bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Al-Jurjānī
Authors: Rammuny Raji M. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
Most of the early Arab grammarians were chiefly concerned with the description of language structure and particularly the problem of explaining the inflectional marks. Al-Jurjānī, in the fifth century AH/eleventh century AD, was the first among Arab grammarians to depart from earlier trend of linguistic analysis and to put forward a demonstrable theory for the study of language and grammar in terms of the interrelationships that bind the constituents of speech together. According to al-Jurjānī, there are three types of relationships: syntactic relationships, semantic relationships, and the relationship between syntax and semantics. This paper contains a systematic account of these syntactic-semantic interrelationships in particular, and al-Jurjānī’s approach and methodology to language and grammar in general. Our investigation is based on an intensive study of the concepts of naẓm (discourse arrangement) and taclīq (interrelationship) which al-Jurjānī discussed with ample evidence and cogent reasoning in his major work Dalā’il al-Icjāz (Illustrations of the Inimitability [of the Qur’ān]). A distinctive feature of this research is the effort made to show the connection between al-Jurjānī’s linguistic concepts and equivalent notions used in modern linguistics. The study concludes with an important fact; namely, that al-Jurjānī was one of the frontier scholars to call for the study of language on the basis of syntactic-semantic functions and as a discipline independent of grammatical regents.
Toward a religious-colonial linguistