grammatik. 4 vols. Göttingen: Dieterich'sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung. [2nd rev. ed. of vol. I (1822); vol. II (1826); vol. III
(1837), etc.]
Grotsch, Klaus. Forthcoming. "Some Remarks on the Origin of Assimilation' and
'Dissimilation' in Linguistic Terminology". To appear in Historiographia Linguistica 1
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1970[1842]. Vorlesungen über die Naturphilosophie
als der Encyklopßädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften zweiten Teil. Ed. by
Carl Ludwig Michelet. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. (New ed. [under the title 'Die
Naturphilosophie'] prepared by Eva Moldenhauer & K. M. Michel. Frankfurt/M.:
Suhrkamp.)
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1963. "On the History of the Comparative Method".
Anthropological Linguistics 5:1.1-11.
-------. 1974. "Fallacies in the History of Linguistics: Notes on the appraisal of the
nineteenth century". Studies in the History of Linguistics ed. by Dell Hymes, 346-
360. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press.
-------. 1975. "Schleicher's Tree and its Trunk". Ut Videam: Contributions to an
Understanding of Linguistics: For Pieter A. Verburg [...] ed. by Werner Abraham
et al., 157-160. Lisse/Holland: Peter de Ridder.
Hoenigswald, Henry M. & Linda F. Wiener, eds. 1987. Biological Metaphor and
Cladistic Classification: An interdisciplinary perspective. Philadelphia: Univ. of
Pennsylvania Press.
Hovelacque, Abel. 1876. La Linguistique. Paris: C. Reinwald. [References are to
the 2nd rev.ed. of 1877.]
Jankowsky, Kurt R. 1972. The Neogrammarians: A re-evaluation of their place in the
development of linguistic science. The Hague: Mouton.
Jespersen, Otto. 1894. Progress in Language, with special reference to English.
London: Sonnenschein & Co.; New York: Macmillan.
--------. 1922. Language; its nature, development and origin. London: Allen &
Unwin; New York: Macmillan. (Repr., New York: W. W. Norton, 1964.)
Koerner, E. F. Konrad. 1975a. "European Structuralism — early beginnings". Current
Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.XIII: Historiography of
Linguistics, 717-827. The Hague: Mouton. [Manuscript completed in June 1972.]
---------. 1975b. "Zu Ursprung und Geschichte der Besternung in der historischen
Sprachwissenschaft: Eine historiographische Notiz". Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung 89.185-190. (Repr. in Koerner 1978:211-216.)
--------. 1976a[1972]. "Towards a Historiography of Linguistics: 19th and 20th
century paradigms". History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Linguistics
ed. by Herman Parret, 685-718. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter. (Repr. in
Koerner 1978:21-54; an earlier version appeared in 1972 in Anthropological Lin
guistics 14.255-280.)
--------. 1976b. "1876 as a Turning Point in the History of Linguistics". Journal of
Indo-European Studies 4.333-353. (Repr. in Koerner 1978:189-209.)
--------. 1978. Toward a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected essays. Preface
--------. 1980a. "Pilot and Parasite Disciplines in the Development of Linguistic
Science". Folia Linguistica Historica 1.213-224. (Repr. as chap. 15 of the present
volume.)
--------. 1980b. "L'importance de William Dwight Whitney pour les jeunes lin
guistes de Leipzig et pour Saussure". Lingvisticae Investigationes 4.379-394.
(Repr. in Saussurean Studies/Études saus-suriennes by K. Koerner, 1-16. Geneva:
Editions Slatkine, 1988.)
--------. 1981a. "The Neogrammarian Doctrine: Breakthrough or Extension of the
--------. 1981b. "Schleichers Einfluß auf Haeckel: Schlaglichter auf die wechsel
seitige Abhängigkeit zwischen linguistischen und biologischen Theorien im 19.
Jahrhundert". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 95.1-21. (Repr. as
chap. 13 in this volume.)
--------. 1982a. "The Schleicherian Paradigm in Linguistics". General Linguistics 23.

1-39.
--------. 1982b. "Positivism in 19th-century Linguistics". Rivista di Filosofia 13.16-
91.
--------. 1982c. "On the Historical Roots of the Philology/Linguistics Controversy".
Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics ed. by
Anders Ahlqvist, 405-414. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. [Discussion on pp.446-
449.] (Repr. as chap. 14 in the present volume.)
--------. 1987. "On Schleicher and Trees". Hoenigswald & Wiener 1987.109-113.
(Repr. as chap. 11 in this volume.)
Kovács, Ferenc. 1971. Linguistic Structures and Linguistic Laws. Budapest: Akad.
Kiadó; Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner.
Kuhn, Thomas S[amuel]. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd enl. ed.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. (1st ed., 1962.)
Lefmann, Salomon. 1870. August Schleicher: Skizze. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
--------. 1891-95. Franz Bopp: Sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft. 2 vols. Berlin: G.
Reimer. {Nachtrag, ibid., 1897.)
Lehmann, Winfred P[hilipp], ed. & transl. 1967. Reader in 19th Century Comparative
Historical Linguistics. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press.
Lyell, (Sir) Charles. 1830-32. Principles of Geology; being an attempt to explain the
former changes of the earth's surface by reference to causes now in operation. 3
vols. London: J. Murray. (8th entirely rev. ed., 1850.)
Maher, J[ohn] Peter. 1966. "More on the History of the Comparative Method: The
tradition of Darwinism in August Schleicher's work". Anthropological Linguistics
8:3.1-12.
--------. 1983. "Introduction". Linguistics and Evolutionary Theory: Three essays
by August Schleicher, Ernst Haeckel, and Wilhelm Bleek ed. by Konrad Koerner,
xvii-xxxii. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Meillet, Antoine. 1936. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Vol.II. Paris:
C. Klincksieck.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1975. "Language Classification in the Nineteenth Century".
Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. I: Historiography
of Linguistics, 607-716. The Hague: Mouton.
--------. 1987. "'Organic' and 'Organism' in Franz Bopp". Hoenigswald & Wiener
1987.81-107.
Mounin, Georges. 1967. Histoire de la linguistique: Des origines au XXe siècle. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France. (2nd ed., 1970.)
Osthoff, Hermann. 1878. Das Verbum in der Nominalcomposition im Deutschen,
Griechischen, Slavischen und Romanischen. Jena: H. Costenoble.
Paul, Hermann. 1880. Principien [after 3rd ed.: Prinzipien] der Sprachgeschichte.
Halle/S.: M. Niemeyer. (5th ed., 1920.)
Pedersen, Holger. 1931. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century. Transl. from
the Danish by John Webster Spargo. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
(Repr., under the title 'The Discovery of Language', Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana
Univ. Press, 1962.)
Picardi, Eva. 1977. "Some Problems of Classification in Linguistics and Biology,
1800-1830". Historiographia Linguistica 4.31-57.
Pisani, Vittore. 1954. "August Schleicher und einige Richtungen der heutigen Sprach
wissenschaft". Lingua 4.337-368.
Pott, August Friedrich. 1833-36. Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der
Indo-Germanischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Lemgo: Meyer. (2nd entirely reworked ed.,
6 vols. in 10, Detmold & Lemgo: Meyer, 1859-76.)
Priestly, Tom M. S. 1975. "Schleicher, Celakovsky, and the Family-Tree Diagram: A
puzzle in the history of linguistics". HistoriographiaLinguistica2.299-333.
Putschke, Wolfgang. 1969. "Zur forschungsgeschichtlichen Stellung der junggram
matischen Schule". Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 36.19-48.
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1987. A Guide to the World's Languages. Vol.1: Classification.
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1968. Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique de
Rudolf Engler. Tome I. Wiesbaden: . Harrassowitz.
Schlegel, Friedrich. 1808. Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indicr: Ein Beitrag
zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde. Heidelberg: Mohr & Zimmer. (New ed.,
with an introd. by Sebastiano Timpanaro, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1977.)
Schieiden, Matthias. 1849. Principles of Scientific Botany. Transl. by Edwin Lan-
kester. London: Longman [et al.]
Schmeller, Johann Andreas. 1821. Die Mundarten Baierns, grammatisch dargestellt.
Munich: Finsterlin.
--------. 1827-28. Baierisches Wörterbuch, mit urkundlichen Belegen. 2 vols.
Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta.
Schmid, Günter. 1935. "Über die Herkunft der Ausdrücke Morphologie und Bio
logie: Geschichtliche Zusammenhänge". Nova Acta Leopoldina N. F. 2, Nr.8,
597-620.
Schmidt, Hartmut. 1986. Die lebendige Sprache: Zur Entstehung des Organis
muskonzepts. Berlin: Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft, Akad. der Wissen
schaften der DDR.
Schmidt, Johannes. 1869. "Nachruf für August Schleicher, [...]". Zeitschrift für
vergleichende Sprachforschung 18.315-320. (Also published in Adalbert Kuhn &
August Schleicher's Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 6.251-256
[1870]; repr. in Portraits of Linguists ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.1, 379-395.
Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1966.)
--------. 1887. "Schleichers Auffassung der Lautgesetze". Zeitschrift für verglei-
hende Sprachforschung 28.303-312. ("Nachtrag", ibid. 32.419-420 [1893].)
--------. 1890. "Schleicher, August". Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 31.402-416.
Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. (Repr., 1967.)
Schneider, Gisela. 1973. Zum Begriff des Lautgesetzes in der Sprachwissenschaft seit
den Junggrammatikern. Tübingen: [Verlag] Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik.
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1928. Hugo-Schuchardt-Brevier: Ein Vademecum der allgemeinen
Sprachwissenschaft. Zusammengestellt und eingeleitet von Hugo Spitzer. 2nd enl.
ed. Halle/Saale: M. Niemeyer. (Repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell
schaft, 1976.)
Spitzbardt, Harry, ed. 1972. Synchro nischer und diachronischer Sprachvergleich:
Zum 150. Geburtstag von August Schleicher. Jena: Friedrich-Schiller-Universität.
Stam, James H[enry]. 1976. Inquiries into the Origin of Language: The f ate of a
question. New York & London: Harper & Row.
Streitberg, Wilhelm [August]. 1897. "Schleichers Auffassung von der Stellung der
Sprachwissenschaft". Indogermanische Forschungen 7.360-372.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1971. Richtungen der modernen Sprachwissenschaft. Vol.I:
Von Saussure bis Bloomfield, 1916-1950. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Thomsen, Vilhelm. 1927. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bis zum Ausgang des
19. Jahrhunderts: Kurzgefasste Darstellung der Hauptpunkte. Transl. from the
Danish by Hans Pollak. Halle/Saale: M. Niemeyer. (Repr., Bern-Frankfurt-Las

Vegas: P. Lang, 1979.)
Timpanaro, Sebastiano. 1971. Die Entstehung der Lachmannschen Methode. 2nd rev.
and enl. ed. Transl. from the Italian by Dieter Irmer. Hamburg: H. Buske.
Tort, Patrick. 1980. Evolutionnisme et linguistique; suivi de August Schleicher, La
théorie de Darwin et la science du langage; De l'importance du langage pour
l'histoire naturelle de l'homme. Edition réalisée avec le concours de Denise
Modigliani. Paris: J. Vrin.
Trnka, B[ohumil]. 1952. "Zur Erinnerung an August Schleicher". Zeitschrift für
Phonetik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 6.134-142
Uschmann, Georg. 1967. "Zur Geschichte der Stammbaum-Darstellungen". Gesam
melte Vorträge über moderne Probleme der Abstammungslehre ed. by Manfred
Gersch, vol.II, 9-30. Jena: Friedrich-Schiller-Universität.
---------. 1972. "August Schleicher und Ernst Haeckel". Synchronischer und
diachronischer Sprachvergleich: Zum 150. Geburtstag von August Schleicher ed.
by Harry Spitzbardt, 62-70. Ibid.
Vogt, Carl. 1845-47. Physiologische Briefe für Gebildete aller Stände. 2 vols.
Munich & Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta. (3rd rev. ed., Giessen: J. Ricker, 1861.)
Wechssler, Eduard. 1900. Giebt es Lautgesetze? Halle/S.: M. Niemeyer.
Wells, Rulon S. 1973. "Uniformitarianism in Linguistics". Dictionary of the History
of Ideas ed. by Philip P. Wiener, vol. IV, 423-431. New York: C. Scribner's
Sons.
--------. 1987. "The Life and Growth of Language: Metaphors in biology and
linguistics". Hoenigswald & Wiener 1987.39-80.
Whitney, William Dwight. 1867. Language and the Study of Language. New York:
Scribner, Armstrong & Co. (6th unchanged ed., 1901; repr., New York: AMS
Press, 1971.)
--------. 1871. "Strictures on the Views of August Schleicher respecting the Nature of
Language and Kindred Subjects". Transactions of the American Philological
Association 2.35-64. (Repr., under the title of "Schleicher and the Physical Theory
of Language", in Oriental and Linguistic Studies by W. D. Whitney, vol.1: The
Veda; the Avesta; the Science of Language, 298-331. New York: Scribner,
Armstrong & Son, 1873 [actually published in autumn 1872].)
---------. 1874. "On Darwinism and Language". North American Review 119.61-88.
---------. 1875. The Life and Growth of Language: An outline of linguistic science.
New York: D. Appleton & Co.; London: H. S. King. (Repr., with a new introd.
by Charles F. Hockett, New York: Dover, 1979.)
Wilbur, Terence H[arrison], ed. & introd. 1977. The 'Lautgesetz'-Controversy: A
documentation. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Zeil, Liane. 1984. "Die Briefe August Schleichers an Johannes Schmidt (1865-1868)".
Zeitschrift für Slawistik 29.103-140.
Zeller, Otto. 1967. Problemgeschichte der vergleichenden (indogermanischen) Sprach
wissenschaft. Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag.
Mikolaj Kruszewski (1851-1887)
MIKOLAJ KRUSZEWSKI'S CONTRIBUTION
TO GENERAL LINGUISTIC THEORY*
0. Introductory observations
0.1 It is probably true of any science that while there are many
participants in actual research, only few contribute decisively to
theoretical advance. In fact, most of us are occupied with what
Kuhn has termed 'mopping-up operations' of 'normal science', and
I believe that there is nothing wrong about this state of affairs.
Indeed, many of us have witnessed the result of over-emphasis on
theory to the detriment of serious data-oriented research in linguis
tics during the 1960s and 1970s largely due to the fact that regular
time-consuming work was shunned because too many in the field
believed they had the tools and the talent to engage in theorizing
and throwing out one claim after another without sensing the
concomitant intellectual responsibility of testing them against the
available evidence. I do hope, however, that the pendulum swing is
not going to move entirely in the opposite direction during the
1980s, for I believe that no science can progress without theoretical
activity.
0.2 The history of linguistics seems to suggest that theoretical claims
have frequently, if not always, preceded substantive work, discovery,
or proof. For instance, Sir William Jones, in his famous anniversary
discourse of 1786, claimed that Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Persian,
and various European languages are related; Friedrich Schlegel
elaborated on this hypothesis, suggesting a method of how this
could be proved, and Franz Bopp and others established the truth
of this claim by working out the details over a period of several
decades. One may well argue that without the work of Franz Bopp
there may have been no comparative linguistics in the 19th century,
but one could also say that without Schlegel's program of research
Bopp would never have ventured to engage in his research. As is
well known, Bopp was a very poor theorist, but a solid practitioner.
Despite a number of false trails in matters of theoretical judgment,
his work led, like no other work did, to the establishment of
* This chapter constitutes a slightly corrected reprint, with permission of the publisher, of
a paper published in Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries ed. by Dieter
Kastovsky & Aleksandr Szwedek, vol.1 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986), pp.53-75.
linguistics as an autonomous discipline, to the first 'paradigm', if

we care to use Kuhn's philosophy of science.
0.3 In the 19th century, there were very few important theorists in
linguistics, even though we may discern a number of scholars who
made theoretical pronouncements of one kind or another. Among
these we may count especially those who had a definite interest in
general linguistics, such as the linguists following Humboldtian lines
of thought. However, while they elaborated on particular ideas such
as 'inner form', linguistic typology and classification, we could call
hardly any one of them a theoretician, i. ., someone consciously
engaged in establishing an overall framework of scientific research.
Rather, most of them pursued particular goals in their investigation,
frequently concerned with morphological or morphosyntactic struc
tures of different languages. Georg von der Gabelentz (1840 — 1893)
of all the linguists of the Humboldtian mould comes closest to what
we may call a theorist; but if compared to Hermann Paul's Prinzipien
of 1880, his Sprachwissenschaft of 1891 is more a collection of
interesting generalities than a coherent theoretical argument. Yet
even Paul was not a theoretician in the fullest sense of the term. Like
August Schleicher (1821 — 1868), who established the disciplinary
matrix for comparative-historical linguistics for all subsequent gen
erations, partly by theoretical statements, including at times what
we may nowadays regard as outrageous epistemological claims, and
partly by example, solid research and bold syntheses, Paul combined
theory with practice almost in a piecemeal fashion. If there was any
theoretician in 19th century linguistics in Reinkultur, it was the
Pole Mikolaj Habdank-Kruszewski (1851 — 1887), a man whose
contribution to linguistics spanned only five years of his life, cut
short by mental illness and early death at the age of 36.
0.4 All of those contributing to general linguistic theory that I
know of (e. g., Schleicher, Paul, Kruszewski, and Saussure in the
19th century, Hjelmslev, Charles Hockett, Zellig Harris, Sydney
Lamb, and Chomsky in the 20th century) share a strong interest in
mathematics. In addition, a closer analysis of their philosophy of
science and their theoretical assumptions would reveal that they are
derived from insights, concepts, and precepts originally proposed
or developed outside linguistics proper. This is particularly true of
Kruszewski in the 19th and Chomsky in the 20th century. The
present paper is devoted to the contribution of Kruszewski, whom
the late Roman Jakobson (1896 — 1982) regarded as 'one of the
KRUSZEWSKI AND GENERAL LINGUISTIC THEORY 379
greatest theoreticians of language among the world linguists of the

late nineteenth century' (1972: 449). Despite Jakobson's praise and
efforts, little information is generally available, especially in English,
of Kruszewski's life and work. Therefore part of my paper will
concern itself with placing Kruszewski's endeavours within its origi
nal historical context and tracing its subsequent influence on general
linguistic theory.
1. Mikolaj Kruszewski: life and work
1.1 The historical background
Largely because of Roman Jakobson's repeated appraisal of Mi

kolaj Kruszewski's contribution to linguistic science (Jakobson
1960; 1967), this Polish scholar's work has received renewed atten
tion in recent years, especially in Eastern Europe (notably Poland
and the Soviet Union), and to some extent also in a few western
countries (e. g., Cherubim 1975; Kilbury 1976). However,
Kruszewski's place in the annals of the discipline has been over
shadowed by the vast output and the long life of his one-time
mentor and collaborator Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845 —1929),
whose oeuvre has been the subject of many appraisals in East and
West during the past 25 years. In addition, we would have known little
of Kruszewski and his linguistic ideas had it not been for Baudouin's
efforts during the early 1880s to draw the attention of western
scholars to his writings. Kruszewski for his part never had the
opportunity to travel to any place west of Warsaw, and spent all
his life as a linguist at the University of Kazan', since 1920 the
capital on the Volga of the Tartar republic, some 500 miles east
of Moscow. But Baudouin's attitude toward Kruszewski was not
without ambiguity, and since we owe our knowledge of Kruszewski
almost exclusively to Baudouin's (1888 — 1889) report of the life
and work of his former collaborator, it has become difficult to assess
Kruszewski's contribution fully and adequately. Indeed, Baudouin's
account vacillates between disdain and envy. On the one hand, he
alleges that Kruszewski learned everything he knew in linguistics
from him, and that because of his limited knowledge combined with
a strong bent toward theorizing, Kruszewski committed serious
blunders of scholarship. On the other hand, Baudouin felt obliged

to concede that Kruszewski was the better theorist of the two.
In his life-time, Kruszewski received little recognition. Part of
this was due to the fact that the bulk of his writings was in Russian.
But, even among Slavicists of the period, the reception of his ideas,
probably because of the positivist preoccupation with data and
'descriptive adequacy' of the period in contradistinction to a deduc
tive theory-orientation, was largely negative. For example, Vratislav
Jagic (1838 — 1923), the great Slovenian scholar and founder and
editor of the Archiv für slavische Philologie (Berlin 1876 — 1929),
reviewing Kruszewski's major study of 1883, criticized, among other
things, his predilection for mathematical formulae and strange ter
minology. However, he conceded that it might profit the discipline
to reflect upon the state of the field and to consider new vistas
(Jagic 1884: 481). Kruszewski's compatriot, the young Slavicist
at the University of Berlin, Aleksander Brückner (1856-1939),
criticized his thesis on vocalic alternation (guna) in Old Slavic
(Kruszewski 1881a) severely not only for errors in the data but
especially for indulging in theory (Brückner 1881). (This led to a
polemic reply by Kruszewski in 1882.) Interestingly enough, both
Jagic and Brückner take exception to Kruszewski's view that the
junggrammatische Richtung marks a new stage in the development
of linguistics.
Kruszewski's work was not much better understood in the West.
Karl Brugmann (1849 — 1919), whose 'Nasalis sonans' Kruszewski
had reviewed so favourably two years earlier (Kruszewski 1880),
did not find anything useful in Kruszewski's study Über die Laut-
abwechslung (Kruszewski 1881b). Brugmann did not even notice
the significance of Kruszewski's distinction between 'Lautwandel'
(sound change) and 'Lautwechsel' (sound alternation), regarding
them as synonymous terms.1 Likewise, the distinguished French
scholar Louis Havet (1849 —1925), who had written a very insightful
analysis of Saussure's Memoire in 1879, criticized Kruszewski for
treating language development as 'un devenir rigoureusement con
tinu', but praised him for his analysis of the phonemes (!) of Russian
(Havet 1881: 279). Only Friedrich Techmer (1843-1891), who was
instrumental in publishing a German translation of Kruszewski's
Principles of Linguistics in his Internationale Zeitschrift für Allge
meine Sprachwissenschaft (Kruszewski 1884 — 1890), reported more
favourably on Kruszewski's Über die Lautabwechslung (Techmer
1887). Hugo Schuchardt (1842-1927) referred to Kruszewski's
Ocerk nauki o jazyke of 1883 in his 1885 attack of the Neo-

grammarians (Schuchardt 1885: v, 5, 31). It appears that only the
German translation of this major study had some impact in the
subsequent development of linguistic theory, in the work of Her
mann Paul and Saussure. To my knowledge, there was no review
of Kruszewski's Prinzipien der Sprachentwickelung, despite the sim
ilarity of the study's title with Paul's book of 1880.
1.2 Kruszewski's career as a linguist
As mentioned earlier, information on Kruszewski's life and work

has come to us almost exclusively through Baudouin de Courtenay's
biobibliographical account of 1888 — 1889. On certain specific
points, in particular Kruszewski's theory of vocalic alternation and
the fate of his writings on this subject, additional information may
be gleaned in a paper of 1881 by the Russian Turkologist at the
University of Kazan', Wilhelm Radloff (Vasilij Vasil'evic Radlov,
1837 — 1918), presented at the Fifth International Congress of Orien
talists in Berlin (Radloff 1882: 58ff.).
Kruszewski was born in 1851 in Luck, Volhynia, some 200 miles
south-east of Warsaw. It was then part of the Ukraine, and today
it belongs to the Soviet Union. He went to grammar school in
Chelm, some 40 miles south-east of Lublin, still today a part of
Poland (a state that did not exist throughout the 19th century,
but was re-established after the First World War in the Treaty of
Versailles). Having completed school with distinction, he went to
the University of Warsaw, where he studied philosophy and psychol
ogy. His Master's thesis on incantations in Russian folk-lore
(Kruszewski 1876) signalled Kruszewski's penchant for psychologi
cal explanation, a trait which was characteristic of his later work
in linguistics. Another feature of Kruszewski's writings was the
influence that British empiricist philosophers had on his argument,
an interest that the Russian philosopher at Warsaw, Matvej Mixajlo-
vic Troitskij (1835 — 1899), a 'fanatico cultore del pensiero inglese'
(Jakobson 1967: 4), had instilled in him. As a result, it is not
surprising to find in Kruszewski's work references to philosophical
writings in the tradition of Bacon, Locke and Hume, in particular
to those by Alexander Bain (1818-1903) and John Stuart Mill
(1806 — 1873). But it was another of Kruszewski's professors at
Warsaw, the Slavicist and folklorist Mitrofan Alekseevic Kolosov
(1832 — 1881), who, noting Kruszewski's interest in and gift for

languages, suggested that he either pursue linguistic studies with
Aleksandr Afanas'evic Potebnja (1835 — 1891) in Kharkov or with
Baudouin de Courtenay in Kazan'. As we know, Kruszewski de
cided in favour of the latter.
Following the completion of his studies at Warsaw in 1875,
Kruszewski married and became a grammar school teacher for
classical languages in Troick, a small city in the Orenburg (now
Chkalov) province on the Ural river, some 200 miles south of
Sverdlovsk. From there, he took up a correspondence with Bau
douin, who, after having received his doctorate at St. Petersburg,
had moved to Kazan' in September 1875 to teach comparative
Indo-European philology. Within three years of regular correspond
ence with and tutoring from Baudouin, Kruszewski had saved a
sufficient sum of money and completed the necessary preparations
to abandon his teaching job and to join his mentor. According to
Baudouin's own testimony (Baudouin de Courtenay 1904: 101),
Kruszewski was an independent researcher within a year from his
arrival in Kazan' in 1878. He first served as a lecturer and an
assistant professor, and by the time of Baudouin's departure to the
University of Dorpat (now Tartu in Estonia) in 1883, he had become
an extra-ordinary professor for comparative grammar and Sanskrit.
At the time of his promotion to the rank of titular professor in
1885 Kruszewski's health had declined to such an extent that he
could no longer contribute to scholarly research. According to
Baudouin's report (1904: 104—105), Kruszewski had been of a weak
physical constitution for a number of years, frequently victimized by
bronchitis and pneumonia. From 1880 onwards signs of paranoia
and mental exhaustion became more and more apparent. As a
result, it is fair to say that Kruszewski had only five years to work
out his linguistic ideas, a very short period indeed even for a most
gifted student of language.
1.3 Kruszewski's philosophy of science
Given the few years Kruszewski had to develop his theories of

language, his total output was comparatively sizeable, in particular
if one recognizes the fairly large amount of data he investigated to
support his theoretical assumptions. Subscribing to an empiricist
position, Kruszewski followed what may be called an enlightened
inductive rather than the deductive approach that most modern

theoreticians would adopt. Characteristically, Kruszewski placed
the following motto from Leibniz at the head of his 1883 Outline
of Linguistic Science'.
Das Studium der Sprachen darf keineswegs von anderen
Grundsätzen geleitet werden, als die Studien der Wissenschaft
überhaupt. Warum mit dem Unbekannten statt mit dem Be
kannten anfangen? Wir halten uns doch an die Vernunft, wenn
wir mit dem Studium der neueren Sprachen anheben.2
I believe that from this endorsement of Leibniz' position, we may
deduce the following observations concerning Kruszewski's posi
tion: (1) The study of language is a science; indeed, for Kruszewski
linguistics is a natural science, and the laws of language are compar
able to those of biological laws (cf. Kruszewski 1885: 262, n. 2). (2)
The investigator should follow the inductive approach; thus he
states in his Über die Lautabwechslung that in effect no fact in
historical phonology (Kruszewski wrote: 'alte Phonetik') is directly
accessible to us, but must be ascertained inductively (Kruszewski
1881 b: 6). (3) As a result, the linguist should begin his investigation
with the languages of today rather than with the study of the
classical languages as was commonly done during the 19th century
by historical-comparative linguists.
In emphasizing the empirical, inductive approach to language,
and in fact by regarding linguistics as something comparable to a
natural science, Kruszewski was in agreement with the conceptions
of August Schleicher (1821 — 1868), who played such an important
role in 19th-century linguistics that even the Neogrammarians, who
officially criticized his naturalistic views, continued to work within
the framework he had established (cf. Koerner 1981; 1982). It is
therefore not surprising that Kruszewski, who felt the strongest
affinity with the Junggrammatiker (cf. Kruszewski 1884: 299),
should quote from Darwin on several occasions in support of his
views of the nature of language (cf. Kruszewski 1885: 262, n. 2;
1887: 146, n. 1, 150-151 n. 2, 167 n. 1). It would be easy from
our modern standpoint to discard Kruszewski's naturalistic views;
however, we should ask ourselves what conclusions he drew from
these premises for the study of language, rather than criticizing him
for what we may nowadays regard as misguided.
Yet it should not be overlooked that Kruszewski's naturalistic
views do not lead him to any form of crass materialism as some
may find in Schleicher. His training in psychology and philosophy

supplied him with corrective tools. These were not contradictory
because both disciplines had naturalistic ingredients and the strands
of psychology and philosophy that Kruszewski subscribed to were
strongly empirical in their basic assumptions, though they did not
lead him to neglect the mental underpinnings of linguistic functions,
as in the case of Schleicher. On the contrary, Kruszewski adopted
a psychological phenomenology which included the use of Humean
notions of association of ideas as transmitted in 19th-century British
philosophy, and he made use of philosophical procedures of induc
tion, which meant that generalizations are arrived at on the basis
of the close study of particular phenomena regarded as facts. In all
this, Kruszewski regards himself largely in line of Hermann Paul's
(1846 — 1921) views as expressed in his Prinzipien der Sprachge
schichte of 1880, to which Kruszewski refers quite frequently in his
own major study of 1883. Kruszewski (1884: 300) regards their
works as differing in emphasis and basically complementary.
2. Kruszewski's major contributions to linguistic theory

Having referred to Kruszewski's philosophy of science in the pre
vious section, we may now inspect the theoretical conclusions he
drew from his general views for the study of language. As noted
earlier, these general views were shared by most scholars of his
generation. However, not many of them had a comparable formal
training in psychology and logic, something which accounts for
some notable differences and, on some occasion, innovations on
his part. We know from Baudouin de Courtenay's reports (e. g.,
Baudouin de Courtenay 1895) that from early on both Kruszewski
and he engaged in frequent theoretical discussions and in the coinage
of numerous new linguistic terms. Only some of them survived the
fermentive period 1878 — 1883 of the Kazan' linguistic circle, which
also included the Turkologist Wilhelm Radloff (already mentioned
above, sect. 1.2), the phonetician Vasilij Alekseevic Bogorodickij
(1857 — 1941), the general linguist Sergej Konstantinovic Bulič
(1859 — 1921), and several others. It appears, however, that in these
activities Kruszewski was the prime mover; Baudouin admitted on
several occasions that Kruszewski was particularly prolific in mat-
ters of linguistic theory largely because of his better grounding in

philosophy.
2.1 Definitions of the object of linguistics
In the theoretical portion of his 1881 Master's thesis, which he also

published in a German version (Kruszewski 1881 b), Kruszewski
makes the following statement at the outset of his argument (p. 3):
Nobody will deny that those phenomena whose totality is called
language have to be the object of linguistics, and that the ultimate
goal of this science must consist in the discovery of laws which
govern those phenomena. (Kruszewski 1881 b: 3; emphasis in the
original; my translation: K. Koerner)
The rigor of this assertion must have stunned linguists of the time,
and it is not surprising that several German publishers rejected the
manuscript as having too little to do with the science of language
as they understood it.
Kruszewski continued his argument by criticizing the traditional
goals of linguistic science for being exclusively concerned with
matters of genetic relationship and the reconstruction of proto-
languages. He added: 'It is quite unnecessary to prove that all these
subjects cannot be recognized as science' (1881 b: 3). In fact, the
discovery of the laws of linguistic phenomena ought, according to
Kruszewski, take pride of place; the traditional concern with linguis
tic genealogy and reconstruction should be only one province of
the field, and a lesser one at that. He goes on to indict contemporary
linguistics for its obvious neglect of modern languages. In particular,
he holds that the spoken languages of today should be the prime
object of linguistic investigation, something which Osthoff and
Brugmann demanded in their 1878 manifesto only to sweep it under
the rug in their subsequent research. The reason for Kruszewski's
requirement is clear: 'Im Vergangenen, im Leblosen ist es entweder
sehr schwer oder völlig unmöglich die Gesetze der Erscheinungen
zu entdecken' (1881 b: 4). Kruszewski goes on to introduce his own
generalizations, first about morphological change (4 — 5) and then
in much more detail on phonetic explanations of language evolution
(5 — 26), and various other matters such as semantic differentiation
of doublets, analogical formation, and a discussion of the sound-
law hypothesis advanced by the Neogrammarians.
Since Kruszewski's contribution to phonology and morpho-

phonology has been discussed in detail by several scholars in recent
years (e. g., Kilbury 1974: 2 5 0 - 2 5 2 ; 1976: 1 7 - 2 3 ; Klausenburger
1978; 1979: 1 2 - 2 2 ) , I shall forgo this area, in which Kruszewski
made a number of interesting proposals, in order to focus on his
general linguistic theory, including his syntagmatics and syntax,
which is usually ignored in the literature. Following his investiga
tions of what he believed to be the natural processes of language
evolution on the levels of phonology and morphology, Kruszewski
aimed at higher levels of linguistic discovery. Thus he reported on
his ongoing research for a more general outline of linguistics to
Baudouin (who was touring Western Europe while on sabbatical
leave at the time) in a letter dated 3 May 1882:
Something like this will be the subject of my work; the general

argument will be as follows: 1) Next to the actual [i. ., already
established] science of language another more general [science],
something like a phenomenology of language, is necessary. 2) A
certain foreboding of such a science can be asserted in part from
a few writings by the Neogrammarians. Their principles however
are still either unfit to build a science of this kind on or are
insufficient. 3) It is possible to find in language itself solid elements
for such a science. (Baudouin de Courtenay 1904: 134 — 135,
translated into English)
These theses represent in nuce what Kruszewski was attempting to do
in his dissertation of 1883. It is evident from his frequent references
to their works that Kruszewski was having Berthold Delbrück's
(1842 — 1927) Einleitung in das Sprachstudium and Paul's Prinzipien,
both first published in 1880, in mind when he hinted that some of the
writings by the Neogrammarians contained certain elements of what
he was working on. It is perhaps no accident that the German transla
tion of Kruszewski's Outline of linguistic science had a title similar
to Paul's book, Prinzipien der Sprachentwickelung, although in both
works much emphasis is placed on synchronic rather than diachronic
considerations of language study. It is true, however, that both au
thors are mainly concerned with the discovery of the mechanisms of
language change, as this was regarded as the central task of 19th-
century linguistics.
Unlike Paul, who did not realize that he was in fact arguing in
favour of a descriptive linguistics alongside with an historical linguis
tics, Kruszewski was much aware of what he was doing. He clearly
distinguishes between what he terms 'static' and 'dynamic' phenom

ena in language as in nature in general (Kruszewski 1885: 262), and
places much stress on what he terms 'static laws' in language. Lan
guage is conceived as an harmonic whole, in which each category is
related to any other category by differing means. The homogeneity
and the harmony of the elements within a system of language is for
him a basic 'static law' (1885: 263). Thus, when dealing with the
sounds of language and the laws he believes to underlie their behav
iour (Kruszewski 1884: 301-302; 1885: 260-268), Kruszewski
wrote that each individual sound of a given dialect spoken at a given
time must be almost identical among all the speakers of that commun
ity. He explains that he qualifies the identity of sounds as 'approxima
tive' ('ungefähr') because he believes, with Darwin (Kruszewski 1885:
262, n. 2), that language is subject to biological, not chemical or physi
cal laws, in that language change is possible only because of the exist
ence of variation. These variations have no importance in the normal
functioning of language, however, he insists (1885: 261, n. 4).
Central to Kruszewski's argument is the concept of language as a
system, but not simply as a system but more like something that Josef
Vachek calls 'a system of systems'. The term 'system' runs through
his entire Outline (cf. Koerner 1973: 164, n. 34, for a list of locations)
like a thread. In accordance with the capacity of the human mind to
classify and to generalize phenomena of reality into certain systems
or types of notions, Kruszewski distinguishes three subsystems in
language, namely, the phonetic, semantic, and morphological, which
in his view are interrelated and correlated to the processes of 'typifica-
tion'. He indentified three types of systems, unordered, partly or
dered, and entirely ordered. 'Unordered' are features of language that
are either remnants of earlier systems or those items that are largely
dissociated in our mind. Kruszewski appears to be thinking of what
we frequently refer to as function words, which form a list ('Reihe'),
but not a system (cf. Kruszewski 1885:306). Declination and conjuga
tion are particularly well-developed systems (1884: 6); morphology
offers a variety of systems (1890: 340) and at times only fragments
('Splitter von Systemen', 1890: 357-358).
2.2 Levels analysis avant la lettre
Despite the lengthy discussion of phonetic-phonological detail,

Kruszewski by no means neglects other levels of language. Indeed
the unit of 'word' plays an important role in his theoretical discus

sion; he regards it at one point as representing the 'sound complex'
par excellence (Kruszewski 1885: 263). However, taken by itself
only, the word has no particular use; it is merely 'a symbol, a
substitute for an idea, and a member of a symbolic series, (and)
like the sound, it does not appear in isolation' (ibid.). In other
words, it is the co-occurrence with other words which defines this
unit. Without explaining what he meant by 'symbol', Kruszewski
goes on to state (1885: 263-264):
Dieses Paaren der Idee mit dem Lautkomplex ist nichts absolut
notwendiges, primäres: in der Sprache der Taubstummen verbin
det sich dieselbe Idee mit der Gebärde (Gestus), in der
chinesischen Sprache mit dem schriftlichen Zeichen, endlich ver
bindet sich in verschiedenen Sprachen ein und dieselbe Idee mit
verschiedenen Lautkomplexen.
Here, I believe, we have in a nutshell a very similar argument
concerning the arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign that we find
developed more fully in Saussure's lectures. The word as a language
sign results from the combination of a representational, semantic
part, which Kruszewski calls 'symbol', with a carrier. The vocal
realization is secondary; there are other means to communicate the
message: Kruszewski refers to the sign language of the dumb and
deaf and to the Chinese characters which bear no reference to the
phonetic shape of the sign or word communicated. The word —
and hence the linguistic sign in general — owes, in Kruszewski's
opinion, its existence exclusively to the combination of the two
parts. When he refers to the 'laws of association' (Kruszewski 1885:
264), he is introducing a concept derived from British philosophy
which he turns into an important tool of his linguistic argument
(see below).
Referring to John Stuart Mill's System of logic (1843) for support
of his claim, Kruszewski puts forward the following proposition:
Wir sind überzeugt, daß die Aneignung und der Gebrauch der
Sprache unmöglich wären, wenn sie eine Menge von vereinzelten
Wörtern darstellte. Die Wörter sind mit einander verbunden: 1.
vermittelst der Ähnlichkeitsassociationen und 2. vermittelst der
Angrenzungsassociationen. Daher entstehen Familien oder Sy
steme und Reihen von Wörtern. (1884: 304)
Kruszewski adds that words that are marginally associated or not
at all are easily forgotten. Although there may be still other means
by which we may remember words, these two principles of connect

ing words are fundamental; in fact, in this regard linguistics and
psychology are on the same footing. The word exists only in the
human mind, and the mind is governed by these principles
(Kruszewski 1887: 174).
Earlier on in his study, Kruszewski expands on his views regarding
the interrelationships of words in language as follows:
Wenn die Wörter nach dem Gesetz der Àhnlichkeitsassociation

Systeme oder Familien in unserem Geiste bilden, so ordnen sie sich
nach dem Gesetze der Angrenzungsassociation in Reihen. Jedes
Wort ist also mit zweierlei Art von Banden verknüpft: es ist
nämlich 1. mit unzähligen Banden der Ähnlichkeit mit Wörtern
verbunden, welche den Lauten, der Struktur und der Bedeutung
nach mit ihm verwandt sind, und 2. mit ebenso unzähligen Banden
der Angrenzung mit seinen verschiedenen Begleitern in verschie
denen Redeweisen (Kruszewski 1887: 172; emphasis in the origi
nal).
These two types of associations or connections are quite different

in kind of course; this is also clear from Kruszewski's quotation
from Mill's Logic (1884: 304, n. 1), where Mill speaks of the laws
of similarity and of simultaneity or immediate succession. In other
words, in the first instance, connections are made because of sim
ilarity in sound, morphological structure and meaning, whereas in
the second type we have to do with actual occurrences in the
speech chain. If we remember that Saussure spoke of 'associative
relationships' in language (instead of 'paradigmatic relations' as
Hjelmslev would have it), we may realize that we have here in
Kruszewski's proposals the immediate source for Saussure's syntag-
matic/associative dichotomy of relationships in language. Moreover,
we may wonder whether J. R. Firth, who gave a succinct analysis
of Kruszewski's theory of vocalic alternation or ablaut in 1934, did
not derive his idea of 'collocation' from reading Kruszewski's other
work in German. Thus, Kruszewski explains (1887: 172) that we
get used to employing a certain word more often with one particular
word than with another, arguing that by repeated association of
contiguity, i. ., frequent use in certain combinations, it would be
possible for the common man (who does not know Latin, for
instance) to recall a foreign word, for example, which bears no
resemblance to any other word in his language.
Kruszewski believes that the speaker may also connect subcon

sciously certain words with others by something he calls analogy
— here used in a much more general sense — and folk etymology.
But the major ties connecting words in a language are those of
coexistence ('Koexistenz'), due to the workings of associations of
similarity, and those of consequence ('Konsequenz'), due to their
occurrence in a linear fashion (Kruszewski 1887: 173; cf. also 1887:
156, 159). As regards associations of similarity, Kruszewski (1887:
171) emphasizes that these connections are not only external ('äus-
serliche') ones, phonetic or morphological, but also internal ('in
nere'), semantic ones. For example, if we want to recall the word
vedet 'he guides', this procedure is facilitated by virtue of the
existence of other forms in the language, such as vedes, vedu, vedenie,
etc., which do belong to the same word family. There is also,
Kruszewski adds, another, though less close, connection between
vedet and idet 'he goes', neset 'he carries', etc., due to the fact that
they all share the third person singular marker -et. Finally, there are
still lesser connections on grammatical or morphological grounds
between vedet and govorit 'he speaks' or stoit 'he stands'. (The
similarity between these examples and those in the Cours are ob
vious; cf. Koerner 1973: 156 — 157 for details with respect to the
well-known enseignement example.)
2.3 Toward a syntagmatics
We would call, with Saussure, associative relationships relations 'in

absentia'; this means they are connections we are making in our
minds. One item is selected by the speaker in a given moment as
against any other form that might have fitted the slot in the suite
linéaire. By contrast, the relations obtained following the 'law of
contiguity' are 'in praesentia', at least in many instances. They are
not simply associated in our mind but concern units, 'words' in
Kruszewski's presentation, that co-occur in a speech chain, and
they so appear habitually or at least quite frequently in those
particular contexts. In other words, the connections made in our
minds must be quite different in nature; they do not concern selec
tions of one form over and above another, but collocations of
one form in conjunction with others. For instance, if we have an
expression meaning 'wear out', our mind will quickly call forth
expressions such as those referring to 'garment', 'dress', 'trousers',
etc. in one semantic field, and 'bearings', 'discs', and others in

another context. These are semantic and grammatical or lexical and
categorial aspects combined. If we move beyond the phrase, we
may emphasize more clearly the formal side of the connections,
although our Sprachgefühl will tell us quickly that our judgement
is again largely based on semantic or, rather, lexical considerations.
Nevertheless, the formal aspect appears to be the more conspicuous
feature.
Kruszewski hardly ever ventured beyond the word and the phrase
in his Outline', this is quite typical of late 19th-century positivism,
which is still much in evidence in Saussure's Cours, where little can
be found that concerns syntax. However, Kruszewski (1887: 171)
supplies the following example from German in conjunction with
his discussion of the association of contiguity ('Angren-
zungsassociation') which produces series ('Reihen'): er ... das Pferd
am Zügel die Straße entlang 'he ... the horse by the bridle along
the street', where our mind quickly supplies us with the missing
führt 'leads'. Kruszewski does not elaborate on his example; indeed,
he refers to it as an assembly of words, though he also refers
(1887: 172) to 'syntaktische Reihen von Wörtern'. But again, as the
characterization makes clear, he is not drawing particular conclu
sions for a syntax or at least a theory of a syntagmatics from this
observation. The centre of attention remains the word, or word
morphology for that matter (cf. Kruszewski 1887: 171-187, 1890:
339 — 360 passim).
3. Concluding remarks
As stated earlier, Kruszewski did not live long enough to work out
his theory of language; he was twenty-five when he established his
first contacts with Baudouin de Courtenay, twenty-seven when he
joined him at the University of Kazan', and thirty-three when he
was struck by mortal illness in 1884. The year before, after Kruszew
ski had completed Ocerk nauki ojazyke as his doctoral dissertation,
Baudouin left Kazan' for the University of Dorpat, and thus evi
dently deprived him of the main source of stimulation and exchange
of ideas necessary to develop his theories further. Happily, owing
to interventions made by Baudouin and the interest Friedrich
Techmer took in Kruszewski's work, the Ocerk was translated into
German — apparently by Kruszewski himself (cf. 1884: 295, note),

but with help from Techmer, Baudouin and another young student
of Baudouin's at Dorpat, Aleksandr Ivanovic Aleksandrov (cf.
Kruszewski 1887: 187, note). In this way, due to the appearance of
'Prinzipien der Sprachentwickelung' in Techmer's Zeitschrift
(1884 — 1887, 1890), Kruszewski's ideas became eventually known
in the West, though they probably did not receive the attention they
deserved. The reason was that the majority of linguists of the time
were not interested in general linguistic theory or in any abstraction
and generalization derived from observed facts. Thus we find that
only theory-oriented scholars such as Hermann Paul and Ferdinand
de Saussure took note of Kruszewski's work.
3.1 Some examples of Kruszewski's theoretical innovations
Still today, the attentive reader of Kruszewski's writings will derive

stimulation from the many theoretical observations made in both
his Lautabwechslung and his Prinzipien. In his 1881 essay, we have
the first clear-cut distinction, already implicit in Saussure's Mémoire,
which Kruszewski had reviewed in the preceding year (Kruszewski
1880), between 'sound' (Russ. zvuk) and 'phoneme' (Russ. fonema).
Thus, at the same time he distinguished between the levels of
phonetics — called by Kruszewski and Baudouin de Courtenay
'Anthropophonik' with reference to the work of the physiologist
Carl Ludwig Merkel (1857) — and what we now call phonology
(which Baudouin called 'Psychophonetik' in 1895).
Although Kruszewski did not put forward a comprehensive argu
ment in favour of the necessary division between the synchronic
and diachronic viewpoints, many important observations to this
effect can be found throughout his writings. In his Ueber die Laut-
abwechslung of 1881, the distinction between vocalic alternation —
a synchronic phenomenon (irrespective of its historical sources) —
and sound change ('Lautwandel') is advanced (cf. also Kruszewski
1884: 302f., where he distinguishes between 'Lautumwandlung' or
'Lautwandlungen' and 'Lautsystem'; 1885: 259; 1887: 149, 164, 176,
and elsewhere). More importantly, Kruszewski (1884: 299) refers to
Baudouin's study of analogy of 1868 as leaving the historical view
point and concentrating on the present language ('jetzige Sprache'),
suggesting in fact the diachronic/synchronic axis by distinguishing
between two perspectives under which language phenomena can be
studied: in horizontal and vertical directions (Kruszewski 1887:

145). Indeed, concepts such as distinct periods of language ('Sprach
epoche'), uniformity of languages states ('Einförmigkeit des Zu-
standes', 1887: 152), and the distinction between 'static laws' and
'dynamic laws' in language (cf. Kruszewski 1885: 262, 263, 267;
1887: 149, 152, etc.) indicate quite clearly that Kruszewski made a
theoretical distinction between the diachronic and the synchronic
viewpoints. (Cf. also the use of 'Zustand' in Kruszewski 1890 [1883]:
134, 136, a term still absent in Paul 1880.)
There are other suggestions to be found in Kruszewski's Prinzi
pien which were taken up only much later. With reference to the
'law of contiguity' (Kruszewski 1884: 301; 1885: 264), for instance,
Kruszewski noted that there is a special relationship between word
structure and word frequency. Thus, even though forms such as
aller, je vais, and j'irai in French are quite different morphologically,
their frequent use in every-day discourse helps us to recall them
quickly whenever required. It appears that he was close to formulat
ing the principle, advanced by Jerzy Kurylowicz (1895 — 1978) in
1949, of the inverse ratio between word use and its content: 'plus
le contenu est général, plus large est l'emploi du signe dans la
communauté parlante, plus le contenu est spécial, plus l'emploi ...
est étroit' (Kurylowicz 1960: 14).
In a 1953 paper, W. S. Allen noted that observations made by
Kruszewski concerning the statability of conditions for linguistic
change (cf. Kruszewski 1881 b: 11, 31) are in fact paralleled by
arguments found in the writings of modern authors such as Henry
M. Hoenigswald and Charles Ernest Bazell (cf. Allen 1953: 60, n. 3).
No doubt, a fair number of other insights of a theoretical nature
can be found in Kruszewski's work, and this without over-
interpreting the sources (cf. Albrow 1981).
3.2 'System' and 'structure' in Kruszewski
Although Saussure avoided the use of 'structure' in his lectures —

the index of the Cours as published by Bally and Sechehaye does
not even mention the term (cf. however Saussure 1931: 180, 244,
256), structuralism in modern linguistics is generally associated with
Saussure's posthumous work. The key term in Saussure's writings
was without doubt 'system', as already announced in his Mémoire
of 1878. In Kruszewski's work, this term is probably as frequently
used as in Saussure's lectures, though much less in an abstract sense.

In fact, Kruszewski speaks of systems ('Systeme') as well as system
(singular) in his Prinzipien, applying the term to phonology, mor
phology, lexis and language in general.
In the sections devoted to sounds, sound complexes, and sound
change, we find Kruszewski frequently referring to 'Lautsystem'
(1884: 301, 302, 303; 1885: 262, 267; 1887: 157, 160). Indeed, he
conceives of language as a harmonic system ('harmonisches
System'), with reference to the phonology of a language (1884:
303) as well as language in general (1884: 395). Language change
produces a derangement ('Störung') of this system (ibid.); the har
mony of the system being of course nothing permanent. However,
from a non-historical point of view, this is an essential characteristic
of the sound system: '... als statisches Gesetz des Lautsystems
müssen wir seine Gleichartigkeit und Harmonie betrachten'
(Kruszewski 1885: 263; italics for bold type in the original).
Later, dealing with morphology and the word as basic unit of
language, Kruszewski assumes that a harmonic system prevails
there as well, though again this harmony may be subject to destruc
tion (1890: 134) or at least derangement (137). He recognizes the
presence of various systems in language rather than one system,
and he distinguishes between three kinds: unstructured ('nicht uni
formierte'), partly structured, and completely structured. Kruszew
ski is referring in particular to declension and conjugation systems
in language (1890: 341—242), but he also speaks of word system
('Wortsystem', 1890: 134, 140, 339), form system ('Formsystem',
1890: 139), systems of language ('Sprachsysteme', 1890: 357), and
the like. In fact, he speaks on one occasion (1890: 345) of systems
of patterns ('Systeme von Mustern') in language, and on another
of language as a system of signs ('System von Zeichen', 1887: 174).
A closer analysis of Kruszewski's Prinzipien would reveal additional
usages of the term 'system', but it is clear from the above citations
that the concept is central to Kruszewski's argument.
The term 'structure' too can be found in Kruszewski's writings;
indeed, this concept (and lexical item) had been frequently used by
linguists such as Friedrich Schlegel, Bopp, Humboldt, and many
others in the early decades of the 19th century already and is by
no means something peculiar to Kruszewski. In his Prinzipien,
'Struktur' appears especially in conjunction with word morphology.
First of all, structure is used to refer to means for formal organiza
tion (1884: 306), 3 and in contradistinction to meaning ('Bedeutung';
1887: 177). According to Kruszewski, declensions and conjugations

may form systems if viewed from a point of view of structure (1884:
306), and he uses the compound 'Struktursysteme' in this context.
The terms 'Gestalt' (1890: 143) and 'Bau' (1890: 345) can also be
found, but it cannot be claimed that Kruszewski uses the concept
of 'structure' as a particularly fundamental one in his overall theory
of language.
3.3 Résumé
Investigating the various 'synchronic' and general theoretical

statements in Kruszewski's oeuvre means — as is even true of
Saussure's Cours — to lose sight of what was the major
occupation of 19th and early 20th century linguists: the study of
language development, its principles and its causes. Kruszewski,
like Paul before him and, if we are to ignore Saussure's early
work, Saussure after him, recognized, albeit more tacitly than
overtly acknowledged, that the evolution of language cannot be
studied without the establishment of language states. But it
appears to me that Kruszewski remained closer to Paul in that
he did not explicitly state that the study of language on the
synchronic level could be a scientific engagement by itself; the
discovery of 'laws', in particular 'dynamic laws' that would reveal
the mechanisms of linguistic change remained to a large extent
the ultimate goal of linguistic research even in Kruszewski's
program. This may not be a shortcoming. Contrary to what the
'vulgata' text of the Cours suggests, Saussure did not plan to
divorce synchrony from diachrony to the extent that these become
two separate compartments of language study as we find it
practiced in Bloomfield's Language of 1933 and the work of his
followers down to the present day, Chomsky included. We may
therefore agree with Joseph Greenberg's observation of 1979, one
hundred years after Kruszewski's first publication in linguistics:
It is probable that any generative theory is deeper than any

structuralist theory. However, the deepest of all was probably
that of Kruszewski and Baudouin de Courtenay — often
considered early forerunners of structuralism, since they in
cluded a frankly comparative-historical component (Greenberg
1979: 287).
Notes
1. By contrast, the Neogrammarian Hermann Paul made use of Kruszewski's

distinction in the revised and much enlarged 2nd ed. of his Principien — this is
the spelling maintained until the 4th ed. of 1909 - of 1886 (see pp. 20, 61, 87,
95, 96, etc. [= pp. 21, 68, 108, 117, 118, etc. in the 5th ed. of 1920]; they are
not mentioned in the index added to the last corrected edition of the book.
However, only in the 4th ed. (1909) a reference to part V of Kruszewski's
'Prinzipien' is made in the first footnote at the beginning of chapter 10, dealing
with 'Isolierung [of linguistic forms] und Reaktion dagegen',although the text
discussing the Lautwechsel/Lautwandel distinction remained the same in that
chapter (cf. 5th ed., p. 191) as it had been in the 2nd ed. of 1886 (p. 154).
2. Kruszewski does not supply the source of his quotation, which is taken from
Leibniz' Brevis designatio meditationem de originis gentibus, ductis potissimum
ex indicio linguarum (Berlin 1710), of which we find the following English
rendering in Max Müller's (1823 —1900) Lectures on the science of language (6th
ed., London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1880, vol. I: 150): 'The study of languages
must not be conducted according to any other principles but those of the exact
sciences. Why begin with the unknown instead of the known? It stands to
reason that we ought to begin with the modern languages which are within our
reach, in order to compare them with one another, to discover their differences
and affinities, and then to proceed to those which have preceded them in former
ages, in order to show their filiation and their origin, and then ascend step by
step to the most ancient tongues, the analysis of which must lead us to the only
trustworthy conclusions.' — I have quoted more than what Kruszewski used
for his motto to supply a more complete picture of Leibniz' argument, which
indeed foreshadows what Friedrich Schlegel and others were beginning to work
out 100 years later.
3. A similar use of 'structure' is found in Saussure's Cours; cf. p. 180 ('structure
du mot'), p. 249 ('On emploie souvent les termes de construction et de structures
à propos de la formation des mots'), and p. 256, where Saussure speaks with
reference to particular characteristics of German word morphology of 'certaines
règles de structure'.
References
Albrow, Kenneth Harold

1981 'The Kazan' School and the London School', in: Towards a history
of phonetics, ed. by Ronald E. Asher — Eugenie J. A. Henderson
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), 9 — 18.
Allen, William Sidney
1953 'Relationship in comparative linguistics', Transactions of the Phil
ological Society 1953: 52-108.
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan
1888 — 89 'Mikolaj Kruszewski, jego zycie i prace naukowe', Prace filologiczne
2: 837-849; 3: 116-175 (Repr. in Baudouin de Courtenay 1904:
96-175).
1895 Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alternationen: Ein Capitel aus der
Psychophonetik (Straßburg: Trübner).
1904 Szkice jezykoznawcze. Vol. I (Warsaw: Laskauer).
Brückner, Aleksandr
1881 Review of Kruszewski 1881 a. Archiv für slavische Philologie 5:
685-686.
Brugmann, Karl
1882 Review of Kruszewski 1881 b. Literarisches Centralblatt für Deutsch
land 32, No. 12 (18. März 1882): col. 4 0 0 - 4 0 1 .
Cherubim, Dieter (ed)
1975 Sprachwandel: Reader zur diachronischen Sprachwissenschaft (Berlin:
de Gruyter) [Pages 62 — 77 contain excerpts from Kruszewski 1884,
essentially pp. 295 — 307.]
Delbrück, Berthold
1880 Einleitung in das Sprachstudium (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel).
Firth, John Rupert
1934 'The word "phoneme"', Maître phonétique 34. (Repr. in his Papers
in linguistics 1934 — 1951 [London: Oxford University Press, 1957],
pp.1-2)
Gabelentz, Georg von der
1891 Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergeb
nisse (Leipzig: Weigel; 2nd enl. ed. prepared by Albrecht Conon Graf
von der Schulenburg, Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1901).
Greenberg, Joseph Harold
1979 'Rethinking linguistics diachronically', Language 55: 275 — 290.
Havet, Louis
1881 Review of Kruszewski 1881. Revue critique d'histoire et de littérature,
N. S. 12, N o . 4 2 : 2 7 8 - 2 7 9 .
Jagic, Vratislav
1884 Review of Kruszewski 1883. Archiv für slavische Philologie 7: 4 8 0 - 4 8 2 .
Jakobson, Roman
1960 'Kazańska szkola polskiej lingwistyki i jej miejsce w światowym roz-
woju fonologii', Bulletyn polskiego towarzystwa jezykoznawczego 19:
3-34.
1967 'L'importanza di Kruszewski per lo sviluppo della linguistica', Ricerche
slavistiche 13: 3 — 23.
1972 Selected Writings II: Word and language (The Hague: Mouton).
Kilbury, James
1974 T h e emergence of morphophonemics: A survey of theory and practice
from 1876 to 1939', Lingua 33: 2 3 5 - 2 5 2 .
1976 The development of morphophonemic theory (Amsterdam: Benjamins).
Klausenburger, Jürgen
1978 'Mikolaj Kruszewski's theory of morphophonology', Historiographia
Linguistica 5: 109 — 120.
1979 Morphologization: Studies in Latin and Romance morphophonology
(Tübingen: Niemeyer).
Koerner, Ernst Frideryk Konrad
1973 Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and development of his linguistic theory
... (Braunschweig: Vieweg; 2nd printing, 1974).
1981 'The Neogrammarian doctrine: Breakthrough or extension of the

Schleicherian paradigm. A problem in linguistic historiography', Folia
Linguistica Historica 2: 157 — 178.
1982 'The Schleicherian paradigm in linguistics', General Linguistics 23:
1-39.
Kruszewski, Mikolaj Habdank
1876 Zagovory, kak vid russkoj narodnoj poezii (Warsaw: Noskowski).
1880 'Novejsija otkrytija v oblasti ario-evropejskogo vokalizma'. Russkij
filologiceskij vestnik 4: 33 — 45.
1881 a 'K voprosu o gune: Issledovanie v oblasti staroslavjanskago voka
lizma', Russkij filologiceskij vestnik 5: 1—109.
1881 b Über die Lautabwechslung (Kazan': Universitäts-Buchdruckerei) [Eng
lish transl. by Robert Austerlitz, 'On sound alternation', in: Readings
in historical phonology: Chapters in the theory of sound change, ed. by
Philip H. Baldi - Ronald N. Werth, University Park, Pa. & London:
Pennsylvania State University Press 1978: 64 — 91].
1882 'Otvet g. Brückner'u', Russkij filologiceskij vestnik 7: 135 — 139.
1883 Ocerk nauki  jazyke (Kazan': Tipografía Imperatorskago [sic] Uni-
versiteta.
1884 — 1890 'Prinzipien der Sprachentwickelung', Internationale Zeitschrift für
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 1: 2 9 5 - 3 0 7 (1884); 2: 2 5 8 - 2 6 8 (1885);
3: 1 4 5 - 1 7 0 (1887); 5: 1 3 3 - 1 4 4 , 3 9 9 - 3 6 0 (1890).
1967 Wybór pism, ed. by Jerzy Kurylowicz and Krystyna Pomorska, with
a biographical introduction by J. Kurylowicz and an appraisal by
Roman Jakobson [1967] (Wroclaw —Warszawa —Kraków: Zaklad im.
Ossolińskich) [Selected writings in Polish translation].
Kurylowicz, Jerzy
1960 Esquisses linguistiques (Wroclaw & Kraków: Zaklad im. Ossoliñskich)
(2nd. ed., Munich: Fink 1973).
Merkel, Carl Ludwig
1857 Anatomie und Physiologie des menschlichen Stimm- und Sprachorgans
(Anthropophonik) (Leipzig: Abel; 2nd ed. 1863).
Mill, John Stuart
1843 A System of logic, ratiocinative and inductive; being a connected view
of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation
(London: Parker).
Osthoff, Hermann — Karl Brugmann
1878 'Vorwort'. Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indo
germanischen Sprachen (Leipzig) I.iii —xx. [English transl. in A Reader
in nineteenth-century historical Indo-European linguistics ed. by Winfred
P. Lehmann (Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1967),
198-209.]
Paul, Hermann
1880 Principien der Sprachgeschichte (Halle/S.: Niemeyer; 5th rev. ed., 1920).
Radioff, Wilhelm
1882 'Die Lautalternation und ihre Bedeutung für die Sprachentwicklung,
belegt durch Beispiele aus den Türksprachen', Abhandlungen des
Fünften Internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses gehalten zu Berlin im
September 1881, vol. III, 5 4 - 7 0 (Berlin: Ascher).
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1879[1878] Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-
européennes (Leipzig: Teubner) (Re-ed., Paris: Vieweg 1887).
1931 Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert
Sechehaye, avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger (3e éd. revue)
(Paris: Payot) [All subsequent editions constitute reprints of this one.]
Schuchardt, Hugo
1885 Ueber die Lautgesetze — Gegen die Junggrammatiker (Berlin: Oppen
heim).
Techmer, Friedrich
1887 Review of Kruszewski 1881 b. Internationale Zeitschrift füir Allgemeine
Sprachwissenschaft 3: 338 — 339.
Antoine Meillet (1866-1936)
MEILLET, SAUSSURE ET LA LINGUISTIQUE GÉNÉRALE
UNE QUESTION D"1NFLUENCE'*
0. Observations introductivas
Dans les travaux consacrés à l'histoire de la linguistique, et surtout ceux qui

s'intéressent à l'apport de Saussure à la linguistique théorique, on rencontre souvent
des thèses qui visent soit à insérer Saussure dans la tradition humboldtienne, soit à
défendre l'idée d'une influence profonde de la sociologie durkheimienne sur la pensée
du maître de Genève. Dans Koerner (1973), j'ai tenté à la fois de mettre en lumière
l'absurdité de la première position et de démontrer, d'une façon générale, que Saussure
n'avait pas eu besoin des sociologues pour développer ses idées sur la nature sociale du
langage. Certains chercheurs, notamment Eugenio Coseriu et Hans Helmut Christmann
demeurent convaincus d'une filiation Humboldt-Saussure, prenant Georg von der
Gabelentz (1840-1893), sinologue et critique de l'école des Junggrammatiker, comme
médiateur (cf. Koerner 1988:xvi-xvii). Pour ceux que la question complexe de
T'influence' dans l'histoire de la science du langage intéresse, sans opinion préconçue,
il reste cependant difficile de comprendre comment une telle idée peut venir à l'esprit
puisque l'impression intellectuelle créée par la lecture du Cours de linguistique générale
est très différente de celle produite par la lecture des ouvrages écrits dans la tradition
humboldtienne. L'analyse des textes et des concepts, replacés dans leurs contextes,
révèle qu'il n'y a pas de rapport entre la philosophie du langage de Wilhelm von Hum
boldt (ou de ses successeurs comme Steinthal, Finck, Wundt et d'autres) et la linguis
tique générale de Saussure. Il n'y a rien d'étonnant à cela si l'on remarque que Saus
sure, à côté de ses travaux plutôt techniques en linguistique historique et en dialectolo
gie, suivait la longue tradition du rationalisme français, qui s'oppose à l'idéalisme
allemand du XIXe siècle. Je ne reviendrai pas à la question de l'usage trop répandu de
la notion d"influence' en historiographie linguistique (e.g., Koerner 1987). Le sujet
de mon exposé est le rapport entre Meillet et Saussure en ce qui concerne la linguistique
Une première version de ce chapitre fut présentée au Colloque Meillet tenu sous les auspices de la
Société d'Histoire et d'Épistémologie des Sciences du Langage et sous le patronage de la Commission
du Legs Meillet du Collège de France, sur le campus de l'Université de Paris X - Nanterre, 6-8
September 1987. - Je remercie vivement Sylvain Auroux (Paris) et Claire Pérusse (Ottawa) pour leur
contribution à la révision du français de cet étude.
générale, à savoir la théorie du langage. J'aborderai la question de la prétendue

influence de la doctrine sociologique d'Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), proche contem
porain de Saussure, sur le linguiste de Genève. Le rapport entre Meillet et Saussure,
d'une part, et celui entre Meillet et Durkheim, d'autre part, pourrait facilement suggérer
l'existence d'un lien direct entre Durkheim et Saussure.
1.0 Meillet comme théoricien de la linguistique
1.1 Aperçu biographique. La notice biographique écrite par Joseph Vendryes (1875-
1960), ancien élève et collaborateur de Meillet (1866-1936), nous indique que ce
dernier suivait les cours donnés par Saussure à l'École Pratique des Hautes Études à
Paris durant les années 1885-89 et qu'il le remplaça en 1889-90 lorsque Saussure prit
un congé d'un an (Vendryes 1937:5). Nous savons, en outre, que même après que
Saussure eut quitté la métropole française pour accepter le poste de professeur extra
ordinaire de sanscrit et de grammaire comparée dans sa ville natale en 1891, les deux
hommes restèrent en contact. La série de lettres adressées par Saussure à Meillet entre
1894 et 1911, qui a été retrouvée, témoigne de l'amitié entre ces deux savants (v.
Benveniste 1964). Selon Vendryes (1937:16), c'est l'enseignement de Saussure "qui
exerça sur [Meillet] l'influence la plus forte" dans sa formation professionnelle en
linguistique comparative. Meillet reconnut cette influence dans sa nécrologie du maître
défunt:
Pour ma part, il n'est guère de page que j'ai publiée sans avoir un remords de m'en
attribuer seul le mérite: la pensée de F. de Saussure était si riche, que j'en suis resté
tout pénétré. Je n'oserais, dans ce que j'ai écrit, faire le départ de ce que je lui dois;
... (Meillet 1936[1913]: 179)
Même s'il faut faire la part de l'hyperbole, le texte dans son ensemble montre
l'importance de Saussure pour ses étudiants parisiens parmi lesquels on retrouve
Maurice Grammont (1866-1946), Paul Passy (1859-1940) et d'autres linguistes
français et étrangers (cf. Koerner 1973:28). L'éloge du professeur est éclairant:
F. de Saussure était, en effet, un vrai maître: pour être maître, il ne suffit pas de
réciter devant les auditeurs un manuel correct et au courant; il faut avoir une doctrine
et des méthodes et présenter la science avec un accent personnel. Les enseignements
particuliers que l'étudiant recevait de F. de Saussure avaient une valeur générale, ils
préparaient à travailler et formaient l'esprit; ses formules et ses définitions se fixaient
dans la mémoire comme des guides et des modèles. (Meillet 1936[1913]:178)
Cette présentation est importante pour notre propos étant donné que Saussure
n'enseignait, à cette époque, que la linguistique comparée et historique des langues
indo-européennes. En 1915, Meillet ne connaissait pas encore le contenu des cours
consacrés à la linguistique générale, professés par Saussure à l'Université de Genève
entre 1907 et 1911 (v. Meillet 1915). Il est donc évident, qu'en 1913, c'est à l'en-
MEILLET, SAUSSURE ET LA LINGUISTIQUE GÉNÉRALE 403
seignement de Saussure pendant les années quatre-vingts qu'il se réfère dans le passage
suivant:
F. de Saussure voulait surtout bien marquer le contraste entre deux manières de
considérer les faits linguistiques: l'étude de la langue à un moment donné, et l'étude
du développement linguistique à travers le temps. Seuls les élèves qui ont suivi à
Genève les cours de F. de Saussure sur la linguistique générale ont pu profiter de ces
idées; seuls, ils connaissent les formules précises et les belles images par lesquelles a
été illuminé un sujet neuf. (Meillet 1936[1913]:183)
Je reviendrai sur ce passage (v. section 2.1 plus loin). La carrière scientifique
d'Antoine Meillet est impressionnante. À peine âgé de 23 ans, il est reçu premier à
l'agrégation de grammaire. Quelques mois plus tard, il remplace Saussure à l'École
Pratique des Hautes Études où il est nommé directeur d'études pour la grammaire
comparée de l'indo-européen lors de son retour, en 1891, d'une année de recherche
dans le Caucase pour étudier sur place l'arménien moderne et les manuscrits anciens de
cette langue. En 1897, il obtient le grade de docteur ès lettres; durant l'année 1899-
1900, il remplace Bréal au Collège de France. Entre 1902 et 1906, il enseigne
l'arménien à l'École des Langues Orientales. Il abandonne cette chaire lorsqu'il est
nommé, en 1906, à la chaire de grammaire comparée du Collège de France où il
succède à Bréal. Ses premiers écrits scientifiques remontent à la période où il suivait
les cours de Saussure. Entre 1897 et 1913, il publie huit livres sur le vieux-slave,
l'arménien classique, le latin, le grec et l'indo-europén en général (v. Benveniste
1937:44, pour les détails).1 Le livre le plus connu de cette époque est sans doute son
Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes de 1903 qui fut dédiée
"À mon maître Ferdinand de Saussure à l'occasion des vingt-cinq ans écoulés depuis la
publication du Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-
européennes (1878-1903)." Il est significatif que Meillet n'ait jamais changé cette
dédicace dans les six éditions du livre entre 1907 et 1934, dont trois paraissaient en
1922, en 1930 et en 1934, c'est-à-dire après la parution du Cours de linguistique géné
rale (qui connut sa troisième édition en 1931). En 1909 paraît une traduction allemande
de ce livre, indice de l'importance de sa contribution à la linguistique indo-européenne,
dominée depuis plusieurs générations par la science allemande. En 1910, la réputation
internationale de son auteur est consacrée par le titre de docteur honoris causa de
l'Université de Berlin (v. Vendryes [1937:13] pour le texte du libellé).
1.2 Œuvre scientifique. Si l'on parcourt la bibliographie de Meillet (Benveniste 1937),

on s'aperçoit que sa production scientifique est étroitement circonscrite dans le domaine
de la linguistique historique et comparative de l'indo-européen. Meillet restera toujours
1
V. les évaluations de l'œuvre de Meillet dans le volume rédigé par A. Quattordio Moreschini (1987),
en particulier les contributions de Romano Lazzeroni ("Meillet indoeuropeista" [83-95]), de Giancarlo
Bolognesi ("Il contributo di Antoine Meillet agli studi di linguistica armena" [119-146]), de Teresa
Pàroli ("Antoine Meillet germanista" [147-196]), et de Mario Capaldo ("I paradossi di Meillet sull'unità
lin-guistica slava" [217-227]).
un comparatiste dans l'acception traditionnelle du terme; et même après la parution du

Cours, Saussure demeurera pour lui, avant tout, l'auteur du Mémoire. Le lecteur du
compte rendu que Meillet a fait du Cours s'aperçoit vite qu'il n'a pas saisi la portée de
la doctrine saussurienne: pour lui, le livre que Bally et Sechehaye ont composé sur la
base des notes d'étudiants est loin d'être complet; il s'agit plutôt d'une 'série de vues',
rescapées d'un enseignement 'oral et fugitif. Lorsque Vendryes (1937:27) exprime son
regret du fait que Meillet n'a jamais réalisé "un projet de traité de linguistique générale",
on s'étonne un peu quand on constate que Meillet n'a jamais écrit un seul article de
linguistique théorique. On devrait lire et relire ses comptes rendus — commel'fait le
regretté Jean Stéfanini (1917-1985), en 1979, pour les contributions à la revue de
Durkheim, L'année sociologique — et certains de ses articles, afin de reconstituer une
vue générale, et, même là, on retrouverait plutôt les mêmes remarques répétées et
variées sur la nature du langage et l'importance de son caractère social dans l'expli
cation du changement linguistique. Il est clair que son approche des faits du langage ~
et des langues — reste marquée par l'induction engendrée par l'empirisme et le
positivisme de son époque. On se demande vraiment si "la sûreté de la méthode, la
justesse et la pénétration de l'analyse" démontrent "le triomphe suprême de la raison ou,
si l'on préfère, de l'esprit cartésien", comme le proclama Vendryes il y a cinquante ans
(1937:42). Toutefois, on retrouve chez Meillet certaines observations qui s'approchent
de la pensée saussurienne; il reste donc à discerner lequel des deux les a formulées le
premier.
2.0 Le rapport entre Meillet et Saussure vis-à-vis la linguistique générale et théorique
Même si l'on trouve plusieurs références à Meillet dans Koerner (1973),2 ce n'est
que dix ans plus tard où j'ai tenté de présenter une vue d'ensemble de la contribution de
Meillet à la linguistique générale (Koerner 1984:29-36). Dans ce qui suit, je ne citerai
que quel-ques passages des écrits de Meillet pour illustrer les points qui me semblent
pertinents dans la discussion actuelle.
2.1 Le langage comme 'un système où tout se tient'. À la lecture du célèbre article
programmatif de N. S. Trubetzkoy "La phonologie actuelle" publié en 1933, on a l'im
pression que la fameuse phrase décrivant la langue comme 'un système où tout se tient'
est de Saussure. Trubetzkoy l'utilise à quatre reprises en cinq pages et cela en se
référant toujours à Saussure (Trubetzkoy 1969[1933]: 159-63). En vérité, cette phrase
ne figure pas dans le Cours. On la trouve chez Meillet (e.g., 1906b: 17; 1915:123) et
plus tard, également, chez son collaborateur Joseph Vendryes (cf. Koerner
1973:239n.l2, 240n.23), dans nombre de publications, mais surtout dans son
Introduction de 1903 où il est évident qu'il pense au Mémoire de Saussure (v. Meillet
1903:407 = 8e éd. de 1937:475; cf. Brogyanyi 1983 pour les détails). Récemment, J.
V. surtout Koerner (1973: 230-232) et, pour le reste, l'index à la page 424, pour les détails.
MEILLET, SAUSSURE ET LA LINGUISTIQUE GENERALE 405
Toman (1987) a mentionné un article de 1899 dans lequel Meillet ne cite non seulement
la phrase d'une façon générale, mais explique la portée concrète d'une telle observation.
Étudiant le groupe morphologique -ns-- en indo-européen, Meillet parle du comporte
ment des phonèmes de la façon suivante:
... tous les mouvements qui concourent à la formation d'un phonème étant solidaires,
l'altération de l'un d'entre eux a chance d'entraîner, soit immédiatement, soit plus tard,
l'altération d'un ou de plusieurs des autres. Du reste ce phonème n'est pas isolé dans
la langue, il fait partie d'un système phonétique dont toutes les parties se tiennent et
réagissent les unes sur les autres; ... (Meillet 1899:64; Toman 1987:403)
Toman croit également retrouver cette fameuse expression chez Maurice Grammont
(1866-1946), ancien étudiant de Saussure comme Meillet, dans son ouvrage de 1895,
La dissimilation consonanîique dans les langues indo-européennes et dans les langues
romanes, où l'auteur soutient, entre autres, que "si la dissimilation elle aussi obéit à des
lois, tout se tient dans l'édifice, l'ensemble est complet et il ne reste qu'à parfaire les
détails" (p.10). Benveniste, citant des passages du Cours comme celui définissant la
langue comme "un système dont toutes les parties peuvent et doivent être considérées
dans leur solidarité synchronique" (Saussure 1931 [1916]: 124), affirme que "Cette no
tion était familière aux élèves parisiens de Saussure; bien avant l'élaboration du Cours
[...], Meillet l'a énoncée plusieurs fois, sans manquer de la rapporter à l'enseignement
de son maître" (1966:93). Benveniste se réfère, de plus, au Traité de phonétique de
Grammont de 1933 (pp.153 et 167) pour souligner que Meillet et Grammont devaient
cette observation 'structuraliste' à Saussure. Toman, pour sa part, en attribuant la
première référence à Grammont, ignore le fait que Meillet, dans un de ses premiers
articles écrits après le départ de son maître pour Genève, l'avait utilisé deux ans plus
tôt. Dans "Les lois du langage", Meillet (1893:318-319) constatait:
Les divers éléments phonétiques de chaque idiome forment un système où tout se

tient. Les personnes qui ont appris à prononcer une langue étrangère ont pu s'en
rendre compte: ce n'est pas seulement parce qu'il prononce mal le th ou les
consonnes finales que le Français est inintelligible en parlant anglais, c'est que ni la
positions des lèvres, ni celle de la langue ne sont les mêmes pour parler les deux
langues, et que pas une seule des voyelles n'est rigoureusement identique dans les
deux. Or l'enfant, en apprenant à parler, s'assimile non une articulation isolée, mais
l'ensemble du système. (C'est moi qui souligne: KK)
Il est donc intéressant de noter qu'en 1932 Charles ally (1865-1947), ancien élève de
Saussure à Genève, attribuait la citation célèbre à son maître (Bally 1932:9; Peeters
1985:142). Meillet, en 1916, dans son compte rendu du Cours, nota ceci:
Je n'ai jamais entendu le cours de F. de Saussure sur la linguistique générale. Mais la
pensée de F. de Saussure s'était fixée très tôt, on le sait. Les doctrines qu'il a
enseignées explicitement dans ses cours de linguistique générale sont celles dont
s'inspirait déjà l'enseignement de grammaire comparée qu'il a donné vingt ans plus tôt
à l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, et que j'ai reçu. (Meillet 1916:33 = Mounin 1968:163)
Il me semble, par conséquent, fort probable que cette phrase remonte directement à
l'enseignement de Saussure durant les années quatre-vingts du siècle dernier. Il est
certain que l'idée, dont le Mémoire de 1878 est une application géniale, vient de lui.
(On devrait se rappeler le fait que durant la période où Meillet suivait les cours de
Saussure, celui-ci fit réimprimer son Mémoire à Paris, en 1887, et il est bien possible
que les étudiants sérieux de Saussure, comme Meillet et Grammont, se soient acheté un
exemplaire de cette nouvelle édition.)
Peut-être devrais-je choisir un autre exemple pour démontrer que l'opinion de
Meillet selon laquelle la pensée linguistique de Saussure "s'était fixée très tôt" est tout à
fait vraisemblable. Nous possédons d'abord le témoignage de Saussure lui-même: le 6
mai 1911, lors d'un entretien avec son élève de Genève, Léopold Gautier (1884-1973),
il affirme que les questions de linguistique générale l'avaient occupé "surtout avant
1900" (Godel 1957:30). C'est à Genève, durant les années quatre-vingt-dix, que
Saussure réfléchit longuement à la théorie générale du langage (v. sa lettre du 4 janvier
1894 à Meillet [Benveniste 1964:95-96]; Godel 1957:31). Ainsi en novembre 1894,
dans un carnet de notes, il constate: "Nous nourrissons depuis bien des années cette
conviction que la linguistique est une science double ... " (Godel 1957:33) ~ référence
incontestable à la 'dualité fondamentale' de la linguistique 'statique' et de la linguistique
'évolutive'. Je cite ces passages en réponse à la critique de Coseriu (1977:246) qui me
reproche d'avoir vu dans la remarque de Meillet de 1913 (citée plus haut), au sujet de
ces deux axes une indication que Saussure avait parlé de cette distinction méthodo
logique déjà au cours de son enseignement parisien. Nous disposons même d'une
autre observation faite par Meillet en 1901, bien avant que Saussure ne donne ses cours
de linguistique générale. On la trouve dans le compte rendu du tome I de la
Völkerpsychologie de Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) avec lequel Meillet inaugure sa
collaboration àl'Année sociologique. Le linguiste précise en effet:
Les linguistes, on le sait, étudient le langage à deux points de vue; tantôt ils
observent et décrivent l'état actuel d'une langue à un moment donné; et tantôt ils
suivent des transformations d'une langue aux diverses périodes successives de son
histoire. (Meillet 1901:597)
Dans le même compte rendu on rencontre également - et, sans doute, pas pour la
première fois — la remarque de Meillet selon laquelle "le langage est une institution
sociale dont les conditions d'existence et de développement ne sauraient être conçues
qu'à un point de vue sociologique" (p.598).
2.2 La langue comme un fait social. Jean Stéfanini, citant, entre autres, ces deux
derniers passages du compte rendu de Meillet, a démontré clairement que celui-ci
suivait la doctrine de Durkheim et de ses associés, telle qu'on la rencontre dans les
pages de l'Année sociologique (Stéfanini 1979:9-11). Mais il semble tout aussi
évident, d'après nombre d'autres passages écrits entre 1901 et 1929 (v. Stéfanini 1979
passim), qu'il donnait à ses observations une interprétation qui était d'abord celle d'un
linguiste.
H est bien connu que Meillet collaborait à la revue de Durkheim, surtout à cause du
grand succès de son article "Comment les mots changent de sens" publié dans le neu
vième volume de l'Année sociologique (Meillet 1906a). Soixante-cinq ans plus tard
encore cet article figure dans les manuels de linguistique historique (e.g., Arlotto
1972:165-183 passim; Lehmann 1973:212-213). C'est dans cette étude du changement
sémantique où l'on retrouve le passage d'ouverture, souvent cité dans la littérature
comme preuve de la dépendance de Meillet et, par adhésion subtile semble-t-il, de
Saussure, à la sociologie de Durkheim (v. Mounin 1968:22):
Le langage a pour condition l'existence des sociétés humaines dont il est l'instrument
indispensable [...] ; le langage est donc éminemment un fait social. En effet, il entre
exactement dans la définition qu'a proposée Durkheim; une langue existe
indépendamment de chacun des individus qui la parlent, et, bien qu'elle n'ait aucune
réalité en dehors de la somme de ces individus, elle est cependant, par sa généralité,
extérieure à chacun d'eux; ce qui le montre, c'est qu'il ne dépend d'aucun d'entre eux de
la changer et que toute déviation individuelle de l'usage provoque une réaction; [...].
Les caractères d'extériorité à l'individu et de coercitation par lesquels Durkheim définit
le fait social apparaissent donc dans le langage avec dernière évidence. (Meillet
1921[1906a]:230)
En fait, déjà en 1893, soit douze ans avant son article dans l'Année sociologique,
Meillet avait exprimé l'opinion que "De tous les faits sociaux, le langage est sans doute
le premier qui ait été étudié scientifiquement" (Meillet 1893:311). Cette remarque figure
lors dans sa première contribution à la Revue internationale de Sociologie dirigée par le
Secrétaire général de l'Institut international de Sociologie à Paris, René Worms (1869-
1926), revue créée plusieurs années avant celle de Durkheim. (Il est intéressant de noter
que Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904), un rival de Durkheim, figurait parmi les collaborateurs
de la revue de Worms.) En d'autres mots, Meillet s'était très tôt associé avec les
sociologues; mais la lecture de ses articles dans leurs revues est loin de prouver qu'il
avait assimilé leurs théories sociales. Il n'est donc pas étonnant que J. C. Rijlaarsdam
(1978), dans son analyse des écrits de Meillet (et de Saussure) au sujet de la question
d'une influence possible des idées de Tarde et de Durkheim, conclut (p.264): "Der
Schluß liegt nahe, daß Meillet diese Theorien nur halb gekannt hat - wie Saussure."
Cependant, depuis l'intervention de Witold Doroszewski (1905-1976) au Deu
xième Congrès international de Linguistes tenu à Genève en 1931 (Doroszewski
1933a), et la publication de son article sur Durkheim et Saussure deux ans plus tard
(Doroszewski 1933b), la thèse selon laquelle Saussure aurait développé ses idées sur la
nature sociale du langage sous l'influence de Durkheim, surtout en ce qui concerne le
concept central de la théorie saussurienne, à savoir le concept de 'langue' (cf. Koerner
1973:48-49 et ailleurs pour les détails), est devenu presque un dogme de l'historio
graphie linguistique. Je n'ai pas l'intention de me relancer dans la discussion (pour une
réfutation des hypothèses de Hiersche 1972, Bierbach 1978 et d'autres, v. Koerner
[1987:19-22]); je me contenterai d'attirer l'attention du lecteur sur quelques affirmations
de l'époque contredisant Doroszewski. La première vient de Meillet lui-même qui,
ayant assisté à la présentation de Doroszewski, s'opposa fortement à l'idée d'une telle
influence (cf. Meillet 1933). (Il semble symptomatique que, dans l'histoire de la lin
guistique, toute opposition à un point de vue cher à ceux qui veulent partout trouver des
précurseurs à tout prix -- même si les sources sont facilement accessibles -- est la plu
part du temps ignorée.) Depuis 1967, l'on sait en outre que Meillet avait confié, dans
une lettre du 25 novembre 1930, adressée à N. S. Trubetzkoy (probablement à la suite
d'une question de l'érudit russe au sujet de l'approche sociologique exprimée dans le
Cours): "J'ai été bien étonné quand j'ai vu F. de Saussure affirmer le caractère social
du langage: j'étais venu à cette idée par moi-même et sous d'autres influences ..."
(Hagège 1967:117).
Étant donné la collaboration de Meillet aux deux principales revues de sociologie
publiées à Paris et ses contacts avec leurs rédacteurs après que Saussure eut quitté la
capitale française, on peut s'imaginer qu'il ait subi quelque influence (à laquelle s'ajoute
celle venant directement des dialectologues et des linguistes de son entourage comme
Gaston Paris, Jules Gilliéron, Michel Bréal et d'autres - cf. Koerner 1984 pour les
détails). Il est d'autant plus frappant que Meillet n'ait pas imaginé que Saussure aurait
pu avoir subi de telles influences et que Saussure ne semble pas avoir affirmé un point
de vue social dans ses cours à l'École Pratique des Hautes Études durant les années
quatre-vingts. Mais il existe le témoignage du Suédois Alf Sommerfeit (1897-1965),
ancien élève de Meillet, dans un article-programme de 1932, "La Linguistique: Science
sociologique", dans lequel il affirma:
S'appuyant sur les idées générales de Durkheim, M. Meillet a introduit des principes
nouveaux surtout dans les méthodes historiques, et Ferdinand de Saussure,
indépendemment de Durkheim, dans celles de la linguistique générale. (Sommerfelt
1962[1932]:36; c'est moi qui souligne: KK)
En d'autres mots, on devrait se demander s'il n'y a pas lieu de croire au

témoignage de ceux qui, comme Meillet, ont connu Saussure, l'œuvre et l'homme, ou
de ceux, comme Sommerfelt, qui connaissaient bien Meillet et le Cours? En vérité,
Saussure n'avait pas besoin des sociologues pour développer une conception sociale du
langage. Cela explique pourquoi Washabaugh (1974) a trouvé si peu de similarités
entre les idées de Durkheim et celles de Saussure et pourquoi Bierbach (1978), par
exemple, n'a pas pu relever un seul passage dans les écrits de ce dernier qui prouverait
une quelconque dépendance du maître genevois à l'égard d'une des théories
sociologiques de l'époque.3 Ceux qui lisent attentivement les sources manuscrites,
celles de Saussure lui-même et celles de ses étudiants à Genève (v. Godel 1957;
Saussure 1967-68, 1974) n'ont aucune difficulté à trouver une source principale de
l'inspiration saussurienne, à savoir l'œuvre de William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894).
C'est dans son livre Language and the Study of Language (Whitney 1867), auquel
Saussure revoyait dans ses cours de linguistique générale lorsqu'il parlait de la langue
3
V. également l'étude de Elia (1978), surtout les pages 18-20, 31-32 et 105-107, pour des observations
semblables.
comme 'institution sociale' (e.g., Saussure 1967-1968:33), que le linguiste américain

dit ceci:
Le langage [speech] est une possession non pas personnelle, mais sociale; il
n'appartient pas à l'individu mais au membre de la société. Aucune unité d'une
langue existante n'est l'œuvre d'un individu; car le choix que nous faisons n'est langue
tant qu'il n'est accepté et utilisé par nos semblables [is not language until it be
accepted and employed by our fellows]. Le développement entier du langage [speech],
quoique initié par des actes individuels, est élaboré par la communauté. (Whitney
1867:404, cité dans Koerner 1988:157; ma traduction: KK)
Mais pour revenir au rapport entre Meillet et Saussure, on pourrait s'imaginer que les
thèses durkheimiennes auraient atteint le second par l'entremise du premier. Il est établi
que Saussure avait reçu un tirage à part du célèbre article de Meillet, "Comment les
mots changent de sens", dont nous avons déjà cité le passage, dans lequel Meillet fait
directement référence à la doctrine durkheimienne du 'fait social'. Gambarara
(1972:349-350) a établi que Saussure avait reçu nombre d'autres écrits de Meillet, y
compris le texte de sa Leçon d'ouverture du cours de Grammaire comparée au Collège
de France, lu en février 1906. Nous possédons, en effet, une lettre de Saussure
adressé à Meillet du 12 novembre 1906 dans laquelle il l'en remercie (cf. Jakobson
1971:15). Cet article, intitulé "L'état actuel des études de linguistique générale" arrivait
donc quelques semaines avant que l'administration de l'Université de Genève ne
demande à Saussure de se charger du cours de linguistique que le rabbin de Genève,
Joseph Wertheimer (1833-1908), avait donné depuis 1873.
Étant donné que Saussure fut obligé d'enseigner un cours de "linguistique générale
et d'histoire et comparaison des langues indo-européennes" (Godel 1957:34) à partir du
16 janvier 1907, il est probable que Saussure ait lu, avec un certain intérêt, ces deux
articles de Meillet de 1906, surtout celui sur la 'linguistique générale' dans lequel
l'auteur essayait de donner une vue d'ensemble de ses idées théoriques. Il faut se
rappeler que Saussure s'était préoccupé de ces questions surtout pendant les années
1890 — il avait même songé à écrire un livre sur 'la langue en général', comme il le
signalait dans une lettre adressé à Meillet du 4 janvier 1894 (cf. Benveniste 1964:95-96)
— mais qu'il avait abandonné ses réflexions sur la linguistique générale plusieurs
années avant cette nouvelle charge de cours. En effet, c'est dans la Leçon d'ouverture
de Meillet du 13 février 1906 qu'on peut trouver des observations qui semblent
'saussuriennes' d'esprit. Par exemple, Meillet y notait:
[...] le langage est éminemment un fait social. [...] Cette réalité [de la langue] est à
la fois linguistique et sociale.
Elle est linguistique: car une langue constitue un système complexe de moyens
d'expression, système où tout se tient et où une innovation individuelle ne peut que
difficilement trouver place si, [...], elle n'est pas exactement adaptée à ce système,
A un autre égard, la réalité de la langue est sociale: elle résulte de ce qu'une langue
appartient à un ensemble défini de sujets parlants, de ce qu'elle est le moyen de
communication entre les membres d'un même groupe et de ce qu'il ne dépend d'aucun
des membres de la modifier; [...]. (Meillet 1921[1906a]: 16-17)
Si nous comparons ces passages avec des observations trouvées dans le Cours -
tenant compte, bien entendu, de l'édition critique qu'en a donnée Rudolf Engler - on
pourra facilement noter des différences importantes:
[La langue] est la partie sociale du langage, extérieure à l'individu, qui à lui seul ne
peut pas ni la créer ni la modifier; elle n'existe qu'en vertu d'une sorte de contrat passé
entre les membres de la communauté. (Saussure 1931[1910]:31; 1967-68:42)
En replaçant ces citations dans leurs contextes, on notera que la préoccupation de

Meillet dans son article est l'explication du changement linguistique (cf. également
Meillet 1906a), tandis que le sujet de la discussion chez Saussure fut la définition de la
linguistique comme science sémiologique et de son objet principal, la 'langue', ce qui
implique une nette différenciation entre 'langage' et 'langue', distinction théorique
qu'on ne trouve pas dans Meillet. En effet, ses observations sont plutôt banales. Déjà
en 1894 ou plus tôt4 — et bien avant la parution des Règles de la méthode sociologique
de Durkheim -- Saussure note que "la langue est un fait social" (Godel 1957:40), et en
novembre 1908, il donne la définition suivante à ses termes théoriques:
[...] la langue est un ensemble de conventions nécessaires adoptées par le corps social
pour permettre l'usage de la faculté du langage chez les individus. La faculté du
langage est un fait distinct de la langue, mais qui ne peut s'exercer sans elle. Par la
parole, on désigne l'acte de l'individu réalisant sa faculté au moyen de la convention
sociale, qui est la langue. (Saussure 1957:10)
On ne trouve rien de semblable chez Meillet. En réalité, dans des recherches antérieures
(Koerner 1973:230-231; 1984:32-34), je n'ai trouvé que très peu d'indices d'une
influence de certaines observations de Meillet sur les réflexions théoriques de Saussure.
Cependant, il existe encore au moins une remarque de Meillet qui requiert discussion;
elle figure dans le premier paragraphe de son article de l'Année sociologique cité au
début de la section 2.2 (supra). Il s'agit de l'idée que c'est la 'coercition' par laquelle
Durkheim définissait le 'fait social' qui empêche l'individu de changer la langue.
Saussure, dans son troisième cours (1910-1911), affirme que "La langue est consacrée
socialement et ne dépend pas de l'individu" (Saussure 1967:41), mais il n'insiste pas —
comme la 'vulgate' du Cours le suggère (p.131) - sur "la contrainte de l'usage
collectif" (cf. Saussure [1968:206], où il est question d'un 'caractère impératif du
langage). En fait, on ne trouve guère le concept ou le terme de 'contrainte (sociale)'
chez Saussure. Étant donné l'effort qu'il a déployé pour expliciter la distinction entre
'langue' et 'parole' (cf. Godel 1957:142-159), une telle absence est significative. On
peut, en effet, s'imaginer l'utilité du concept durkheimien pour une définition du
concept de 'langue' que Saussure a souvent identifié à 'code' (cf. Saussure 1931:31,
4
Scherer (1980:132) donne la date de 1891 à ce manuscrit en se référant à Saussure (1974:16); mais
Engler ne fournit pas une telle date dans son édition critique du CLG, et j'ignore la base de cette
datation.
47, 107). Il semble que Saussure n'a jamais lu la célèbre introduction (pp.ix-xxiv) de la
deuxième édition des Règles que Durkheim ajouta en 1901 pour expliquer son concept
de 'fait social'.
On pourrait citer encore plusieurs autres divergences entre Meillet et Saussure
pour démontrer que Saussure a appris peu chez Meillet. Il ne suffit pas de compter les
occurrences de 'système' dans Meillet et dans le Cours (Mounin 1966) pour suggérer
des convergences; on devrait plutôt se pencher sur le sens que chacun d'eux attribue à
ce terme. Par exemple, on chercherait en vain chez Meillet une définition de la langue
comme 'système de signes' ou 'de signes arbitraires' {Cours pp. 32, 106, 116, 182,
etc.). La conception sémiotique du langage envisagée par Saussure reste tout à fait
étrangère au français. Quant au suisse, l'aspect social du langage lui sert plutôt d'appui
pour son concept de 'langue', mais c'est la nature sémiologique de celle-ci — motivée
socialement ~ qui doit répondre aux exigences théoriques du maître de Genève: déjà en
1894 (cf. Saussure 1968:197), il parlait de "cette sémiologie particulière qu'est le
langage".
3.0 Conclusion
Il est bien possible que les deux articles de Meillet de 1906 ont pu pousser Saus
sure à tirer au clair certaines de ses vues théoriques, peut-être mêmes celles qui con
cernent la tripartition langage/langue/parole (cf. Koerner 1984:34-35). Mais il est peu
probable, comme je pense l'avoir démontré, que Saussure ait pu apprendre beaucoup
de son ancien élève. Au contraire, si l'on suit le témoignage de ce dernier (cf. les
citations dans les sections 1.1 et 1.2 supra), c'est lui qui devait ses idées essentielles
quant à la nature du langage et à la méthode de recherche du genevois. C'est seulement
son Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-europénnes de 1903 que
Saussure semble avoir citée dans son premier cours de 1907, à propos de questions de
phonétique et de phonologie historique (cf. Saussure 1968:132, 339, 493), et dans un
cours de grammaire comparée de l'été 1910, à propos de questions de morphologie
indo-européenne (cf. ibid., p.421); encore ces renvois sont-ils pour la plupart du temps
des renvois critiques. Les deux articles de Meillet de 1906 ne figurent ni dans les notes
de Saussure ni dans celles prises par ses étudiants. Il n'existe aucune trace chez
Saussure des concepts sociologiques de Durkheim, pas même des quelques idées
durkheimiennes atténuées et reprises de Meillet.
RÉFÉRENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUES
Arlotto, Anthony. 1972. Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin. (New printing, Lanham, Maryland: Univ. Press of America, 1981.)
Bally, Charles. 1932. Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Paris: E. Leroux.
Benveniste, Emile, comp. 1937. "Bibliographie des travaux d'Antoine Meillet". Bulle
tin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 38.43-68.
---------, éd. 1964. "Lettres de Ferdinand de Saussure à Antoine Meillet". Cahiers
Ferdinand de Saussure 21.93-123.
---------. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. [Tome L] Paris: Editions Galli
mard.
Bierbach, Christine. 1978. Sprache as »Fait social«: Die linguistische Theorie F. de
Saussure's und ihr Verhältnis zu den positivistischen Sozialwissenschaften.
Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.
Bolelli, Tristano. 1979. "La scuola linguistica sociologica francese". Studi e Saggi
Linguistici (Pisa) 19.1-26.
Brogyanyi, Bela. 1983. "A Few Remarks on the Origin of the Phrase 'où tout se
tient'". HistoriographiaLinguistica10.143-147.
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1977. Tradición y novedad en la ciencia de lenguaje. Madrid:
Gredos.
Doroszewski, Witold. 1933a. "Sociologie et linguistique: Durkheim et de Saussure".
Actes du Deuxième Congrès international de Linguistes (Genève, 25-29 août 1931),
146-147. Paris: A. Maisonneuve.
---------. 1933b. "Quelques remarques sur les rapports de la sociologie et la
linguistique: Durkheim et F. de Saussure". Journal de Psychologie normale et
pathologique 30.82-91. (Repr. dans Essais sur le langage présentés par Jean-Claude
Pariente, 99-109. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1969.)
Durkheim, Emile. 1895. Les Règles de la méthode sociologique. Paris: F. Alcan. (2e
éd., avec une nouvelle introduction, ibid., 1901.)
Elia, Annibale. 1978. Per Saussure contro Saussure: Il «sociale» nelle teorie linguis-
tiche del Novecento. Bologna: D Mulino.
Engler, Rudolf. 1980. "Linguistique 1908: Un débat-clef de linguistique géographique
et une question de sources saussuriennes". Progress in Linguistic Historiography:
Papers from the Internationational Conference on the History of the Language
Sciences (Ottawa, 28-31 August 1978) éd. par Konrad Koerner, 257-270. Amster
dam: J. Benjamins.
Engler, Rudolf, éd. 1967-68, 1974 - v. sous Saussure 1967-68, 1974.
Gambarara, Daniele. 1972. "La bibliothèque de Ferdinand de Saussure". Genava n.s.
20.319-368.
Godel, Robert. 1957. Les Sources manuscrites du Cours de linguistique générale de F.
de Saussure. Genève: Droz. (2e tirage, 1969.)
Grammont, Maurice. 1895. La dissimilation consonantique dans les langues indo-
européennes et dans les langues romanes. Dijon: Imprimerie Darantière.
Hagège, Claude, éd. 1967. "Extraits de la correspondance de N. S. Trubetzkoy". La
Linguistique 3:1.109-136.
Hiersche, Rolf. 1972. Ferdinand de Saussures langue-parole-Konzeption und sein
Verhältnis zu Durkheim und von der Gabelentz. Innsbruck: Institut für Verglei
chende Sprachwissenschaft, Univ. Innsbruck.
Jakobson, Roman. 1971. "Première lettre de F. de Saussure à A. Meillet sur les ana
grammes". L'Homme: Revue française d'anthropologie 11:2.15-24.
Koerner, E. F. Konrad. 1973. Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and development of his
linguistic thought in western studies of language. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg. (2e
tirage, 1974.) [Traduction espagnole, Madrid: Gredos, 1982.]
--------. 1980. "L'importance de William Dwight Whitney pour les jeunes linguistes
de Leipzig et pour F. de Saussure". Lingvisticœ Investigationes 4.379-394. (Repr.
dans Koerner 1988.1-16.)
--------. 1984. "French Influences on Saussure". Revue canadienne de Linguistique
29.20-41. (Repr. dans Koerner 1988.67-88.)
--------. 1986. "Aux sources de la sociolinguistique". Lingvisticœ Investigaîiones
10.381-401. (Repr. dans Koerner 1988.155-174.)
--------. 1987. "On the Problem of 'Influence' in Linguistic Historiography". Papers
in the History of Linguistics: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS III), Princeton, 19-23 August 1984
éd. par Hans Aarsleff, Louis G. Kelly & Hans-Josef Niederehe, 15-23. Amsterdam
& Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. (Repr. comme chapitre 3 dans le présent volume.)
--------. 1988. Saussurean Studies I Etudes saussuriennes. Avant-propos de Rudolf
Engler. Genève: Éditions Slatkine.
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. Historical Linguistics: An introduction. 2e éd. revue et
augmentée. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Meillet, Antoine. 1893. "Les lois du langage. I: Lois phonétiques". Revue interna
tionale de Sociologie (Paris) 1.311-321.
---------. 1894. "Les lois du langage. II: l'analogie". Ibid. 2.860-870.
---------. 1899. "A propos du groupe -ns-". Indogermanische Forschungen 10.61-70.
---------. 1901. Compte rendu de Wilhelm Wundt, Völkerpsychologie, Tome I: Die
Sprache, 2 vols. (Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1900). Année sociologique 5.595-601.
---------. 1903. Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-europénnes. Paris:
Hachette. (8e éd., avec un avant-propos de Émile Benveniste, 1937.)
---------. 1906a. "Comment les mots changent de sens". Année sociologique 9.1-38.
(Repr. dans Meillet 1921.230-271.)
---------. 1906b. "L'état actuel des études de linguistique générale: Leçon d'ouverture
du Cours de Grammaire comparée au Collège de France lue le mardi 13 février
1906". Revue des Idées (Paris) 3.296-308. (Repr. dans Meillet 1921.1-18.)
---------. 1909. Einführung in die vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. Traduction allemande autorisée par Wilhelm Printz. Leipzig & Berlin: .
G. Teubner.
---------. 1913. "Ferdinand de Saussure". Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes
Études (Section des sciences historiques et philologiques) 1913-1914, 115-125.
(Réimprimé dans Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 18.clxv-clxxv
[1913] et, entre autres, dans Meillet 1936.174-183.)
---------. 1915. "La Linguistique". La Science française: Ouvrage publié sous les aus
pices du Ministère de l'Instruction Publique à l'occasion de l'Exposition de San
Francisco. Vol.II, 117-124. Paris: Ministère de l'Instruction Publique et des Beaux
Arts. (Publication séparée, Paris: Larousse, 1916, avec un portrait de F. de Saus
sure.)
---------. 1916. Compte rendu de F. de Saussure, Cours de linguistique générale (Lau
sanne & Paris: Payot, 1916). Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 20.32-
36. (Repr. dans Mounin 1968.161-168.)
---------. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. [Tome L] Paris: E.
Champion.
---------. 1933. [Commentaire sur la présentation de W. Doroszewski 1933a.] Actes
du Deuxième Congrès international de Linguistes, p.147. Paris: A. Maisonneuve.
---------. 1936. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Tome II Paris: 
Klincksieck.
Moreschini, Adriana Quarttordio, réd. [1987]. Lopera scientifica di Antoine Meillet:

Atti del Convegno delia Società Italiana di Glottologia (Pisa, 12-14 dicembre 1986).
Pisa: Giardini.
Mounin, Georges. 1966. "La notion de système chez Antoine Meillet". La Linguistique
2:1.17-29.
---------. 1968. Saussure ou le structuraliste sans le savoir: Présentation, choix de
textes, bibliographie. Paris: Éditions Seghers. (2e éd. corrigée, 1971.)
Peeters, Bert. 1985. "Tout ne se tient-il pas dans le système?' Bedenkingen bij de
paradigmatische samenhang van taalelementen". Handelingen der Koninklijke Zuid-
nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 39.141-156.
Bruxelles.
Quattordio Moreschini, A., v. Moreschini, Adriana Quattordio
Rijlaarsdam, Jetske  1978. Platon über die Sprache: Ein Kommentar zum Kratylos.
Mit einem Anhang über die Quelle der Zeichentheorie Ferdinand de Saussures.
Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1879. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les
langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. (2e éd., Paris: F. Vieweg,
1887.)
---------. 1931. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert
Sechehaye, avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. 3e éd. corrigée. Paris: Payot.
[Toutes les autres éditions, y compris la soi-disant 'édition critique' de Tullio De
Mauro de 1972 - dernière éd., 1985 - suivent le texte de cette troisième édition.]
---------. 1957. "Cours de linguistique générale (1908-1909): Introduction". Cahiers
Ferdinand de Saussure 15.6-103. (Publié, d'après des notes d'étudiants, par Robert
Godel.)
---------. 1967-68, 1974. Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique par Rudolf
Engler, 4 fasc. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.
Scheerer, Thomas M. 1980. Ferdinand de Saussure: Rezeption und Kritik. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaft-liche Buchgesellschaft.
Sommerfeit, Alf. 1962[1932]. "La linguistique: Science sociologique".Diachronicand
Synchronie Aspects of Language: Selected articles par A. Sommerfelt, 36-51. La
Haye: Mouton.
Stéfanini, Jean. 1979. "Sur une première rencontre de la linguistique et de la sociologie:
Relecture d'A. Meillet". Recherches sur le français parlé (Aix-en-Provence) No.2
(Février 1979), 9-24.
Toman, Jindrich. 1987. "Not from 1903, not from Meillet: A final (?) remark on 'où
tout se tient"'. Historio graphiaLinguistica14:3.403-406.
Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. 1933. "La phonologie actuelle". Journal de Psychologie
normale et pathologique 30.227-243. (Repr. dans Essais sur le langage présentés par
Jean-Claude Pariente, 143-164. Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1969.)
Vendryes, Joseph. 1921. "Le caractère social du langage et la doctrine de Ferdinand de
Saussure". Journal de Psychologie normale et pathologique 28.617-624.
— 1937. "Antoine Meillet". Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris
38.1-42.
Washabaugh, William. 1974. "Saussure, Durkheim, and Sociological Theory".
Archivum Linguisticum n.s. 5.25-34.
Whitney, William Dwight. 1867. Language and the Study of Language. New York:
Scribner, Armstrong & Co.; London: Trübner & Co. (6th ed., 1896; repr., New
York: AMS Press, 1971.)
MEILLET, SAUSSURE ET LA LINGUISTIQUE GENERALE 415
SUMMARY
Antoine Meillet (1866-1936) was a student of Saussure's at the École Pratique des
Hautes Études in Paris during 1885-89, substituting for him during 1889-90, when
Saussure took a sabbatical leave. Following Saussure's acceptance of a professorship
at the University of Geneva in 1891, Meillet remained in touch with him; letters by the
latter addressed to Meillet attest to their friendship. Meillet, for his part, never tired to
acknowledge his debt to Saussure; by contrast, his influence on his former teacher with
regard to general linguistic ideas is much less certain. The present paper addresses this
question as well as the traditional claim that Saussure was influenced by Durkheimian
sociology, most probably mediated by Meillet. Throughout most his career Meillet
made general observations about the nature of language and linguistic methodology.
But these are usually expressed in book reviews and few papers; all book-length
studies of his are devoted to languages or language groups of the Indo-European
family, and it is evident that Meillet remained a comparativist throughout his entire
career. A close analysis of Meillet's general linguistic ideas reveals that he usually
stated the obvious, at least if compared with what Saussure had to say about the
foundations of linguistics, and that there is little that Saussure could have found in
Meillet as a generalist. It is therefore not surprising that Meillet's reaction to the Cours
de linguistique générale was much less favourable than one might have expected; for
Meillet, Saussure remained first and foremost the author of the Mémoire sur le système
primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes, which appeared in Leipzig in
December 1878.
HOLGER PEDERSEN (1867-1953)
A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND WORK*
Holger Pedersen was born on 7 April 1867 as the son of a school

teacher at Gjelballe, near Lunderskov, Kolding province, Jutland. After
completion of grammar school, with distinction, he entered the University
of Copenhagen where he took courses in Greek, Latin, and Danish.1 His
teachers were Karl Verner (1846-1896), Vilhelm Thomsen (1842-1927),
Hermann Möller (1850-1923), and Ludwig Wimmer (1839-1920); one could
hardly imagine a better slate of professors in the fields of Slavic, Germanic,
Classics, and Semitic. Following completion of his studies with the highest
honours in 1890, Pedersen started his career as an academic, sending off
his first papers to the most distinguished journals in historical-comparative
linguistics of the period at the age of twenty-four.2 These include Adalbert
Bezzenberger's Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen, Karl
Brugmann and Wilhelm Streitberg's Indogermanische Forschungen, and
* This chapter goes back to research undertaken in 1981 for an introductory article to the 1983
English translation of Pedersen (1916a - see the bibliography below for details); a revised version
was published in Critica Storica 22:2/3.236-253 (Florence, 1985), from where this text has been
reprinted with minor corrections.
1
For further biographical information - not a single one of them in English, consult
the following obituaries: Louis Hjelmslev (1899-1965) in Oversigt over Det Kongelige
Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Virksombed maj-juni 1953.97-115 (1954); Alf Sommerfeit
(1892-1965) in Orbis 3.343-46 (1954); Albert Grenier in Comptes Rendus de l'Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 1953.427-28 (1954); Louis Leonor Hammerich (1892-
1975) in Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde te Leiden 1953-
1955.122-26; Jan Otrebski in Lingua Posnaniensis 5.238-41 (1953); Joseph Vendryes
(1875-1960) in Etudes Celtiques 7.244-45 (1955), and F. . J. Kuiper in Jaarboek van der
Koninklijke Nederlands Akademie 1955-56.262-69. - For the present account, I have
consulted in particular the obituary by Sommerfelt, "In memoriam Holger Pedersen (1867-
1953)", as reprinted in Portraits of Linguistis, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. I I , pp. 283-
287 (Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1966), and the necrology by Louis
Hjelmslev, translated into French by François Marchetti and published in L. Hjelmslev,
Essais Linguistiques II (Copenhagen: Nordiske Sprog- og Kulturforlag, 1973), pp. 29-39.
(The original obituaries by Sommerfelt and Hjelmslev include portraits of Pedersen.)
2
Although the first papers appeared with an 1893 imprint, several of them were
submitted as early as 1891, as may be gathered from the places and dates given by him
at the end of his contributions; e.g., his second paper (Pedersen 1893b) is dated "Ko
penhagen, 25. mai 1891".
Adalbert Kuhn's Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung. The years

1892-96 constituted Pedersen's Wanderjahre. His first station was the
Mecca of Indo-European philology, the University of Leipzig, where he
studied comparative linguistics with Brugmann (1849-1919), Slavic and
Lithuanian with August Leskien (1840-1916) as well as with the much
lesser known Robert Scholvin (1850-1929),3 Sanskrit and Celtic with Ernst
Windisch (1843-1918), Indo-Iranian with Bruno Lindner (1853-1930), and
attended lectures by Eduard Sievers (1850-1936) in the field of Germanic.
(Pedersen's important paper, "Das indogermanische s im Slavischen"
[Pedersen 1895b], which impressed Brugmann so much that he recommend
ed its publication in Indogermanische Forschungen, is dated "Leipzig, d. 14.
februar 1893".)
Pedersen's collaboration with Brugmann went so far that he undertook a
trip to Korfu with him from March to August 1893 to study Albanian
in loco. (Only in 1891 had the Neogrammarian Gustav Meyer [1850-
1900] published his Etymologisches Wörterbuch der alhanesischen Sprache
[Strassburg: Trübner].) This field trip resulted in a number of publica
tions. On the recommendation of Brugmann and Leskien, a 200-page edi
tion of Albanian texts with a glossary appeared in the series issued by the
Royal Saxon Academy of Sciences in Leipzig (Pedersen 1895a), and articles
on Albanian etymology and phonology were published in Bezzenberger's and
in Kuhn's Journals (Pedersen 1894a, 1895c), with others following several
years later (e.g., Pedersen 1897c), including a German translation of the
Albanian texts (Pedersen 1898b).4 Pedersen continued to publish in this
field for many years after, several items appearing in Albanian translation in
the journal and series published by the Mekhitharists in Vienna (Pedersen
1904a, e; 1907a, c; 1911) and others in German linguistics periodicals
and various additional scholarly outlets (e.g., Pedersen 1900c, d; 1905b,
1906b, 1914, 1924c).
But Pedersen had no intention of becoming a mere specialist of
Albanian, and for the Winter semester of 1893/94 we find him taking
courses with Johannes Schmidt (1843-1901) and probably others, such as
the Indo-Iranian philologist Karl Friedrich Geldner (1853-1929), at the
University of Berlin. (Pedersen 1895c, for instance, is dated "Berlin, den
7. februar 1894".) According to Hjelmslev (1973:32), Pedersen profited
greatly from Schmidt's teachings, but when he goes on to state that
Pedersen learned nothing from Georg von der Gabelentz (1840-1893), this
3
On him, see the paper by Wilhelm Zeil, "Robert Scholvin und sein Beitrag zur
Slawistik", in Zeitschrift für Slawistik 26.261-70 (1981).
4
Many years later, in 1928, a number of these Albanian folk-tales were translated,
together with five others collected by Auguste Dozon (1822 to 1891), and published by
Paul Fennimore Cooper in a volume entitled Tricks of Women and other Albanian Tales
(New York: W. Morrow & Co., 1928), xvi, 204 pp.
HOLGER PEDERSEN 419
cannot only reflect on Pedersen's interest in Chinese and general linguistics,

which no doubt was scant at best, but it must also be noted that Gabelentz
had died in December 1893 and therefore could not be frequented by
Pedersen any more.
Pedersen's publication record indicates that he had moved to the
University of Greifswald by Fall 1894 - compare the date indicated at
the end of Pedersen (1897c): "Greifswald, den 19. december 1894".
There, he studied Sanskrit and particularly Celtic with Heinrich Zimmer
(1851-1910), a scholar who must have impressed him profoundly, since he
continued to work in Celtic studies from that time onwards for most of his
long life, in particular until about 1930, by which time several other
branches of Indo-European were receiving his attention. Pedersen spent the
summer and fall of 1895 on the Aran Islands, west of Galway, Ireland,
studying a particularly conservative variety of Gaelic. As it happens, this
West-Irish dialect had been studied by Franz Nikolaus Finck (1867-1910)
in the previous year; but before Finck's two-volume grammar and dictionary
left the press, Pedersen had been able to communicate to him a number of
errors and omissions he had noted in the 1896 publication of the
Wörterbuch. They were added as 47 pages of "Nachträge" to the two-
volume publication, Die Araner Mundart: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des
Westirischen (Marburg: Elwert, 1899). The first result of Pedersen's field
work however was a short paper on modern Irish incantations (Pedersen
1896). But, most importantly, it led to his doctoral dissertation submitted
to the University of Copenhagen in 1896, and published subsequently as a
monograph (Pedersen 1897a) and a 130-page contribution to Kuhn's
Zeitschrift (Pedersen 1897a), which he dedicated to his former teacher Zim
mer. By that time, Pedersen had become firmly established in the scholarly
field.
In November 1896 Karl Verner had died, and Pedersen, who defended
his thesis early in 1897, with Thomsen and Otto Jespersen (1860-1943) as
jury members, was wondering already then whether he should not give
more attention to Slavic, the subject taught by Verner, though it was not
before the turn of the century that Pedersen published on the subject (e.g.,
Pedersen 1902b, 1904c, d; 1905c, 1909d, etc.). In 1897, Pedersen became
a lecturer in Celtic, adding Slavic to his subjects of instruction in the
following year;5 by 1900, Pedersen was a reader in comparative grammar
at the University of Copenhagen. When, in 1902, he received the offer
of a professorship at the University of Basel, he declined the offer but
managed to persuade the authorities at his own university to establish an
5
Whenever there is a divergence in matters of dates between Sommerfelt (1966)
and Hjelmslev (1973) - see end of footnote 1 for details - , I have followed the latter
as he was more closely associated with Pedersen, and for a longer period of time, succeed
ing to his chair in 1927.
extra-ordinary professorship for him in the following year. He had to wait

ten years to receive the chair held by Vilhelm Thomsen who retired late in
1912 at the age of seventy.
Before ascending the last rung of the academic ladder, however, Peder-
sen had received yet another offer of a professorship abroad: this time,
in 1908, from the University of Strassburg, since the Franco-Prussian war a
German university. But Pedersen had no inclination to be stationed outside
his home country, though in matters of scholarship he was by no means a
nationalist.6 In 1909 and 1913, Pedersen published his magnum opus, a
1400-page Comparative Grammar of Celtic, written in German with the
imprint of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen, where it was reissued as
late as 1976. In 1937, A Concise Celtic Grammar appeared with the same
publisher, a project on which he had collaborated with the Welsh scholar
Henry Lewis (1889-1968).7 By then, Pedersen had become a very broad
Indo-Europeanist, who had distinguished himself in the areas of Celtic,
Armenian, Slavic - he published a Russian grammar and textbook in 1916
- and Baltic, in addition to Greek and Latin, languages with which he was
familiar from childhood. Pedersen also addressed general questions concern
ing the Indo-European proto-language and Germanic. From around 1930
onwards and especially following his retirement in 1937, he devoted more
attention to those languages that only in our century had been identified
as Indo-European, Hittite and Tocharian (e.g., Pedersen 1933b, 1934a,
1935a, 1983, etc., and 1941, 1943b, 1944, etc., respectively). During this
period, Pedersen dealt with questions of method in Indo-European linguis
tics more frequently than in his earlier career. Thus he discussed the
relationship between Hittite and the other Indo-European languages in a
227-page study (Pedersen 1938), investigated the relationship between Baltic
and Slavic (Pedersen 1943c), followed by a similar work concerning Tochar
ian (1941), Lycian and Hittite (1945a), and the question of the common
Indo-European and pre-Indo-European stops (1951a), to mention just a few.
However, there is only one small paper in which the question of General
Linguistics is broached, in a contribution to the festschrift in honour of the
first decipherer of Hittite, the Czech scholar Bedfich Hrozny (1879-1952),
whose first efforts Pedersen had not found to be particularly praiseworthy
in his 1916 survey (see pages 25-26 of the present volume). Here Pedersen
(1949c) asks the question of whether a general linguistics on empirical
grounds is at all possible. His response, given more than thirty years after
6
There is no hint in his work that he held particularly strong anti-German sentiments,
as is frequently expressed by Danish scholars especially after World War II. Cf. Maurice
Cahen's (1884-1926) affirmation, made in his review of Pedersen (1916a) in bulletin de
la Société de Linguistique de Varis 20.252-54 (1916), that Pedersen "n'est pas un germano-
phage" (p. 153).
7
In 1954, a Russian translation was published (Pedersen 1954).
HOLGER PEDERSEN 421
the publication of the Cours de linguistique générale (Lausanne & Paris:

Payot, 1916; 4th ed., 1949), is very curious indeed, since for Pedersen
such a general linguistics would have to consist of two parts, a phonology
and a morphology - with syntax being, as in August Schleicher's argument
100 years earlier, a more doubtful domain of linguistic (in the sense of
'sprachwissenschaftlich ') analysis. In Pedersen's view, General Linguistics
is thus not what Hermann Paul would have called a ' Prinzipienwissen
schaft ', a field mapping out the methodological and epistemological frame-
work of scientific research, and of course nothing comparable to what we
have learned from Saussure's teachings.
Pedersen's biographers agree that he was and remained a comparative-
historical philologist, though, as his scholarly work suggests, a widely read
and thoroughly trained one in almost every branch of the Indo-European
language family. But they also agree, with regret, that he showed little, if
any, interest in general linguistic theory. This personal bias is particularly
obvious in his historiographic work, which will be the subject of the
remainder of this paper. Before continuing, however, let us conclude
the narrative concerning Pedersen's biography. According to Hjelmslev,
Pedersen always enjoyed a 'santé de fer ', in fact to the extent that he
was somewhat insensitive to the physical frailty of others, including Karl
Verner, on whom he wrote an obituary (Pedersen 1897b). Following
his travels to Germany, Greece, and Ireland during the 1890s, 8 he rarely
left Denmark for the remainder of his life, which was devoted to teaching
and research. H e died in 1953 at the age of eighty-six.
No doubt Pedersen is best known among modern students of language,
especially in North America, for his Linguistic Science in the 19th Century,
which first appeared in Danish in 1924 (and in Swedish translation in the
same year), and which was translated into English by the professor of
Germanic languages at Northwestern University, John Webster Spargo
(1896-1956), and published in 1931. It was reissued in 1962 under the
pretentious and misleading title "The Discovery of Language", and has seen
a number of subsequent reprintings, having become something like a
textbook to be acquired by every student in the field.9 Regarding this
book, Alf Sommerfeit (1966:285) noted the following:
C'est en réalité une histoire des études comparatives et historiques, non seulement
des langues indo-européennes, mais aussi d'autres grandes familles. La linguistique
générale, [...], n'y entre pas. Il est significatif que, par exemple, Humboldt ou
8
Pedersen also spent a few months in 1894 at the University of Moscow, but he
was not particularly impressed by the teachings of Filipp Fedorovic Fortunatov (1848-
1914), the head of the 'Moscow School '
9
For reviews of the 1962 reprint, see Robert Austerlitz in Word 19.126-28
(1963), and Neville E. Collinge in Foundations of Language 1.356-58 (1965).
Hermann Paul ne sont mentionnées qu'à l'occasion de problèmes historiques. Le

Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alternationen [Strassburg: K. J. Trübner] de
[Jan] Baudouin de Courtenay [(1845-1929)], paru en 1895, n'y figure pas.
This observation is very true indeed, and is a clear reflection of

Pedersen's post-neogrammarian bias. To him, linguistics is an historical
discipline, and comparative grammar is the only true science of language.
Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) is mentioned only twice in passing, in
connection with Basque (Pedersen 1924a: 124) and with having proved, in
his famous Ueber die Kawi-Sprache (published posthumously in 1836-39),
the kinship between Indonesian and Polynesian (p. 130). Other scholars
associated with the Humboldtian tradition in linguistics 10 are at best
mentioned in connection with historical work, e.g., Finck in conjunction
with the study of Gypsy dialects (p. 17), and, at worst, totally ignored,
even though they might have produced significant contributions to linguistics
that ought to have been referred to in Pedersen's book; compare, for
instance, Heymann Steinthal's (1823-99) Die Mande-Neger-Sprachen psycho
logisch und phonetisch betrachtet (Berlin: F. Dümmler, 1867), dealing with
African languages, or Georg von der Gabelentz's (1840-93) Chinesische
Grammatik of 1881 (Leipzig: T. O. Weigel), which was reissued as late as
1953 (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften), to mention only two
distinguished scholars. Of course, their work in general linguistics is not
referred to either, but this neglect does not only pertain to the post-
Humboldtian generalists, but also to ' main-streamers ' of the period, in
particular Hermann Paul's (1846-1921) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte
(Halle/S.: M. Niemeyer, 1880), the acknowledged ' b i b l e of the junggram
matiker school '(Malmberg), which had its fifth edition in 1920, four years
before the appearance of Pedersen's Sprogvidenskaben i det nittende
aarhundrede! Indeed, the list of omissions in the area of general theory
and methodology of linguistic research could be extended almost ad infinitum
But this should not prevent us from acknowledging the book's merits, 11
which are great indeed, considering the fact that the author has attempted a
survey of the study of language in the 19th and early 20th century, which
exceeds the confines of earlier accounts, such as Theodor Benfey's (1809-
1881) 837-page Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft of 1869 or Berthold
Delbrück's (1842-1922) Einleitung in das Sprachstudium of 1880 (6th rev.
10
Cf. E. F. . Koerner, "The Humboldtian Trend in Linguistics", Studies in Descriptive
and Historical Linguistics: Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann, ed. by Paul J. Hopper,
145-58 (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1977).
11
Cf. the reviews of the 1931 version, to which the translater had added very
useful indices absent from the Danish original, by George Melville Boiling (1871-1963)
in Language 8.51-53 (1932), Piero Meriggi in Die Neueren Sprachen 41.462-63 (1932), and
Easton Everett Ericson in Studia Philologica 29.125-27 (1932).
HOLGER PEDERSEN 423
ed., Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1919),12 both very influential works which,
curiously enough, Pedersen never mentioned in his own historical surveys,
neither the one of 1899, the one published in the present volume (Pedersen
1916a), nor his final synthesis of 1924.
Thus, apart from the sections devoted to the study of Indo-European
languages, Pedersen's 1924 book contains a 40-page chapter on "The Study
of non-Indo-European Families of Languages" (Pedersen 1931: 99-140) as
well as one devoted to "Inscriptions and Archeological Discoveries: The
study of the history of writing" (141-239), accounts not found in the books
by Benfey, Delbrück or Vilhelm Thomsen, with whose Sprogvidenskabens
Historie (Copenhagen: Gad, 1902) Pedersen certainly intended to rival,
his disclaimer in the 1916 sketch (Pedersen 1916:10, note) notwithstanding.
But Pedersen's 1924 study was by no means his first historical account
of linguistics in the 19th century; as a matter of fact, in 1899, when he was
32 and a "Privatdocent i slaviske Sprog ved Kobenhavns Universitet" (as
the title page indicated), Pedersen published the first such attempt. His 64-
page " Sprogvidenskaben " constituted what Frenchmen may call a vulgarisa
tion (with no pejorative ring about the term) of the establishment of
comparative-historical grammar, by Bopp and Rask (Grimm is passed over
in silence!), at the beginning of the past century. For 19th-century scholars
(and indeed for many scholars of today) linguistics as a science commenced
with the work of these linguists (cf. Pedersen 1899:10-12). As many
historians before and after him, Pedersen begins the narrative by relating
the discovery of Sanskrit and the other Aryan languages in the second
half of thr 18th century by western scholars and gives a description of the
various members of this Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European (12-16).
Next, he treats Armenian (16-17) and Albanian (17-21), followed by a
survey of the Slavic group of languages (21-27), with the Baltic group
bring treated as a separate, though more closely affiliated branch (27-29).
Comparatively much space is devoted to Greek, which for a variety of
reasons, including its development of the first full-fledged alphabetical writ
ing system, had played an important role in comparative historical linguistics
(29-36). There are also treatments of the following branches of the Indo-
European language family: Italic (36-40), Celtic (40-47), and Germanic
(47-57), the latter receiving, in view of the readership, by far the most
extensive analysis. It is also quite understandable that Danish scholars from
Rask to Thomsen and Jespersen, including Verner, Niels Ludvig Wester-
gaard (1815-78), a Sanskrit scholar, and Ludvig Wimmer (1839-1920), a
specialist on Germanic languages and a runologist of distinction, figure
12
For more detailed information on these and other books of this kind, see E. F. K.
Koerner, Western Histories of Linguistic Thought: An annotated chronological biblio
graphy, 1822-1976 (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1978).
prominently in Pedersen's account. The concluding passages of his 1899

sketch make brief mention of various non-Indo-European languages and
language groups: Basque, Etruscan, Finno-Ugric, Turkish (on which he
expatiates more fully, 58-62), and various Caucasian languages, all unrelated
to the preceding ones. The concluding paragraph (63-64) is devoted to ques
tions of method in historical-comparative research, a subject to which
Pedersen allots more ample space in his subsequent works on the history
of linguistics (as well as in individual papers throughout his entire career,
where minute analyses of phonological or morphological phenomena are
interdispersed with methodological observations).
In his Sprogvidenskaben of 1899, we may discover in nuce Pedersen's
two later studies in the history of linguistics, not only with regard to the
subjects covered, but also with respect to Pedersen's foci of interest,
personal preferences, and his critical and sober stand on matters of method
in scientific research in historical linguistics. I believe I need not dwell on
this last subject, as it will become abundantly clear in the 1916 sketch, whose
English translation has now been made available (Pedersen 1983).
Hjelmslev (1973:36-37) noted the following about Pedersen's 1916 Et
blik på sprogvidenskabens historie:
En novembre 1916, il écrivit, dans le programme de l'université [de Copenha
gue], une étude [...] qui reflète d'une façon très caracteristique sa personnalité
d'auteur. A la fin de cet ouvrage, Holger Pedersen formulait un programme de
travail qui inspira le jeune génération des linguistes et orienta sa propre concep
tion dans les années ultérieures: "Il faut établir un système d'ensemble des
changements phonétiques, un relevé du grand nombre possible de changements
phonétiques, constatés, en y adjoignant un essai d'explication phonétique." [Cf.
page 83 of the 1983 English translation.]
Hjelmslev does not indicate in what sense his historical survey reflects
Pedersen's personality; nor does he seem to understand the nature of
Pedersen's program. Hjelmslev was most probably thinking of his collabora
tion with other linguists of the younger generation during the 1930s and
1940s, notably with Hans-Jørgen Uldall (1907-1957), on phonological ques
tions which eventually led to his own glossematic theory of language. In
my view, Pedersen and Hjelmslev are worlds apart; while Pedersen remain
ed a follower of the Junggrammatiker in matters of his research interests,
his methodology, and indeed his philosophy of science, Hjelmslev showed an
early interest in Saussurean general linguistic theory, in which historical
linguistics is but one domain and not the centre of attention. Pedersen,
as we have noted earlier, has no appreciation for a linguistic approach
which is deductive rather than inductive, and he doubts the feasability and
indeed the value of a general linguistics.
In other words, if Hjelmslev's observation is to stand, namely, that
Pedersen's 1916 essay is characteristic of his personality as an author, we
must discover it in other traits of his scholarship. In his first note on page
HOLGER PEDERSEN 425
9 of his Glance at the History of Linguistics (page 85 of the 1983 transla

tion) Pedersen describes his study in the following terms, distinguishing
it from Vilhelm Thomsen's much broader survey of 1902: 1 3
I have centered my attention solely upon one specific aspect of the history of
linguistics: the development of notions concerning linguistic kinship and the
history of [historical] phonology, and I have placed emphasis on underlining the
causality in this development.
If we take a look at the table of contents (p.vii), 14 we obtain the impression

that Pedersen's account follows the traditional manner of presenting the
history of comparative-historical linguistics from its beginnings in the work
of Leibniz, Hiob Ludolf, and others in the 18th century to the success story
of the Junggrammatiker in the last quarter of the 19th century, with whose
work he associates himself. However, upon closer scrutiny, we will notice
a number of ' digressions ' (identified as such by Pedersen himself and set
off optically by smaller print in the text), which appear to suggest particular
areas of interest and concern on Pedersen's part: The first such digression
(1916a: 11-13 = 1983:6-8) pertains to a comparison between Classical
Greek and Sanskrit morphology and the relative opacity of the former; the
second excursus (1916a: 16-19 = 1983:11-15), sketching the lack of a true
historical perspective (and a lack of scientific method) in the linguistic
debates from the ancient times to the early 19th century is followed by yet
another, still much more extensive digression (1916:19-34 = 1983:15-27),
in which Pedersen delves into a discussion of the various languages sur
rounding ancient Greece and inhabiting ancient Italy, the use of the
alphabet in these early periods, also by those for whose languages it was not
designed, with critical review of the recent literature on these subjects, etc.
As a matter of fact, we might find in at least a number of these 'digres
sions ' Pedersen's research interests and methodological concerns clearly
reflected, which may be summarized as circumspection in matters of
historical-cultural evidence and soberness in phonological-morphological
analysis. At the same time, we may note another characteristic which
accompanies the reader throughout the book: caution, i.e., avoidance of
hasty conclusions (cf. his criticism of Kretschmer in this regard, p . 21)
or what he terms carelessness with data (cf. p . 23), and skepticism towards
newly proposed hypotheses (e.g., the question as to whether or not Hittite
was an Indo-European language; cf. pp. 24-26).
I will leave it to the reader to identify other traits in Pedersen's
13
V. Thomsen, Sprogvidenskabens Historie: En kortfattet Fremstelling af den Hoved-
punkter (Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad, 1902), of which the German transl. by Hans 
(Halle/E.: M. Niemeyer, 1927; repr., Bern etc.: P. Lang, 1979) appears to be the better
known version.
14
Here and in what follows references are to Pedersen (1983).
argument, though perhaps one other feature may be mentioned here because
it still appears to be an issue of debate along national, if not nationalistic,
lines: The question concerning the discovery - and the true discoverer --
of the Germanic Consonant Shift (and the High German Consonant Shift),
which since Max Müller's (1823-1900) Lectures on the Science of Language
(London 1861ff.) has come to be referred to as ' Grimm's Law'. 1 5 In his
1916 sketch, Pedersen makes a forceful argument in favour of Rask's
priority (52-58 = 1983 transl., 51-59), which culminates in the claim that
the ' law ' should be identified with Rask's name, not Grimm's (p. 59).
Pedersen did not reiterate this claim in his 1924 synthesis, in which he did
in fact incorporate most of his 1916 material - compare chapter 7 of his
Linguistic Science in the 19th Century, "The Methods of Comparative
Linguistics" (240-310) with the present text, but he reverted to his strong
views in favour of his compatriot in his introduction to Hjelmslev's edition
of Rask's Selected Works (cf. Pedersen 1932:xlvii). Again, I leave it
to the informed reader to decide to what extent Pedersen's claim is justified.
To be sure, Grimm not only profited from Rask's insights, but also duly
acknowledged the lead he had received from Rask (cf. p . 44 in the 1983
translation) and he might well have objected to Max Müller's appellation
had he seen it. (Grimm died in 1863, three years before the German
translation of Müller's Lectures began appearing.) The fact that Grimm
noted on page 590 of the second revised edition of his Deutsche Grammatik
(1822) that the 'lautverschiebung ' does not take place in all instances
(listing a number of exceptions) is taken by Pedersen (see 1983 [ 1 9 1 6 ] : 5 8 )
as a sign of the inferiority of his observations in comparison with Rask's
made several years earlier:
This explicit pronouncement [of Grimm, Pedersen argues,] concerning the

unpredictability of the development is significantly worse than Rask's tacit
assumption of certain exceptions; silence at least does not exclude the notion
of specific conditioning, even if this idea hardly occupied Rask to any particular
extent.
W e may wonder to what extent 'presentism ' was involved in Pedersen's
judgement, especially when we realize how many decades it took to resolve
the question of the so-called exceptions to 'Grimm's L a w ' , and that
Verner's discovery of 1875 (cf. Pedersen 1983:70-71) constituted the final,
and most important, clef de voûte in the entire edifice. (Verner's findings,
we may recall, had been preceded by Grassmann's discovery in 1863, the
year of Grimm's death, concerning the dissimilation of aspirates in consecu
tive syllables.)
15
Cf. the discussion as presented in Paul Diderichsen's (1905-1964) masterly study,
Rasmus Rask und die grammatische Tradition, transl. into German by Monika Wesemann
(Munich: Fink, 1976), esp. pp. 133ff.
HOLGER PEDERSEN 427
Perhaps still one further point in Pedersen's account deserves comment.

We have noted earlier that Pedersen maintained, throughout his entire
career, a view of linguistic science which had been developed during the last
decades of the 19th century, by the Neogrammarians as well as by their
erstwhile opponents such as Johannes Schmidt, Adalbert Bezzenberger,
Hermann Collitz, and others. His historical treatment of the development
of linguistic science in the 19th century attests to this. However, he was
more generous than his teachers at Leipzig and their historical mouthpiece
Berthold Delbrück in acknowledging, in line with what Schmidt, Collitz,
and others had been trying to show during the 1880s, the importance of
August Schleicher's (1821-68) work in this development. Pedersen does
criticize Schleicher for inconsistencies and for a wrong turn here and there
in his phonological analysis, but he also stresses (p. 64) that it was Schlei
cher who brought system into the study of Indo-European phonology and
who used clear rules in the reconstruction of proto-forms. Citing from
the second edition of the first volume of Schleicher's Compendium (1866),
in which he sets out the reasons for his procedure of placing the reconstruct
ed form side by side with the available forms in the historically attested
languages, Pedersen gives his full approval of Schleicher's approach, conclud
ing his appraisal with the following statement (p. 64):
This entire method and likewise most of the factual material contained in
Schleicher's phonology, which makes up the first volume of his Compendium,
impress us as being extremely modern.
This assessment deserves emphasis since the neogrammarian pro-domo

accounts beginning with Delbrück's Einleitung in das Sprachstudium (Leip
zig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1880) have tried to impress on their contempora
ries and on subsequent generations of linguists and historians of linguistics
that Schleicher was but the last of the representatives of the school of
Bopp, and that the mid-1870s witnessed a revolution in the study of
language.16
As regards Pedersen's sketch of 1916, whose recent English translation
supplied the motive for this paper, I believe that his account of the
historical study of phonology from the earliest tâtonnements, through the
establishment of linguistics as an independent field of scientific study, to the
first decade of this century will receive more attention at the present time
than decades earlier. In addition to the revival of interest in the history
of linguistics we have been witnessing over the past fifteen years, we are
also noticing a pendulum swing in the direction of a dedicated data-orienta-
16
For a present-day evaluation of Schleicher's position in the development of historical
linguistics, see K. Koerner, "The Schleicherian Paradigm in Linguistics", General Lin
guistics 22.1-39 (1982).
tion and of the study of language change and historical linguistics in general.
Perhaps Antoine Meillet's (1866-1936) view, expressed in his review of the
Danish original, may be shared by modern linguists reading the English
translation: « D'un bout à l'autre, l'exposé de M. Pedersen, très clair et sug
gestif, mérite d'être lu par tous les linguistes. 17 But this can only be
answered by reviewer's of Pedersen's Glance at the History of Linguistics
(1983). 18
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PEDERSEN'S WORK *
Sigla employed in this list:
BB = [Adalbert] Bezzenberger's [(1851-1922)] Beiträge zur Kunde der indo

germanischen Sprachen. Göttingen 1876-1906.
IF = Indogermanische Forschungen. Karl Brugman (1849-1919) & Wilhelm
Streitberg (1864-1925), editors. Berlin 1891ff.
IF-Anz = Anzeiger für indogermanische Sprach- und Altertumskunde (Beiblatt zu
IF). Wilhelm Streitberg, editor. Berlin 1891-1930.
= Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Med
delelser. Copenhagen 1918ff.
KZ = [Adalbert] Kuhn's [(1812-1881)] Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprach
forschung. Berlin 1852ff
NTF = Nordisk Tidsskrift for Filologi. Copenhagen 1861-1922. [Note that re
ferences are to the journal's 3rd series, 1891-1911.]
OKDVSF = Oversigt over Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlinger
[ + year instead of volume number]. Copenhagen.
* * *
17
See Revue critique d'Histoire et de Littérature (Paris, 21 Avril 1917), p. 252.
18
Cf. the reviews by Pierre Swiggers in Linguistics 22.251-53 (1984), Dawn Bates
in Language 61.212 (1985), S. A. Romasko in Obscestvennyn Nauki za Rubežom; Serija
6: Jazykoznajia 1985/2.14-15, and Anna Morpurgo Davies in Historiographia Linguistica
12. 216-220 (1985).
* The present list does not include book reviews, newspaper articles, or contributions
to collective works. For a fuller bibliography, see the "Bibliographie des publications [de
Holger Pedersen]", compiled by Hans Henriksen, in Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M.
Holger Pedersen à l'occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire 7 avril 1937 (Aarhus:
Universitetsforlaget, 1937), pp. ix-xxvii. Post-1937 publications have been gleaned from
the Linguistic Bibliography/Bibliographie linguistique and other secondary sources. Con
cerning Pedersen's Nachlaß (which has been deposited at the Royal Library of Copenhagen),
see Pedersen (1983:xxxi).
H O L G E R PEDERSEN 429
1893a. "Das Präsensinfix ". IF 2.285-332. [Submitted in 1891.]

1893b. "r-n-stämme: Studien über den Stammwechsel in der declination der idg. nomina".
KZ 32.240-72. ("Nachträge", p. 273.)
1893c. "Die idg. form des wortes für 'Schwiegertochter"'. BB 19.293-98.
1893d. "Lat. servus und servāre". Ibid.,298-302. [The preceding paper and this one
are dated 'Corfu d. 28. Mai 1893 ' and '29. Mai ', respectively.]
1893e. "Excursus über die entstehung einiger Zahlwörter". KZ 32.271-72.
1894a. "Albanesische etymologien". BB 20.228-38.
1894b. "Bidrag til den albanesiske Sproghistorie". Festskrift til Vilhelm Thomsen, 246-
257. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
1895a. Albanische Texte mit Glossar. ( = Abhandlungen der Königlichen Sächsischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 15:3.) Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 207 pp. [For a German
translation of these texts, see 1898b (infra).]
1895b. "Das indogermanische s im Slavischen". IF 5.33-87.
1895c. "Die albanischen /-laute". KZ 33.535-51.
1895/96. "Sprogbygning". NTF 4.50-61.
1896. "Zu den neuirischen Zaubersprüchen". Zeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde
6.192-96. Berlin.
1896/97. "Bartholomaes Aspirativlov og Lachmanns Tydning af Gallius IX 6 og XII 3".
NTF 5.28-38.
1897a. Aspirationen i Irsk: En sproghistorisk Undersøgehe. Forste Del med Tillæg:
Theser til den indoevropœisk Sproghistorie. Doktor-Afhandling, Univ. of Co
penhagen. [Printed, Leipzig: Spirgatis, 1897], vi, 200 pp. [For second part,
in German, see 1899b (infra).].
1897b. "Karl Adolf Verner [(1846-96)]". IF-Anz 8.107-114.
1897c. "Das albanische neutrum". KZ 34.283-91.
1898a. "Tá sé 'n-a righ". Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 2.377-381. Halle/S.: Max
Niemeyer.
1898b. Zur albanischen Volkskunde. Copenhagen: S. Michaelsen Nachfolger (E. Mol
ler),v, 125 pp. [German transl. of Albanian texts published in 1895 (supra).]
1898/99. "Lykisk". NTF 7.68-103.
1899a. "Irsk Literatur". Dansk Tidsskrift 1899.709-726. Copenhagen.
1899b. "Die aspiration im Irischen. Zweiter theil". KZ 35.315-444. [First part ( = Pe-
dersen's doctoral dissertation) is 1897a (supra. - Dedicated to Heinrich Zimmer
(1851-1910).]
1899c. Sprogvidenskaben. Flensborg: Trykt hos Moller & Rasmussen, . . Thillerup
Efterf., 64 pp. [Separate printing of his contribution to the Sonderjydske
Aarbøger 1899.114-79.]
1899/1900. "Mere om Lykisk". NTF 8.17-30.
1900a. "De sidste 8 Års indoeuroæiske Accentstudier". Kort Udsight over det phil-hist.
Samfunds Virksomhed 1894-99, 42-45. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.
1900b. "Wie viel laute gab es im Indogermanischen?" .KZ 36.70-110.
1900c "Die gutturale im Albanesischen". Ibid., 277-340.
1900d. "Albanesisch und Armenisch". Ibid., 340-41.
1900e. "Vorschlag". IF-Anz 12.152-53.
1902. "Et brev fra [Rasmus] Rask [(1787-1832)] ti P[eter] E[rasmus] Möller
[(1776-1834]". Dania 9.236-39. Copenhagen.
1902/03. "Den bömiske Udtale". NTF 9.108-125. [Supplement 1903/04c]
1903/04a. "Zu de Arzawa-Briefen". IF-Anz 15.280-83.
1903/04b. "Fra vor Sprogæts Grænseegne". NTF 12.1-18.
1903/04C. "Den böhmiske Udtale". Ibid., p. 48. [Supplement to 1902/03 (supra).]
1904a. "Hin hayerën lezvi šeště". Handes Amsörya/Zeitschrift für armenische Philo
logie 5.131-33. Vienna: Mechitharisten-Buchdruckerei.
1904b. "Zu den lykischen inschriften". KZ 37.189-207.
1904c. "Zur lehre von den aktionsarten". Ibid., 219-50.
1904d. "Przyczynski do grammatyki porównaczej jçzyków slowiańskich". Materialy i
prace komisyi jçzykowej Akademii Umiçjetnosci w Krakowie 1.165-76. Cracow.
1904e. "Napst mě hayerěn lezowi patmowt'ean". ( = Azayin matenadaran, 47.) Vienna:
Mkhitarian Dbaran, VI, 87 pp. [ = Armenian version of 1905b (infra).]
1905a. Les pronoms démonstratifs de l'ancien arménien. Avec un appendice sur les
alternances vocaliques indo-européennes. (= Der Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes
Selskabs Skrifter; historisk og filologisk Afdeling, 6:3.) Copenhagen: B. Lunos,
51 pp.
1905b. "Zur armenischen Sprachgeschichte". KZ 38.194-240. [For Armenian version,
see 1904e (supra).]
1905c. "Die nasalpräsentia und der slavische akzent". Ibid., 297-421.
1905d. "Erklärung". Ibid., 421-25.
1906a. "Zur akzentlehre". KZ 39.232-55.
1906b. "Armenisch und die nachbarsprachen". Ibid., 334-485.
1906c. "To danske Sprogforskere". Tilskueren: Maande s skrift for Litteratur, Kunst ...
1906.867-86. Copenhagen: P. G. Philipsen.
1907a. "Hamarot kensagraken Sofus Buggëi" Handës Amsörya/Zeitschrift für armeni
sche Philologie 7.306-309. [Obituary of Sophus Bugge (1833-1907).]
1907b. "Neues und nachträgliches. I. Exegetische und syntaktische fragen. I L Gele
gentliche Bemerkungen zur lautgeschichte und wortgeschichte". KZ 40.129-217.
1907c. "Hayeren ew drac'i lesunerë". ( = Azgayin Matenadaran, 52.) Vienna: Mkhita-
rian Dbaran, 9, 264 pp. [ = Revised Armenian transl., of 1906b (supra) by
Thomas Ketikean.]
1907/08a. "Die idg.-semitische Hypothese und die idg. Lautlehre". IF 32.341-65.
1907/08b. "Supplement". NTF 16.125-27.
1908. "Litauisch skujà". Ζbornik  slavu Vatroslava Jagica/Jagic Festschrift, 218-19.
Berlin: Weidmann, 725-pp. [Vatroslav Jagic (1838-1923), Slovenia Slavicist.]
1909a. Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen. Vol. I, Part 1: Einleitung.
Part 2: Lautlehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, xiv, 544 pp. [Cf. the
reviews of both parts by Rudolf Thurneysen (1857-1940) in IF-Anz 26.24-37
and 27.13-17 (1909-1910). For vol. I I , see 1913a (infra).]
1909b. "Zum slavischen z". IF 26.292-94.
1911. "Arm. korium". Huschardzan: Festschrift aus Anlass des 100-jährigen Bestandes
der Mechitaristen-Kongregation in Wien (1811-1911), 287-88. Vienna: Mecha-
risten-Kongregation, 1912, 435 pp.
1913a. Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen. Vol. I I : Bedeutungslehre
(Wortlehre). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, xv, 842 pp. [Cf. the review
by Rudolf Thurneysen in IF-Anz 33.23-38 (1914). - For vol. I, see 1909a (supra).
This work led to the collaborative effort with Henry Lewis; cf. 1937 (infra).
The work was reprinted in 1976.]
1913b. "Notes étymologiques". Revue celtique 34.448-49. Paris.
1914/15. "Albanesisch 1909-1912". Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der
romanischen Philologie 13:1.251-60. Erlangen.
1915/16. "Imsuidet nad r-airget". Revue celtique 36.254-61.
1916a. Et blik på sprogvidenskabens historie med særligt hensyn til det historiske
studium af sprogets lyd. Copenhagen: Trykt i Universitetsbogtrykkeriet (J. H.
Schultz A/S), 77 pp. [Separate printing from Festskrift udg. af Københavens
Universitet i Anledning af Universitets Aarsfest 1916. 7-77, with title page and
table of contents added. - For English transl., see entry 1983 below.]
1916b. Russisk grammatik. Copenhagen: G. E. . Gad, vi, 228 pp.
1916c. Russisk læsebog med noter og glossar. Ibid., viii, 176 pp.
1918. "Det irske Sprog". Irland ed. by Kai Friis-Møller [(1888-1960)], 97-113. Co
penhagen: V. Pios Boghandel.
1921a. Les formes sigmentiques du verbe latin et le problème du futur indo-européen.
( = KDVS-HFM, 3:5.) Copenhagen: A. F. Høst, 31 pp.
1921b. "The Lepontian personal names in -alo-s and some remarks on the Lydian
inscriptions". Ρhilologica 1.38-55. London.
u
1921c. ija = e en lituanien ". Prace lingwistyczne ofiarowane } . Baudouinowi de Cour-
tenay, 65-68. Cracow: Ossolineum. [Festschrift for Jan Baudouin de Courtenay
(1845-1929).]
1922a. "St[anislaw Walenty] Rozniecki [(1865-1921)]". Festskrift udgivet af Køben
havns Universitet i Anlednung af Universitets Aarsfest 1922. 124-29. Copen
hagen: J. H. Schultz.
HOLGER PEDERSEN 431
1922b. "Deux étymologies latines". Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris

22.1-2. Paris.
1923a. "Runernes oprindelse". Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 3rd
series, 13.37-82. Copenhagen.
1923b. "Das auf einen ¿-Laut zurückgehende s und ss im Griechischen".'AΥΤiδωϱoυ,
J. Wackernagel gewidmet, 110-16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [For
Jacob Wackernagel (1853-1938).]
1923c. "L'origine des runes". Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord,
1920-25, 88-136. Copenhagen.
1924a. Sprogvidenskaben  det nittende århundrede: Metoder og resultater. (= Det
Nittende århundrede skildret af nordiske Videnskabsmœnd, 15.) Copenhagen:
Gyldendalske Boghandel (*Nordisk Forlag, 311 pp. [Repr. in 1978, together
with 1916a.]
[This influential book was translated into English (1931), Swedish (1924),
and - via the English version - Chinese (1958).]
1924b. Språkvetenskaben under nittende århundradet. Transl. into Swedish by Hans
[Gerhard] Reutercrona [(b. 1893)]. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner, 309 pp.
[Transl. of 1924a (supra).]
1924c. "Armenier, Sprache". Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte ed. by Max Ebert [(1879-
1929], Part I, 219-26. Berlin: W. de Gruyter & Co.
1924d. "Hermann Möller [(1850-1923)]". Overisgt over Det Kgl. Danske Videnskaber-
nes Selskab Forhandlinger 1924. 47-87. Copenhagen: A. F. Host & Son.
1925. Le groupement des dialectes indo-européens. ( = KDVS-HFM, 11:3.) Ibid.,
57 pp.
1926a. La cinquième déclinaison latine. ( = KDVS-HFM, 15:5.) Ibid., 88 pp.
1926b. "La translitération des écritures non-latines". Phonetic Transcription and Trans
literation: Proposals of the Copenhagen Conference, April 1925 / Transcription
phonétique et transliteration: Propositions établies par la conférence tenue à
Copenhague en avril 1925, 33-35. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1926c. "Christian [Preben Emil] Sarauw [(1865-1925)]". OKDVSF 1926. 57-80. Co
penhagen: A. F. Host & Son. [Obituary.]
1927a. "Vilhelm [Ludvig Peter] Thomsen [(1842-1927)]". Festskrift udgivet af Koben-
havns Universitet i Anledning af Universitets Aarsfest 1927. 139-50. Copenhagen:
Gyldendal. [Obituary.]
1927b. "Un passage du texte irlandais Fled Bricend". Mélanges bretons et celtiques
offerts à M. J. Loth, 396-99. Rennes: Plidon & Hommay, vii, 428 pp. [Fest
schrift for Joseph Loth (1847-1934).]
1927c. "Midelirsk bad fiadnaisi". Symbole grammaticae in honorem J. Rozwadowski,
251-54. Cracow: Ossolineum. [Festschrift for Jan (von) Rozwadowski (1867-
1935).]
1927d. "Den nyere sprogvidenskab og dens nasrmeste fremtidsmål". Tilskueren 1927.
365-73. [For information on this monthly, see item 1906c (supra).]
1927.e "Irish maid". Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 27 ( = Festgabe für Rudolf
Thurneysen [1857-1940]), 31-32.
1928. "Hermann Möller [(1850-1923)]". Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 12.330-34. Berlin
& Leipzig: W. de Gruyter & Co, [For more detailed biographical information,
see 1924d (supra).]
1929a. "Irlandais tuas ' l e sud', tuas-cert ' l e n o r d ' " . Donum natalicium [Joseph]
Schrijnen: Verzameling van opstellen door oud-leerlin gen en bevriende vak-
genooten, 423-25. Nijmegen: Dekker; Utrecht: Van de Vegt. [Festschrift for
Joseph Schrijnen (1869-1938).].
1929b. "Ciped desnecmad ' quidquid iis accidisset "'. Revue celtique 46.114-17. Paris.
1930. "Oldengelsk fœmne". A Grammatical Miscellany offered to Otto Jespersen on
his seventieth birthday ed. by Niels Bøgholm et al., 55-68. Copenhagen: Levin
& Munksgaard; London: Allen & Unwn, 464 pp. [Festschrift for Otto Jespersen
(1860-1943).].
1931. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century. Transl. from the Danish, with
revisions (authorized by the author) and indices, by John Webster Spargo
[1896-1956]. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, vi, 360 pp. [Transl. of
1924a (supra); reprinted in 1962 (see infra).]
1932a. "Deux étymologies lituaniennes". Annales Acaàemiae Scientiarum Fennicae,
Series B, 27.204-210. Helsinki.
1932b. "Das Pronomen und das idg. j- im Griechischen". Symbolae philologicae
O. A. Danielsson octogenario dedicatae, 262-68. Uppsala: Almvist & Wiksell.
[Festschrift for Olof August Danielsson (1852-1933), a Swedish scholar of
Greek.]
1932c. "Einleitung". Rasmus Rask: Ausgewählte Abhandlungen ed. by Louis Hjelms
lev, vol. I, xiii-lxii. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard. [Historical account of
the importance of Rask in the development of comparative philology.]
1933a. Etudes lituaniennes. ( = KDVS-HFM, 19:3.) Copenhagen: Levin & Munks
gaard, 63 pp.
1933b. "Hittitische Etymologien". Archiv Orientálni: Journal of the Czechoslovak
Oriental Institute, Prague 5.177-86. Prague.
1933c. "Une etymologie balto-celtique". Studi Baltici 3.69-72. Rome.
1934a. Mursilis Sprachlähmung: Ein hethitischer Text. Mit philologischen und lin
guistischen Erörterungen von Albrecht Götze und Holger Pedersen. ( = KDVS-
HFM 21:1.) Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, vii, 83 pp. [Edition of a text,
with Alfred Götze (1897-1971), reporting on Murshilish I I , King of the Hitt
ites, fl. 1356-1391 B.C., and his reported aphasia.]
1934b. "Zur Frage nach der Urverwandtschaft des Indoeuropäischen mit dem Ugro-
finnischen". Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 62. 308-325. Helsinki.
1935a. "Zum Lautwert des Zeichens im Hittitischen". Archiv Orientální
7.80-88. Prague.
1935b. "Il problema delle parentele tra i grandi gruppi linguistici". Atti del Terzo
Congresso Internazionale de Linguisti (Roma 1933) ed. by Bruno Migliorini
& Vittore Pisani, 328-33. Florence: F. Lemonnier, xv, 449 pp.
1935c. "Lit. iau". Studi Baltici 4.150-54. Rome.
1936a. "Edmund Kleinhans (1870-1934)". Acta Jutlandica 8:3.1-15. [Also separately,
Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget; Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel, 1936, 15 pp. - Obi
tuary of a Swiss scholar who, a former student-friend of Pedersen's at Leipzig,
bequeathed his personal library to the Univ. of Copenhagen Library. With a
portrait.]
1936b. "Venet. ekupeӨaris". Germanen und Indogermanen: Festschrift für Herman
Hirt [1865-1936], vol. I I , 579-83. Heidelberg: . Winter
1937. [With Henry Lewis (1889-1968) as principal author]. A Concise Celtic Gram
mar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, xix, 442 pp. (2nd ed., 1961).
1938. Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen. ( = KDVS-HFM, 25:2.)
Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 227 pp.
1939. "Zur Theorie der altgriechischen Palatalisierung". Études dédiées à la mémoire
du Prince Nikolai Trubetzkoy {= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague,
8), 289-91. Prague. [In memory of Nikolaj Sergeevic Trubetzkoy (1890-1938).]
1940. "A Hittite-Celtic Etymology". Essays and Studies presented to Eoin MacNeill
ed. by Reverend John Ryan, 141-43. Dublin: The Sign of Three Candles.
[Festschrift for John MacNeill (1867-1945).]
1941. Tocharisch vom Gesichtspunkt der indoeuropäischen Sprachvergleichung. { =
KDVS-HFM, 28:1.) Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 292 pp.
1941/42. "Angl. wife et woman". Studia Neophilologica 14.252-54. Uppsala.
1942a. "Vilhelm Thomsens efterladte Optegnelser om Lykisk". OKDVSV 1941-42.
34-35. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.
1942b. "To nyfundne aldsprog". Translatøren 4.1-7. Copenhagen.
1943a. "Er stødet en konsonant?". Acta Philologica Scandinavica 16.111-120. Copen
hagen.
1943b. "Tocharische Beiträge I-II". Revue des Études Indo-Européennes: Bulletin tri
mestriel 3.17-19, 209-213. Cernătui, Rumania.
1943c. "Et baltoslavisk problem". Im Memoriam Kr. Sandfeld, 184-94. Copenhagen:
Gyldendal. [Cf. next entry.]
HOLGER PEDERSEN 433
1943d. "Kristian Sandfeld [(1873-1942)]". OKDVSV 1942-43. 81-94. Copenhagen.

[Obituary.]
1944. Zur tocharischen Sprachgeschichte. (= KDVS-HFM, 30:2.) Copenhagen: E.
Munksgaard, 55 pp.
1945. Lykisch und Hittitisch. ( = KDVS-HFM, 30:4.) Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard,
77 pp. [C£. the review by Edgar Howard Sturtevant (1875-1952) in Language
24.314-18 (1948). - The book had a second printing in 1949.]
1945/46. "Une phrase adverbiale hittite". Revue Hittite et Asianique 1945-46. 1-2. Paris.
1947. "Hittite dalagunla and barganulan Journal of Cuneiform Studies 1.60-64. New
Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.
1947b. "Lyk. pixedere, gr. . Revue des Études Indo-Européennes 4.65-68.
Bucharest & Paris. [Cf. item 1943b (above).]
1949a. "Old Irish ainder ' a young woman'". The Journal of Celtic Studies 1:1.4-6.
Baltimore, Md.: Waverly Press for Temple Univ.
1949b. " V. sl. grqdV. Lingua Posnansiensis 1.1-2. Poznań.
1949c. "Ist eine allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft auf empirischer Grundlage möglich?".
Symbolae ad Studia orientis pertinentes Frederico Hronzny dedicatae, Part I I
( = Archiv Orientâlni 17:2), 236-238. Prague: Orientální ústav.
1950a. "Sanskrit dur- et dhur-n. Lingua Posnaniensis 2.1-3. Poznań.
1950b. "Eine tocharische Frage". Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung 1:1.103-104.
Heidelberg:  Winter.
1951a. Die gemeinindoeuropäischen und vorindoeuropäischen Verschlusslaute. (=KDVS-
HFM, 32:5.) Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 16 pp.
1951b. "Warum ist ρ- ein unstabiler Laut?". Festschrift der Akademie der Wissen
schaften zu Göttingen, vol. I I , 32-34. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1952a. "Gr. ". Festskrift til L[ouisJ L[eonor] Hammerich [(1892-1975)],
190-82. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad.
1952b. "Das lykische Wort trqqas". IF 61.81-85.
1952c. "Two Notes". Ériu 16.5-6. Dublin.
1953. "Hittitisch -as, -au, -at". Lingua Posnaniensis 4.60-63.
1954. Kratkaja sravniteVnaja grammatika kel'tskix jazykov. Transl. into Russian by
A[leksandr] A[leksandrovic] Smirnov [(1883-1962)], ed. with a foreword and
notes by V[iktorija] N[ikola'evna] Jarceva. Moscow: Izd. inostr. literatury,
534 pp. [Russ. transl. of Lewis & Pedersen (1937) supra.]
1958. Shi-chiu, shh-chi Ou-chou yu-yen hsueh shih. Transl. into Chinese by Ch'ien
Chin-hua. Peking. [Chinese transl. of 1931 (supra).]
1961. [With Henry Lewis]. A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar. Reprinted
[i.e., 2nd ed.], with corrections and a supplement [by Henry Lewis]). Göt
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, xix, 442, 19 pp. [Re-ed. of Lewis & Pe
dersen (1937) supra.]
1962. The Discovery of Language: Linguistic science in the 19th century. Re-edition
under a new title [of 1931 text]. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, vi, 360
pp. (5th printing, 1972.)
1976. Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vanden
hoeck & Ruprecht. [Reprint of 1909a & 1913a (supra).]
1978. Videnskaben om sproget: Historisk sprogvidenskab i det 19. århundrede. Reprint
with a preface and a general index by Jens Juhl Jensen. Arthus: Arkona, xii,
311, 77, [78]-90 pp. [Reprint of 1924a and 1916a.]
1982. Kleine Schriften zum Armenischen. Herausgegeben von Rüdiger Schmitt. ( =
Collectanea, 40.) Hildesheim: Georg Olms, xviii, 336 pp. [Following an introd.
by the ed., there are reprints of ten articles and reviews by Pedersen dealing
with Armenian originally published between 1900 and 1924.]
1983. A Glance at the History of Linguistics, with particular regard to the historical
study of phonology. ( = Studies in the History of Linguistics, 7.) Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, xxxii, 100 pp. [English transl., by Caroline C.
Henriksen, of Pedersen (1916a), with an introd. by Konrad Kærner (ix-xxii).]
Leonard Bloomfield (1887-1949)
LEONARD BLOOMFIELD AND THE COURS DE
LINGUISTIQUE GÉNÉRALE*
0. Introductory Observations
Leonard Bloomfield's (1887-1949) theory of language dominated the North

American linguistic scene from the mid-1930s until at least the end of the 1950s.
With the publication of his book Language in 1933 Bloomfield ~ whether it was
his intention or not ~ soon replaced the Sapirian approach to language through a
much more rigorous, formal approach, which emphasized the autonomous nature
of language, cut the traditional ties between linguistics and literature, and distanced
linguistics from other social sciences, notably sociology and anthropology (pace
Murray [1983:89-91] who views Bloomfield much more in tune with Boas and
Sapir than I would be ready to concede). Those familiar with Chomskyan 'auton
omous linguistics' will easily notice that the posture it assumes in regard to
language and its analysis has much more in common with Bloomfield's linguistic
theory than with Sapir's (quite in contrast to the official 'history' of Transforma
tional-Generative Grammar). An indication of the refusal to recognize the signif
icance of Bloomfield's contribution to linguistics may be seen in the fact that one of
the most successful textbooks in North America -- such as the third edition of
Fromkin & Rodman's An Introduction to Language of 1983 - does not even make
mention of Bloomfield's name in its 385 pages, whereas Sapir is at least mentioned
in passing (p.303), in connection with the historical-comparative method (which
was not the field he was known for). Typically, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-
1913) is referred to by the authors (p.110) only as "the nineteenth-century [sic]
Swiss linguist [...], who discussed the arbitrary union between the sounds (form)
and meaning (concept) of the linguistic sign."
I shall not now enter in a discussion of the manner in which the history of
'modern linguistics' in America is currently being presented, but rather deal with
This is a revised version of a paper first presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic
Society of America held in San Francisco, California, on 27-30 December 1987, during which the
100th anniversary of Bloomfield's birth was commemorated. - The revision has profitted from
comments by Charles F. Hockett (Ithaca, N.Y.) and Stephen O. Murray (San Francisco), neither of
whom should be held responsible for any of the views expressed in this chapter, however.
the impact that the Cours de linguistique générale made on Bloomfield and what it
may have meant for the subsequent development of general linguistic theory in
North America.
1.0 Bloomfield and the 'Cours'
1.1 In Bloomfield's 1922 review of Sapir's Language we find (p.142) his first
public reference to Saussure. There Bloomfield raises the question whether Sapir
had read the Cours while writing Language, at the same time suggesting that this
question was not really important since, as he noted several years later, "both
authors take steps toward a delimitation of linguistics" (Bloomfield 1926:154n.4),
and that is, Bloomfield felt, what really mattered.
In a letter to Truman Michelson (1879-1938) of 23 December 1919, Bloomfield
indicated he had been alerted to the existence of the Cours earlier that year by his
former teacher at the University of Göttingen, Jacob Wackernagel (1853-1938),1
and that he was "anxious to see it" (Hockett 1987:41). When in 1922 a second
edition of the Cours was published, Bloomfield acquired a copy reviewing it in the
following year. His review makes interesting reading because we can see
Bloomfield giving a particular interpretation of Saussure's teachings characteristic
of the American's subsequent stance in matters of general linguistic theory.
By the time Bloomfield was reading the Cours, he had moved from the
University of Illinois to Ohio State University. There Bloomfield was soon greatly
influenced by Albert Paul Weiss (1879-1931), whose "Set of Postulates for a
Behavioral Psychology" of 1925 was to become the model for his own'Postulates'
paper of 1926. We may recall that in his first book on linguistics, Introduction to
the Study of Language, Bloomfield had subscribed to the mentalist psychology of
Leipzig's Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), as is especially evident in the preface and
chap.3, "The Mental Basis of Language", of the book (for details, see the additions
to the 1983 reprint of the text).
There were a number of things Bloomfield found important in the Cours,
whose value, he stated, "lies in its clear and rigorous demonstration of fundamental
principles" (Bloomfield 1923:317). (Note should be taken of the fact that in the
two pages of the review Bloomfield used expressions such as 'rigorous' and
1
Like the present writer Charles Hockett was surprised that Bloomfield should refer to
Wackemagel as his teacher (cf. Hockett 1987:42, where this statement is regarded as 'unique') since
Wackernagel is commonly associated with the University of Basel which Bloomfield never visited.
The explanation of this seeming discrepancy is to be found in the fact that Wackemagel held a
professorship at the University of Göttingen from 1902 to 1915, which, according to Schwyzer's
obituary of Wackemagel (1966[1938]:54), represented "den Höhepunkt von Wackemagels Lehr
tätigkeit", and it is of course there where Bloomfield followed his lectures. (The editor of the 1966
reprint of Schwyzer's obituary did not know what 'Georgia Augusta' stood for, offering the absurd
explanation "[Augusta, Georgia]"!)
LEONARD BLOOMFIELD AND THE COURS 437
'rigid' several times, expressions we find frequently in his writings as well as in

those of his followers, notably Charles Hockett and Zellig Harris.)
1.2 First and foremost, from his reading of the Cours Bloomfield concludes that
Saussure has proved "that psychology and phonetics do not matter at all and are, in
principle, irrelevant to the study of language" (Bloomfield 1923:318). In the
Cours it is actually stated on page 21 that "l'essentiel de la langue [...] est étranger
au caractère phonique du signe linguistique", and there are other observations
which suggest that phonetics is not an essential part of the object of linguistics.
However, a similar statement is not found concerning psychology, which in
Saussure's understanding underlies the nature and mechanisms of language (cf.
Saussure [1922:23]: "tout est psychologique dans le langage", etc.). However, it
is obvious that Saussure does not build his linguistics on psychology, so that we
may say that Bloomfield's conclusions are not that far-fetched after all. Yet in his
programmatic statement of 1926, "A Set of Postulates for the Science of
Language", Bloomfield backtracks on at least part of this interpretation, probably
as a result of his adoption of Weiss's vision of psychology. There Bloomfield
affirms (p. 154):
[...], the physiologic and acoustic description of acts of speech belongs to other
sciences than ours. The existence and interaction of social groups held together by
language is granted by psychology and anthropology.
1.3 The next of Bloomfield's comments on the Cours in order of importance is

that Saussure "distinguishes sharply between 'synchronic' and 'diachronic'
linguistics (1923:318; emphasis added: KK). The concluding sentence of his
review makes Bloomfield's particular reading of the text even more pronounced:
The essential point, [...], is this, that de Saussure has here first mapped out the
world in which historical Indo-European grammar (the great achievement of the
past century) is merely a single province; he has given us the theoretical basis for a
science of human speech. (Bloomfield 1923:319; my emphasis: KK)
Here, I believe, is the first intimation of Bloomfield's later decision to treat the
synchrony/diachrony distinction as a theoretical underpinning for an approach in
which there are in effect two kinds of linguistics, with no essential meeting points
between them. This interpretation of the Cours is most pronounced in his book
Language published ten years later, where it led to a de-facto division of these two
'points de vue'. It resulted in chapters 1 to 16 dealing with synchronic matters or,
as he called it (p.317), 'descriptive linguistics', the remaining half of the book
being exclusively devoted to aspects of historical linguistics. As a matter of fact,
Bloomfield, unlike Saussure, made no direct cross-references between those two
domains at all, with the result that the publisher of his 1933 book could bring out -
as late as 1965 ~ a separate publication of chapters 17 to 28 under the title of
Historical Linguistics (Bloomfield 1965), with a preface by Harry Hoijer (1904-

1976) and additions to the bibliography but no other changes.
1.4 Keeping in mind that, as we know, Chomkyan linguistics is entirely

'synchronic', another subject Bloomfield raised in his review of the Cours,
namely, his interpretation of the Saussurean trichotomy of langage, langue, and
parole takes on an added significance. He states:
Thisrigidsystem, the subject matter of "descriptive linguistics", as we should say,

is la langue, language. But le langage, human speech, includes something more,
for the individuals who make up the community do not succeed in following the
system with perfect uniformity. Actual speech-utterance, la parole, varies not only
as to matters not fixed by the system (e.g., the exact phonetic character of each
sound), but also as to the system itself: different speakers at times will violate
almost any feature of the system. (Bloomfield 1923:317)
Now, this interpretation sounds pretty close to Saussure's teachings, but if we look
at it in the light of the concluding remark cited earlier ("... science of human
speech'), we will notice a subtle shift: the object of linguistics in final analysis is
not the abstract system, Saussure's langue, but the much more concrete concept of
'speech', probably much closer to Saussure's langage, which in effect comprises
both langue and parole (as suggested in the Cours, p. 112). This shift is made
obvious by Bloomfield's subsequent statements concerning the subject matter of
linguistics, especially in the "Postulates" of 1926 and the 1933 book. For instance
Definition 4 of his 1926 paper (p.155) reads: "The totality of utterances that can be
made in a speech-community is the language of that speech-community." Here
Bloomfield uses 'language', not 'speech'; however, his concept of 'language' is
far removed from Saussure's abstract system underlying speech production. The
distinction between langue and langage, maintained in the 1923 review, appears
now blurred. 2 The reason for this must be sought in Bloomfield's philosophy of
science; it is not merely terminological, i.e., produced by the lack of a lexical
distinction in English between langue and langage. Unlike Saussure, who is
imbued with a Cartesian spirit, which has a long tradition in French culture, and
makes him proceed deductively, Bloomfield clearly followed the Anglo-American
tradition. This approach is most likely adopted from William Dwight Whitney
2
Interestingly, in his 1927 review of Jespersen's Philosophy of Language Bloomfield, perhaps
in an effort to assert himself as a theorist of language, discussed Saussure's langue/parole
dichotomy again, affirming among other things the following: "Our science can deal only with
those features of language, de Saussure's la langue, which are common to all speakers of a com
munity, - the phonemes, grammatical categories, lexicon, and so on. These are abstractions, for
they are only (recurrent) partial features of speech utterances. [...] They form a rigid system, - so
rigid that without any adequate physiologic information and with psychology in a state of chaos,
we are nevertheless able to subject it to scientific treatment." (Bloomfield 1927a:444; cf. Fries
[1961:220-221] for further quotations from Bloomfield's review and a brief analysis). No similar
affirmation can be found in Bloomfield's subsequent writings.
(1827-1894), whose books served Bloomfield as models when he wrote his 1914
Introduction to the Study of Language, and which take an empirical, inductive line
of argument.
1.5 Another aspect of Saussure's theory referred to by Bloomfield in his review

of the Cours — which has become stock-in-trade in modern textbooks in lin
guistics, frequently without mention of Saussure (see e.g., Chisholm 1981:4;
Fromkin & Rodman 1983:7) — concerns the arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign
or, more precisely, the arbitrary and conventional bond holding between signifié
and signifiant. For Bloomfield this means that 'the language of a community'
should be understood as "a complex and arbitrary system of social habit" (1923:
318). We find no trace of this concept in his "Postulates" published three years
later. However, in his book Language we read that "the connection of linguistic
forms with their meanings is wholly arbitrary" (1933:145), which corresponds
with what we find in Saussure (1922:100). In the 1926 paper we find other,
related concepts included in his series of definitions, namely, the distinction
between 'form' and 'meaning' (p.154) — which could be seen as harking back to
Saussure's signifié /signifiant distinction -- and the same/different distinction in
Bloomfield's Definition 5 (p. 155), which obviously derives from Saussure's
observation that the language mechanism "déroule sur identité et différence"
(Saussure 1922:155; cf. also Bloomfield 1933:128). This 'same'/'different'
distinction is also important for the identification of phonemes — cf. Bloomfield
(1933:76-78, 128, and elsewhere - on which see the next section), as it was for
Saussure (e.g., 1922:68-69).
1.6 There are several other instances where proposals and definitions in
Bloomfield's writings can be traced to passages in the Cours. At times these
connections are not obvious, as in Bloomfield's Definition 1, "An act of speech is
an utterance" (1926:154). This definition, I believe, would have to be seen in the
light of what Saussure says about the 'syntagme' (cf. Saussure 1922:155), where
Saussure in effect reintroduces the concept of 'parole' under a different guise.
Another Bloomfieldian concept no doubt influenced by statements found in the
Cours is that of the phoneme. He characterizes it as 'a distinctive sound' in 1926,
and later defines it more forcefully in his book Language (cf. Bloomfield 1933:77-
80, 141, and 366 with Saussure 1922:83, 164).
However, when talking of 'influences' and whatever we may wish to imply
by this, we should not only look at the Cours as a source of Bloomfield's linguistic
inspiration. We have already noted earlier that Sapir's Language was regarded by
Bloomfield as a book leading toward the 'newer trend' in linguistics, and we can
see him incorporating Sapir's 'sound pattern' idea in his 1926 "Postulates" (cf.
Definition 20, "The orders of phonemes which occur are the sound-patterns of the
language." [Bloomfield 1926:157]). Other sources for Bloomfield were the work
of Antoine Meillet (1866-1936), Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929),
Berthold Delbrück (1842-1922), Hermann Paul (1846-1921), Otto Jespersen
(1860-1943), and various other authors mentioned in his papers and reviews
written during the 1920s (cf., e.g., Bloomfield 1926:153n.4, 160, 161; 1927a, b),
and also in his later writings, including Language (1933), where the references are
tucked away in the notes and, as a result, less obvious. (Indeed, one would have to
consult the notes and the bibliography carefully, since the index does not cover the
back matter.) For example, the fact that Saussure's name was listed in the index
under 'De Saussure' — a convention still followed in Hymes & Fought (1981) for
instance -- led a number of hasty critics to claim that Bloomfield had ignored
Saussure! Bloomfield has also been frequently accused for failing to deal with
'meaning' by people who apparently did not consult Language (since his 1933
book in fact contains a chapter nine entitled "Meaning" as well as a chapter 24
headed "Semantic Change"). 3 In other words, it is not something exclusively
characteristic of 'modern linguistics' that authors are criticized by people who do
not read them.
In the present context, the following passage in a letter, dated 15 January

1945, from Bloomfield to J Milton Cowan is of interest:
Denunciations are coming thick & fast; I expect to be completely discredited in the
end. There is a statement going round that De Saussure is not mentioned in my
Language text book (which reflects his Cours on every page). Also that it does
not deal with meaning -- it seems there is no chapter on this topic. (Cowan
1987:29)
Bloomfield does not mention the accuser; he simply added: "I do not intend to give
any recognition to falsehood of this kind or to discourses which contain them or are
based on them." However, we may assume that one of his detractors was Leo
Spitzer (1884-1960), who carried on polemical exchanges with various linguists of
the Bloomfieldian mould during the 1940s and 1950s (e.g., Spitzer 1943; Hall
1946). 3a Bloomfield replied to these accusations only by indirection (see Bloom
field 1944). Of course, those who read Bloomfield's Language up to page 19 will
have seen the explicit reference to Saussure's lectures (although giving a 1915 date
of publication, which appears to have been one of the sources for later — usually
North American — copyists). But less obvious references to the Cours can be
3
See Koerner (1970) for a treatment of this aspect of American linguistics from Bloomfield to
Chomsky.
3a
Robert A. Hall, Jr., of Cornell University informs me in a letter dated 3 Oct. 1988 that
Bloomfield's statement quoted above had largely been prompted by a claim made by Giuliano
Bonfante (b.1904), at the time a professor at Princeton, to the effect that Language contained no
reference to Saussure.
found in a variety of notes (see Bloomfíeld 1933:512, 514, 516, 517, etc.; cf.
Koemer 1971:449-450n.l, for the exact locations).
Bloomfield's claim that his book Language "reflects (Saussure's) Cours on
every page" seems somewhat hyperbolic for we know, thanks to the recent, careful
study by David Rogers, how much Bloomfíeld was in fact influenced by the
grammatical system developed by Pänini (Rogers 1987). But in terms of general
linguistic theory, the importance of the role that the Cours played in Bloomfield's
own deliberations can be established with certainty. Given Bloomfield's predis
position (and perhaps also his experience as a field worker), however, it is not
surprising that he did not develop Saussure's insights into a concise theory of
language but rather a more formal - and indeed 'rigid' --methodology of linguistic
analysis. If we accept that Bloomfield's concept of 'speech' is closer to Saussure's
langage (rather than parole), William Chisholm may have been correct in saying
that "Saussure's ideas served as a catalyst to both Leonard Bloomfíeld and Noam
Chomsky. But it was speech that Bloomfíeld proposed to analyze, whereas it was
language that captured Chomsky's attention." (Chisholm 1981:13).
For the history of American linguistics to be understood better, Bloomfíeld
will have to be read much more fully than he has been during the past thirty years.
In his writings we would discover many of the ideas that some of us tend to
associate with much more recent developments, whether it be Bloomfield's
insistence on the importance of syntax, already announced in his review of the
Cours (Bloomfíeld 1923:319; cf. 1926:158 and, especially, 1933, where we find a
24-page chapter on the subject [pp.184-206]), 4 his treatment of other linguistic
subjects (e.g., morphophonemics), or his philosophy of science. Bloomfield's
particular view of linguistics is expressed in his 1929 MLA address (Bloomfíeld
1930) as well as in his 1936 paper, "Language or Ideas?", where he joins the
logicians of the Vienna Circle and ventures the following observation:5
Linguistics as actually practised employs only such terms as are translatable into
the language of physical and biological science; in this linguistics differs from
nearly all other discussion of human affairs. Within the next generations mankind
will learn that only such terms are usable in any science. (Bloomfíeld 1936:89).
One may wonder to what extent Bloomfield's prediction has come true.
4
Interestingly, the chapter on syntax in Bernard Bloch & George L. Trager's influential 82-page
Outline of Linguistic Analysis (Baltimore, Md.: Linguistic Society of America, 1942) was written
by Bloomfíeld (cf. Hockett & Hall 1987:229, for details). Charles Hockett (in a letter of 3 Sept.
1988 commenting on an earlier draft of this paper) reports that Trager, for his part, did not like
Bloomfield's contribution. -- See also Kenneth L. Pike's acknowledgement of Bloomfield's interest
in syntax (see the summary of his paper in the LSA Meeting Handbook, San Francisco, Dec.
1987, p.xxii); a revised version of Pike's reminiscences of Bloomfíeld is to appear in Historio-
graphia Linguistica 16:1/2 (1989).
5
Still more explicit statements concerning Bloomfield's philosophy of science can be found in
his contribution to the monograph series launched by members of the Vienna Circle, "International
Encyclopedia of Unified Science" (Bloomfíeld 1939).
REFERENCES
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1914. An Introduction to the Study of Language. New
York: H. Holt & Co. (New ed., together with an introd. by Joseph F. Kess,
Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1983.)
-------. 1922. Review of Sapir (1921). Classical Weekley 15.142-143. (Repr. in
Bloomfield 1970.91-94, and in Edward Sapir: Appraisals of his life and work
ed. with an introd. by Konrad Koerner, 47-50. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J.
Benjamins, 1984.)
-------. 1923. Review of Saussure (1922). Modern Language Journal 8.317-
319. (Repr. in Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 21.133-135 [1964] and in
Bloomfield 1970.106-108.)
-------. 1926. "A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language". Language
2.153-164. (Repr. in IJAL 15.195-202 [1949]; in Readings in Linguistics ed. by
Martin Joos [Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies, 1957;
4th ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1966], 19-25, and in Bloomfield
1970.128-140.)
-------. 1927a. "On Recent Work in General Linguistics". Modern Philology
25.211-230. (Repr. in Bloomfield 1970.173-190.)
-------. 1927b. Review of Otto Jespersen, The Philosophy of Language
(London: Allen & Unwin; New York: H. Holt & Co., 1924). Journal of English
and Germanic Philology 26.444-446. (Repr. in Bloomfield 1970.141-143.)
-------. 1930. "Linguistics as a Science". Studies in Philology 27.553-557.
(Repr. in Bloomfield 1970:227-230.)
-------.. 1933. Language. New York: H. Holt & Co. (Paperback ed., with a
foreword by Charles F. Hockett, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1984.)
-------.. 1936. "Language or Ideas?". Language 12.89-95. (Repr. in Bloomfield
1970:322-328.)
-------. 1939. Linguistic Aspects of Science. (= International Encyclopedia of
Unified Science, I:4.) Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. (10th printing, 1969.)
-------. 1944. "Secondary and Tertiary Responses to Language". Language
20.45-55. (Repr. in Bloomfield 1970:413-425.)
-------. 1965. Language History. Ed. by Harry Hoijer. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
-------. 1970. A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. Ed. by Charles F. Hockett.
(Abridged paperback ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987.)
Chisholm, William S., Jr. 1981. Elements of English Linguistics. London & New
York: Long-man.
Cowan, J Milton. 1987. "The Whimsical Bloomfield". Hall 1987.23-37.
Esper, Erwin A[llen]. 1968. Mentalism and Objectivism in Linguistics: The
sources of Leonard Bloomfield's psychology of language. New York: American
Elsevier.
Fries, Charles C[arpenter]. 1961. "The Bloomfield 'School'". Trends in European
and American Linguistics, 1930-1960 ed. by Christine Mohrmann, Alf Som-
merfelt & Joshua Whatmough, 196-224. Utrecht & Antwerp: Spectrum.
Fromkin, Victoria & Robert Rodman. 1983. An Introduction to Language. 3rd ed.
Hall, Robert A[nderson], Jr. 1946. "The State of Linguistics: Crisis or reaction?".
Itálica 23.30-34.
--------, with the collaboration of Konrad Koerner, ed. 1987. Leonard
Bloomfield: Essays on his life and work. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J.
Benjamins.
Hockett, Charles F[rancis]. 1987. "Letters from Bloomfield to Michelson and
Sapir". Hall 1987.39-60.
--------. & Robert A. Hall, Jr., comps. 1987. "A New Leonard Bloomfield
Bibliography". Hall 1987.221-233.
Hymes, Dell & John Fought. 1981. American Structuralism. The Hague: Mouton.
Koerner, E. F. K[onrad]. 1970. "Bloomfieldian Linguistics and the Problem of
'Meaning'". Jahrbuch für Amerikastudien 15.162-183. (Repr. in Toward a
Historiography of Linguistics by E.F.K. Koerner, 155-176. Amsterdam: J.
Benjamins, 1978.)
--------. 1971. Review of Lexique de la terminologie saussurienne comp. by
Rudolf Engler (Utrecht & Antwerp: Spectrum, 1968). Language 47.447-450.
Murray, Stephen O. 1983. Group Formation in Social Science. Carbondale, Ill. &
Edmonton, Alta.: Linguistic Research, Inc.
Rogers, David E[llis]. 1987. "The Influence of Pänini on Leonard Bloomfield".
Hall 1987.89-138.
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. [Note that the later paperback editions have a
different pagination.]
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1922. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles
ally et Albert Sechehaye, avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. 2nd ed.
Paris: Payot. (First ed., 1916; 3rd and last corrected ed., 1931.) [All subsequent
editions follow the pagination of the 2nd ed.]
Spitzer, Leo. 1943. "Why Does Language Change?". Modern Language Quarterly
4.413-431.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1938. "Jacob Wackernagel". Forschungen und Fortschritte 14.
227-228. (Repr. in Portraits of Linguists ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. II, 52-
55. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1966.)
Weiss, Albert Paul. 1925. "A Set of Postulates for a Behavioristic Psychology".
Psychological Review 32.83-87.
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Note: This index is a selective one, principally including only the names (and life-
dates) of those scholars whose work has been discussed in the present volume. Recent
scholarship — and the names of their authors ~ can be found by consulting the bibliog
raphical references appended to each individual chapter (see pp. 11-12, 28-30, 42-46,
57-59, 67-68, 77-78, 97-100, 138-146, 173-177, 183-184, 227-231, 243-244, 255-
256, 264-266, 287-290, 299-302, 318-323, 367-375, 396-399, 411-414, and 442-443
above).
A.
Adam, Lucien (1833-1918): 94, 206, 330
Adelung, Johann Christoph (1732-1806): 62, 271, 306, 308
Aleksandrov, A(leksandr) I(vanovich, 1861-1917 or 1918): 392
Anquetil-Duperron, Hyacinthe (1731-1805): 168
Apollonius Dyscolus (2nd cent. A.D.): 7
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.): 14
Arens, Hans (1911-): 102,331
Arnault, Antoine (1612-1694): 71,72
Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia (1829-1907): 171, 283
B.
Bain, Alexander (1818-1903): 381
Bally, Charles (1865-1947): 38, 393, 404, 405
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (1915-1975): 122
Bartoli, Matteo Giulio (1873-1946): 75
Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan (1846-1929): 21, 41, 62, 171, 203, 238, 253, 259,
326, 328, 360, 379, 382, 386, 392, 422, 439
Bauer, (Johann) Heinrich (Ludwig, 1773-1846): 316
Beauzée, Nicolas (1717-1789): 72
Becker, Carl L(otus, 1873-1945): 85
Benecke, Georg Friedrich (1762-1844): 197, 248-249, 305, 307, 308, 316
Benfey, Theodor (1809-1881): 3-6 pass., 10, 102, 273, 312-313, 360, 422
Benveniste, Émile (1902-1976): 405
Bernhardi, August Ferdinand (1769-1820): 73, 274, 308
Bertoni, Giulio (1878-1942): 75
Bertuch, Friedrich Justin (1747-1822): 250
Bezzenberger, Adalbert (1851-1922): 166, 417, 427
Bleek, Wilhelm Heinrich Immanuel (1827-1875): 217
Bloch, Bernard (1909-1967): 114, 115, 118, 121, 122, 411
Bloomfield, Leonard (1887-1949): 51, 122, 124, 208, 233-234, 240, 273, 331, 395,
435-441 pass.
Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich (1752-1840): 55, 276
Boas, Franz (1859-1942): 75, 331, 435
446 INDEX OF AUTHORS
Bogorodickij, V(asilij) A(lekseevich, 1857-1941): 262, 264, 384
Boiling, George M(elville, 1871-1963): 234,422
Bopp, Franz (1791-1867): 7, 8, 18-19, 56, 72, 74, 82, 83, 88, 133, 152-153, 164,
168, 197, 216, 235, 246, 248, 249-250, 273, 274, 285, 291-300 pass., 304, 310,
314, 330, 336, 337, 346, 349, 357, 362, 365, 377, 394, 423
Boxhorn(ius), Marcus Zuerius (1602-1653): 151
Braune, Wilhelm (Theodor, 1850-1926): 312
Bréal, Michel (1832-1915): 53, 234, 296, 329, 365, 403, 408
Bridgman, Percy William (1882-1961): 207
Brinton, Daniel G(arrison, 1837-1899): 75
Broca, (Pierre) Paul (1824-1880): 326
Bronn, George Heinrich (1800-1862): 213, 218
Brücke, Ernst (Wilhelm, Ritter von, 1824-1880): 325
Brückner, Aleksander (1856-1939): 380
Brugmann, (Christian) Karl (Friedrich, 1849-1919): 4, 65, 79, 89, 90, 91, 92, 167,
203, 239, 297, 361, 365, 380, 417, 418
Büchner, Ludwig (1821-1899): 226
Bühler, Georg (1837-1898): 182
Bulich, S(ergej) K(onstantinovich, 1859-1921): 384
Burdach, Karl Ferdinand (1776-1847): 353
Burggraff, Pierre (1803-1881): 72-73
Butterfield, (Sir) Henry (1900-1979): 14, 81, 102
C.
Caille, Louis (1884-1962): 38
Candolle, Augustin Pyramus de (1778-1841): 276
Carnap, Rudolf (1891-1970): 15
Cams, J(ulius) Victor (1823-1903): 224, 226
Cassirer, Ernst (1874-1945): 253-254
Celakovsky, Frantisek (Ladislav, 1799-1852): 356
Chavée, Honoré (Joseph, 1815-1877): 170, 194, 234, 330
Chézy, Antoine Léonard de (1773-1832): 293
Chézy, (Wil)helimina de {née Freiin von Klenze, 1783-1856): 293
Childe, Gordon Vere (1892-1957): 170
Chomsky, (Avram) Noam (1928- ): 3, 6, 13, 54, 72, 81, 85-86, 101-140 pass., 208,
240, 246-247, 269, 327, 362, 378, 395, 438
Collitz, Hermann (1855-1935): 89, 339, 362, 366, 427
Comte, Auguste (1798-1857): 104, 170, 191,193, 194, 204, 257-258
Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de Mably de (1715-1780): 13, 26
Copleston, Frederick Charles (1907- ): 13, 26
Corssen, Wilhelm (1820-1875): 19
Cowgill, Warren (Crawford, 1929-1985): 183
Croce, Benedetto (1866-1953): 74, 206-207
Curtius, Ernst Robert (1886-1956): 19
Curtius, Georg (1820-1885): 4, 5, 8, 82, 90, 91, 92, 111, 236-237, 313, 325, 327,
340, 358, 363, 364, 366
Cuvier, Georges (1769-1832): 55, 160, 197, 215, 248, 254-255, 276, 292, 348, 354
D.
Dalgarno, George (c.1626-1687): 269
Darwin, Charles (Robert, 1809-1882): 32, 35-37, 41, 88, 185, 187, 202, 211, 213,
INDEX OF AUTHORS 447
214, 227, 252, 327, 328, 332, 337, 338, 339, 342, 343, 354, 383, 387
Delbrück, Berthold (1842-1922): 3-8 pass., 10, 79, 82-83, 89, 91, 102, 103, 150,
216, 239, 343, 352, 360, 361, 422, 427, 439
Descartes, René (1596-1650): 115, 404, 438
Devoto, Giacomo (1897-1974): 75
Diderichsen, Paul (1905-1964): 151, 198, 212, 332
Diez, Friedrich (Christian, 1794-1876): 311
Dilthey, Wilhelm (1833-1911): 95,205
Diogenes Laertus (c. 200 B.C.): 49
Dittrich, Ottmar (1865-1952): 261, 263, 264
Domergue, (François) Urbain (1745-1810): 53, 71
Doroszewski, Witold (1905-1976): 53, 71, 407
Duchesne, Antoine Nicolas (1747-1827): 187
Durkheim, Émile (1858-1917): 32, 37-41, 407, 410, 411
E.
Eastwick, Edward B(ackhouse, 1814-1883): 296
Ebel, Hermann (1820-1875): 328
Eggers, Émile (1813-1885): 149
Eichhorn, Johann Gottlieb (1752-1827): 171
Einstein, Albert (1879-1955): 62
Engels, Friedrich (1820-1895): 325
Ersch, Johann Samuel (1766-1828): 162
F.
Farrar, Frederic William (1831-1903): 227
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb (1762-1814): 73, 74
Finck, Franz Nikolaus (1867-1910): 9, 66, 401, 419, 422
First Grammarian (12th cent.): 21-25 pass.
Firth, John Rupert (1890-1960): 14, 27, 110
Fischer, Rudolf (1910-1970): 335
Fogel, Martin (1634-1675): 270
Foucault, Michel (1926-1984): 32, 73
Frank, Othmar (1770-1830): 273
G.
Gabelentz, (Hans) Georg (Conon) von der (1840-1893): 4, 9, 41, 52, 66, 378, 401,
418, 422
Gabelentz, Hans Conon (1807-1874): 179, 180, 182
Garvin, Paul L(ucian, 1919- ): 132-133
Gatterer, Johann Christoph (1727-1799): 261
Gautier, Léopold (1884-1973): 38, 406
Gegenbaur, Carl (1826-1903): 217
Geldner, Karl Friedrich (1853-1929): 418
Gessner, Conrad (von, 1516-1565): 270
Girard de Rialle, Julien (1841-1904): 194, 330
Gilliéron, Jules (Louis, 1854-1926): 408
Gobineau, Joseph Arthur, comte de (1816-1882): 165, 170
Godel, Robert (1902-1984): 38-39
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang (von, 1749-1832): 353
Graff, Eberhard Gottlieb (1780-1841): 180
Grammont, Maurice (1866-1946): 402, 405, 406
Grassmann, Hermann (Günther, 1809-1877): 426
Greenberg, Joseph H(arold, 1915- ): 395
Grimm, Jacob (Ludwig Karl, 1785-1863): 35, 55, 87, 196, 197, 248-249, 274, 278,
287, 297, 332, 346, 355, 362, 423, 426
Grimm, Wilhelm (Karl, 1786-1859): 303, 305, 311, 312, 314
Grote, George (1799-1871): 350
Guigniaut, Joseph Daniel (1794-1876): 297
Gyarmathi, Sámuel (1751-1830): 271, 277
H.
Haas, Mary R(osamond, 1910- ): 65
Haase, Friedrich (1808-1867): 195
Haeckel, Ernst (Heinrich Philipp August, 1834-1919): 36, 187, 202, 211-226 pass.,
341, 357
Halhead, Nathaniel Brassey (1751-1830): 156
Hall, Robert A(nderson), Jr (1911- ): 440
Halle, Morris (1923- ): 116, 117, 119-129, 122, 125-26
Halliday, M(ichael) A(lexander) K(irkwood, 1925- ): 110
Hamann, Johann Georg (1730-1788): 33, 34
Hamilton, Alexander (1762-1824): 275, 287
Harris, Zellig S(abbettai, 1909- ): 111, 114, 121-125 pass., 130, 378, 437
Havet, Louis (1849-1925): 380
Haym, Rudolf (1821-1901): 33
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1770-1831): 35, 212, 332, 343, 344, 346, 347, 348
Helmholtz, Hermann (Ludwig Ferdinand) von (1821-1894): 325
Henry, Victor (1850-1907): 366
Herbart, Johann Friedrich (1776-1841): 93
Herder, Johann Gottfried (1744-1803): 32, 33-36 pass., 41, 272, 275, 283, 315
Hermann, Eduard (1869-1950): 7,364
Hermann, Gottfried (1772-1848): 195
Hervás (y Panduro), Lorenzo (1735-1809): 271, 277
Heyse, J(ohann) C(hristian) A(ugust, 1764-1829): 316
Hickes, George (1642-1712): 306
Hill, Archibald Anderson, 1902- ): 119, 120
Hirt, Herman (1865-1936): 213, 361
Hirzel, Salomon (1804-1877): 311
Hjelmslev, Louis (Trolle, 1899-1965): 15, 54, 124, 132, 378, 389, 417, 418, 424
Hockett, Charles F(rancis, 1916- ): 120, 121, 126-129 pass., 137, 378, 437
Hoefer, (Karl Gustav) Albert (1812-1883): 236
Hoenigswald, Henry M(ax, 1915- ): 4-5, 332, 352
Hoijer, Harry (1904-1976): 438
Hovelacque, Abel (1843-1896): 194, 204, 234, 326, 330, 331, 355
Hrozny, Bednch (1879-1952): 420
Humboldt, (Friedrich Heinrich) Alexander von (1769-1859): 56, 280
Humboldt, (Friedrich) Wilhelm (Christian Karl Ferdinand) von (1767-1835): 7, 9, 16,
32, 33-36 pass., 41, 52, 56, 66, 74, 75, 76, 115, 117, 152, 162, 199, 205, 206,
235, 246, 269, 280, 285, 286, 295, 296, 297, 322, 333, 344, 346, 362, 378, 394,
401,422
Husserl, Edmund (Gustav Albrecht, 1859-1938): 193
Huxley, Thomas (Henry, 1825-1895): 223, 226

I.
Ihre, Johan (1707-1780): 306
J.
Jagic, Vatroslav (1838-1923): 380
Jahn, Johann Christian (1797-1847): 316
Jakobson, Roman (Ossipovich, 1896-1982): 62, 64, 66, 116, 124-125, 378-379
Jenisch, Daniel (1762-1804): 274
Jespersen, (Jens) Otto (Harry): 304, 362, 414, 423, 438, 439
John of Balbi(d.1286): 20
Jolly, Julius (1849-1932): 166
Jones, (Sir) William (1746-1794): 5, 156, 270, 275, 277, 283, 284, 377
Joos, Martin (1907-1978): 127
Junggrammatiker: 79-96 pass., 172, 213, 238, 239, 252-253, 328, 333, 338, 363,
364, 366, 385, 401
K.
Kanne, Johann Arnold (1773-1834): 278, 304
Kant, Immanuel (1724-1804): 73, 195, 196, 274, 346
Katz, Jerrold J(acob, 1927- ): 114, 135
Kemble, John Mitchell (1807-1857): 310
Klaproth, Julius (Heinrich von, 1783-1835): 150, 153, 157, 158, 160, 161, 164
Kluge, Friedrich (1856-1926): 313
Koerner, Ernst (1846-1927): 217-218
Kolosov, M(itrofan) A(lekseevich, 1832-1881): 381-382
Kräuter, Johann Friedrich (1846-1888): 65
Kraus, Christian Jacob (1753-1807): 271, 277
Kretschmer, Paul (1866-1956): 425
Kruszewski, Mikolraj (Habdank, 1851-1887): 41, 65, 259, 262, 377-398 pass.
Kuhn, (Franz Felix) Adalbert (1812-1881): 167, 418
Kuhn, Thomas S(amuel, 1922- ): 48-50 pass., 80, 84, 89, 133-134, 252, 336, 337,
378
Kurylowicz, Jerzy (1895-1978): 116
L.
Laas, Ernst (1837-1885): 205
Lacan, Jacques (1901-1979): 245
Lachmann, Karl (1793-1851): 186,356
La Grasserie, Raoul (Robert Marie-Guérin) de (1839-1914): 263-264
Lamarck, Jean Baptiste (Pierre Antoine de Monet), Chevalier de (1744-1829): 55, 88,
187, 276, 348, 353
Lamb, Sydney M(acDonald, 1929- ): 110, 111, 121, 129, 378
Lancelot, Claude (c.1615-1695): 71, 72
Lashley, Karl S(pence, 1890-1958): 137
Lassen, Christian (1800-1876): 168-169
Latham, Robert Gordon (1812-1888): 310
Le Bel, Jean-Louis (fl.1764): 250
Lees, Robert B(enjamin, 1922- ): 113-114, 118, 120
Lefmann, Salomon (1831-1912): 297, 335, 367
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (Freiherr von, 1646-1716): 269, 270, 284, 383, 396, 425
Leskien, (Johann) August (Heinrich, 1840-1916): 4, 92, 94, 238, 294, 326, 328,
338, 363, 365, 418
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1908- ): 245
Lewis, Henry (1889-1968): 420
Lewy, Ernst (1881-1966): 74
Lhuyd, Edward (1660-1709): 306
Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph (1742-1799): 79
Lindner, Bruno (1853-1930): 418
Linné, Carl von (1707-1778): 55, 217, 248
Lisch, G(eorg) C(hristian) A(ugust, 1801-1883): 316
Littré, (Maximilien Paul) Emile (1801-1881): 194
Locke, John (1632-1704): 34,269
Locke, William N(ash, 1909-1980?): 116, 122, 137
Loebe, Julius (1805-1900): 179, 180, 182
Lovejoy, Arhur 0(ncken, 1873-1962); 49, 354
Ludolf,Hiob (1624-1704): 270,425
Lyell, Sir Charles (1797-1875): 55, 202, 214, 221, 226, 342, 345
M.
Maher, J(ohn) Peter (1933- ): 107, 313, 332, 338, 353
Malte-Brun, Conrad (1775-1826): 160, 161, 162, 163
Manget, Jacques (Louis, b.1784): 272
Marr, N(ikolaj) Ja(kovlevich, 1865-1934): 151
Martinet, André (1908- ): 118, 126
Marx, Karl (1818-1883): 196,325
Masaryk, Tomás (Garrigue, 1850-1937): 258
Mathesius, Vüém (1882-1945): 258
McCawley, James D(avid, 1938- ): 133-134
McQuown, Norman A(nthony, 1914- ): 122-123
Meillet, Antoine (Paul Jules, 1866-1936): 9, 38-39, 91-92, 170, 259, 329, 401-
411 pass., 428, 429, 431
Meringer, Rudolf (1859-1831): 167, 313
Merkel, C(arl) L(udwig, 1812-1876): 392
Meyer, Gustav (1850-1900): 150, 157, 158, 159, 328, 418
Meyer, Leo (1830-1910): 158, 159, 163, 171, 181-183 pass.
Meyer, Paul (1840-1917): 259
Miklosich, Franz (Xaver von, 1813-1891): 311
Mill, John Stuart (1806-1873): 381, 388, 389
Modistae: 14
Möller, Hermann (Martin Thomas, 1850-1923): 417
Mohl, Julius von (1800-1876): 72
Morris, Charles (1893-1902): 170
Mounin, Georges (alias Jean Boucher, 1910- ): 411
Müller, F(riedrich) Max(imilian, 1823-1900): 153, 167, 169, 238, 310, 325, 340-
341,426
Müller, Fritz (= Johann Friedrich Theodor, 1822-1897): 224
Müller, Johannes (1801-1858): 217
Mylius, Abraham (1563-1637): 270
N.
Navüle, (Henri) Adrien (1845-1930): 39-40
Neogrammarians, see Junggrammatiker
Newman, Stanley S(tewart, 1905-1984): 76
Nicole, Pierre (1625-1695): 73
Nida, Eugene A(lbert, 1914- ): 122
Nietzsche, Friedrich (Wilhelm, 1844-1900): 31
Norman, Frederick (1897-1968): 153, 157, 160
O.
Osthoff, Hermann (1847-1909): 79. 92, 154, 203, 358
P.
Pagliaro, Antonino (1898-1973): 75
Pallas, Peter Simon (1741-1811): 188, 270, 271, 356, 441
Panckoucke, Charles-Joseph (1736-1798): 272
Pänini (6th cent. B.C.): 15, 441
Pans, Gaston (1839-1903): 259, 260, 408
Passy, Paul (Édouard, 1859-1940): 402
Paul, Hermann (1846-1921): 4, 6, 10, 41, 55, 79, 85-86, 94, 103, 202, 206, 253,
259, 261, 278, 312, 328, 345, 355, 378, 381, 386, 421, 422, 439
Paul of Venice (d.1429): 71
Pedersen, Holger (1867-1953): 3-5, 8-10 pass., 86, 102, 172, 216, 234, 304, 337,
417-433 pass.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (Santiago, 1839-1914): 254
Peter Helias (.1140): 19
Pezzi, Domenico (1844-1905): 331
Picot, Émile (1844-1918): 330
Pictet, Adolphe (1799-1875): 164, 169
Pike, Albert (1809-1891): 170
Pike, Kenneth L(ee, 1912- ): 110, 441
Plato (C.427-C.347): 19, 20
Port-Royal: 53,71-73, 115, 117
Postal, Paul M(artin, 1936- ): 114, 118, 132-133
Potebnja, A(leksandr) A(fanas'evich, 1835-1891): 382
Pott, August Friedrich (1802-1887): 39, 74, 153, 162-163, 169, 172, 216, 235, 251,
310 357 358
Prichard, James C(owles, 1786-1848): 354
Priscianus (5th cent. A.D.): 19
R.
Radlof, Johann (1775-1824): 308
Radloff, Wilhelm (alias Vasilij Vasil'evich Radlov, 1837-1918): 381, 384
Ranke, Leopold (von, 1795-1886): 3, 63, 83-84, 103, 104, 134
Rapp, Karl Moritz (1803-1883): 172
Rask, Rasmus Kristian (1787-1832): 6, 21, 151, 171, 198, 274, 286, 297, 304, 305,
309,311,423,426
Raumer, Rudolf von (1815-1876): 80, 81, 305, 306, 309, 312
Raynouard, François (Marie Juste, 1761-1836): 56, 305

Reimer, Karl (August, 1804-1858): 311
Renan, Ernest (1823-1892): 325
Restaut, Pierre (1696-1764): 72
Rhode, Johann Gottlieb (1762-1827): 153, 158, 160, 161
Rhys, John (1840-1915): 350
Riedlinger, Albert (1883-1978): 38
Ritschi, Friedrich (1806-1876): 186, 356
Rolle, Friedrich (1827-1887): 226
Roose, T(heodor) G(eorg) A(gust, 1771-1803): 353
Rousseau. Jean-Jacques (1712-1778): 74
Russell, Bertrand (Arthur William, 3rd Earl Russell, 1872-1970): 103, 107
S.
Sandys, John Edwin (1844-1922): 341
Sapir, Edward (1884-1939): 34, 35, 37, 75, 208, 435
Saumaise, Claude (1588-1653): 151
Saussure, Ferdinand (Mongin) de (1857-1913): 7, 9, 10, 17, 32, 37-40, 41, 52, 53,
55, 74, 76, 95-86, 117, 240, 253, 254, 257-263 pass., 269, 326, 329, 338-339,
345, 350, 362, 390, 393, 395, 401-411 pass., 422, 424, 435-441 pass.
Sauseuil, Jean Nicolas Jouin de (fl. 1783): 255
Sayce, Archibald Hn, 1845-1933): 352-353
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm (Joseph von, 1775-1854): 74, 275, 292
Scherer, Wilhelm (1841-1886): 64, 307, 312, 313
Schiller, Friedrich (von, 1759-1805): 276
Schlegel, August Wilhelm (von, 1767-1845): 56, 72, 168, 199, 250, 275, 278, 281,
286, 295, 305, 306
Schlegel, (Carl Wilhelm) Friedrich (von, 1772-1829): 72, 133, 154, 155, 158, 160,
168, 197, 199, 247-248, 251, 269-287 pass., 294, 308, 344, 355, 377, 394
Schleicher, August (1821-1868): 4, 5, 6-7, 8-9, 10, 18, 32, 35, 41, 51, 52, 77, 79-96
pass., 133, 165, 166, 172, 182, 185-189 pass., 193, 198-203 pass., 204, 211-227
pass., 236, 237-238, 251-252, 259, 272, 287, 296, 310, 313, 317, 325-370 pass.,
378, 383, 384, 427
Schieiden, Matthias Jacob (1804-1881): 214,217, 342
Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst Daniel (1768-1834): 74
Schliemann, Heinrich (1822-1892): 293, 325
Schlözer, August Ludwig (von, 1735-1809): 171
Schmeller, Johann Andreas (1785-1852): 365
Schmidt, Johannes (1843-1901): 186, 238, 328, 331, 335, 347, 364, 418, 427
Schmitthenner, Friedrich (1796-1850): 149, 316
Scholvin, Robert (1850-1929): 418
Schuchardt, Hugo (Ernst Mario, 1842-1927): 257, 260, 283, 313, 362, 380-381
Sechehaye, (Charles) Albert (1870-1946): 38, 393, 404
Second Grammarian (12th cent. A.D.): 21-22
Sicard, Roch-Ambroise-Cucurron (1742-1822): 53, 71
Siebs, Theodor (1862-1941): 339-340
Sievers, Eduard (1850-1932): 67, 312, 418
Silvestre de Sacy, Antoine Isaac (1758-1838): 53, 71-72, 293
Skinner, F(redric) B(urrhus, 1904- ): 208
Smith, Adam (1723-1790): 272
Smith, Donald (fl. 1799): 272
Smith, Henry Lee, Jr. (1913-1974): 115

Smith, John (1747-1807): 272
Sommerfeit, Alf (Axelss0n, 1892-1965): 408,421
Spargo, John W(ebster, 1896-1956): 421
Spencer, Herbert (1820-1903): 354
Spitzer, Leo (1884-1960): 440
Stéfanini, Jean (1917-1985): 404. 406
Steinthal, H(nn, 1823-1899): 4, 6, 9, 33, 52, 73, 74, 93, 149, 157, 200, 325,
401
Streitberg, Wilhelm (August, 1864-1925): 167, 297, 417
Sumner, William Graham (1840-1910): 107
Swadesh, Morris (1909-1967): 76
Sweet, Henry (1845-1912): 65
Szemerényi, Oswald (John Louis, 1913- ): 3, 337
T.
Tarde, (Jean) Gabriel de (1843-1904): 37, 39, 41, 407
Tarski, Alfred (1902-1984): 15
Techmer, Friedrich (Heinrich Herrmann, 1843-1891): 236
ten Kate, Lambert (1674-1731): 306
Terracini, Benvenuto A(ronne, 1886-1968): 75
Terrien de la Couperie, Albert (1845-1895): 330
Theophrastus (c.350 B.C.): 49
Thomsen, Vilhelm (Ludvig Peter, 1842-1927): 5, 7, 86, 102, 303, 417, 419, 420,
423, 425
Thrax, Dionysius (c.100 B.C.): 7
Tournier, Édouard (1831-1899): 234
Trager, George L(eonard, 1906- ): 115, 127, 441
Trier, Jost (1894-1970): 75
Trnka, B(ohumil, 1895-1984): 366-367
Troitskij, M(atvej) M(ixajlovich, 1835-1889): 381
Trubetzkoy, (Prince) Nikolaj S(ergeevich, 1890-1938): 62, 63-64, 66, 404, 408
Turing, Alan Mathison (1912-1954): 137
Twaddell, W(illiam) Freeman (1906-1982): 287
U.
Uggocione da Pisa (d.1210): 19-20
Uhlenbeck, C(hristianus) C(ornelius, 1866-1955): 172
V.
Vaniček, Alois (1825-1883): 325, 336
Varro, Marcus Terentius (116-27 B.C.): 19, 20
Vater, Johann Severin (1772-1826): 73, 271, 274
Vendryes, Joseph (1875-1960): 402, 404
Verner, Karl (Adolf, 1846-1896): 79, 92, 417, 419, 426
Vinson, Julien (1843-1926): 330
Virchow, Rudolf (1821-1902): 217, 325
Voegelin, Charles ("Carl") F(rederick, 1906-1986): 75, 114, 126, 130
Vogt, Carl (1817-1895): 342
Voltaire (alias François Marie Arouet, 1694-1778): 18
Von Neumann, John (alias Hans, 1903-1957): 137
Vossler, Karl (1872-1949): 79, 194, 206-207
W.
Wackernagel, Jacob (1853-1938): 436
Wagner, Rudolf (1805-1864): 354
Wallace, Alfred Russell (1823-1913): 354
Watson, John B(roadus, 1878-1958): 207
Weber, Max (1864-1920): 57
Wedgwood, Hensleigh (1803-1891): 227
Wegener, Philipp (1848-1916): 4
Weisgerber, (Johann) Leo (1899-1984): 75
Weiss, A(lbert) P(aul, 1879-1931): 207,436
Wenker, Georg (1852-1911): 365
Wertheimer, Joseph (1833-1908): 409
Westergaard, Niels Ludvig (1815-1878): 423
Whatmough, Joshua (1897-1964): 116
Whitney, William Dwight (1827-1894): 36, 38, 39, 41, 93, 166, 200, 328, 335, 338,
339, 408-409, 438-439
Wilkins, A(ugustus) S(amuel, 1843-1905): 341
Wilkins, Charles (1749-1836): 294
Will, J(ohann) G(eorg) F(riedrich, d.1868): 354
Wilson, H(orace) H(ayman, 1786-1860): 296
Wimmer, Ludwig (1839-1920): 417,423
Windisch, Ernst (Wilhelm Oskar, 1843-1818): 418
Windisch, Karl Joseph (Hieronymus, 1775-1839): 285
Winning, William Balfour (.1800-1845): 310
Winteler, Jost (1846-1929): 61-66 pass., 92
Worms, René (1869-1926): 407
Y.
Young, Thomas (1773-1829): 154-157 pass., 161, 235
Z.
Zimmer, Heinrich (1851-1910): 154, 419
Zoëga, Georg (1775-1809): 250
Zwirner, Eberhard (1899-1984): 261
ABOUT THE AUTHOR*
Ernst Frideryk Konrad Koerner was born on 5 February 1939 in Hofleben near
Thorn, Western Prussia (now Mlewiec in Poland).
Following high school and military service in the German Air Force, he enrolled at
the University of Göttingen in the summer of 1962, studying German and English
philology, pedagogy, philosophy, and the history of art. He continued his studies at
the Freie Universität Berlin (1963-1964; B.Phil., 1965), the University of Edinburgh
(1964-1965), where he took courses in English literature and applied linguistics, and
the Justus Liebig Universität Gießen (1966-1968), where he took the State Diploma in
high school teaching and the M.A. in English and German philology in the Spring of
1968. During the 1965-1966 school year, he taught as a 'Professeur d'Allemand et
d'Anglais' at the Collège Notre-Dame in Valenciennes, France.
Having been granted a Canada Council Cultural Exchange Scholarship, he decided
to pursue his studies in North America, enrolling at Simon Fraser University in Bur-
naby (Greater Vancouver), British Columbia, in the Fall of 1968. He submitted his
dissertation on Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistic theory three years later for a Ph.D.
degree in general linguistics.
From 1972 till 1976, when he was offered an associate professorship at the Univer
sity of Ottawa, he worked as a research associate and as a research fellow (with grants
from the German Research Foundation and the Fritz Thyssen Foundation) at the Uni
versity of Texas at Austin, Indiana University, and the University of Regensburg. He
was a visiting professor at the University of Trier for two summers (1976, 1978), a
visiting research fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, Edin
burgh, Scotland (Summer 1977), and a visiting associate professor of philosophy and
linguistics at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M, to teach the history of
linguistics at the 1980 LSA Summer Institute.
E. F. Konrad Koerner is currently a Professor of General Linguistics at the
University of Ottawa and the Editor of Historiographia Linguistica, Diachronica, and
the monograph series "Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
Science".
* For a full bibliography of his writings and a detailed autobiographical sketch, see E. F. Konrad
Koerner Bibliography ed. by William Cowan & Michael K. Foster, published as no.11 of the "Arcadia
Bibliographica Virorum Eruditorum" series ed. by Gyula Décsy of Indiana University (Bloomington,
Ind.: Eurolingua, 1989).

Koerner1989 Practicing Linguistic Historiography

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Koerner1989 Practicing Linguistic Historiography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRACTICING LINGUISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHY

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND

Series III - STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE SCIENCES

Advisory Editorial Board

Ranko Bugarski (Belgrade); Jean-Claude Chevalier (Paris)

Practicing Linguistic Historiography

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

The present volume brings together a number of previously

Those conversant with 20th-century historical scholarship will

During the past ten years demands on my time both as a

In the 1978 volume Saussurean ideas loomed fairly large; in

Ottawa-Hull, 31 October 1988 Konrad Koerner

Bibliographia Saussureana 1870-1970: An annotated,

Preface & Acknowledgements vii

PART I: Methods and Models in Linguistic Historiography

PART II: Tradition and Transmission of Linguistic Notions

13. Schleichers Einfluß auf Haeckel: Schlaglichter auf die wechselseitige

PART III: Schools and Scholars in the History of Linguistics

17. Friedrich Schlegel and the Emergence of Historical-Comparative

0. The problem stated

A few years ago, Oswald Szemerényi, the distinguished Indo-European scholar,

many 20th-century writers of textbooks in the history of linguistics have done) as

1.0 Central Parts of the Argument

his work and outlook on linguistics in general, as a second-generation Junggram­

1.1 Benfey's Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft (1869)

Since Hoenigswald (1986:176-80) has given us a most insightful analysis of

1.2 Delbrück's Einleitung in das Sprachstudium (1880)

In contrast to Benfey's 837-page history of linguistics, Berthold Delbrück's

(233-246). It is true that these additions constitute a departure from previous

1.3 Pedersen's Sprogvidenskaben i det nittende Aarhundrede (1924)

In Pedersen's 1924 history, Schleicher's work in Balto-Slavic (pp.51-52, 65) re­

19th-century post-Humboldtian position.3 Likewise, Franz Nikolaus Finck (1867-

2.0 Concluding Remarks

linguistic science. In final analysis, we need not be willing accomplices in a total

Benfey, Theodor. 1869. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen

---------. 1986. "Nineteenth-Century Linguistics on Itself". Studies in the History of

[. . .] toute langue est une méthode

Das seit dem Erscheinen von Chomskys Cartesian Linguistics wiedererwachte

scher und ökonomischer Gesichtspunkte auskommen kann. Im Gegenteil, der

1. Beispiele für die Mißachtung von metasprachlichen Aspekten

1.1. Die Verwendung saussurischer Begriffe in einer Studie über mittelalterli­

1.2. Mittelalterliche und moderne Auffassungen von 'Etymologie'

Das zweite Beispiel betrifft eine andere Art terminologischen Mißverständnisses,

durch Sprachvergleich ermittelten allgemeinen Bedeutungen und enthielt sich

sprachtheoretischen Bedeutungen füllen. In der Auslegung des EGT scheinen mir

2. Schlußfolgerangen: Einige allgemeine Überlegungen zur angemesseneren

Albano Leoni, Federico

Jeder große Mann hat seinen retrospektiven

0. The problem defined

Recent years have witnessed the appearance of major studies devoted

1.0 Three Examples of 'Influence' in Linguistic Historiography

The subjects chosen for illustration of the problem of 'influence' in the

1.1 The Question of Herder's 'Influence' on Humboldt

ticular that Schleicher abandoned his early views on linguistics as part of

For example, Schleicher published two drawings of a Stammbaum in 1853

intellectual forebears should rather be sought exclusively among linguists

379), though my own research, following Godel's (1957:282) suggestions,

2.0 Concluding Remarks

As stated at the outset of this paper, much appears to hinge on the

2.2 The evidence may be stronger if textual parallels between a particular

Aarsleff, Hans. 1977. "Guillaume de Humboldt et la pensée linguistique

by Jean-Claude Pariente, 99-109. Paris: Ed. de Minuit, 1969.)

gesetzten Preis erhalten hat. Berlin: . F. Voss. (2nd ed., 1789.)

Muret, Ernest. 1915. "Ferdinand de Saussure". Ferdinand de Saussure

his work and outlook on linguistics in general, as a second-generation Junggram

In Pedersen's 1924 history, Schleicher's work in Balto-Slavic (pp.51-52, 65) re

1.1. Die Verwendung saussurischer Begriffe in einer Studie über mittelalterli

---------. 1976. 'Some Continuities and Discontinuities in the History of Lin

0. Introductory Observations. Ever since publishing my first program

------- 1987a. "Das Problem der Metasprache in der Sprachwissenschafts

I n a recent paper Henry Hoenigswald (1980) noted emphati

practiced the following principles of historical-comparative linguis

the French scholar Lucien Adam (1833 — 1918) decided t h a t lin

of Curtius). We are, therefore, justified in maintaining that, irrespec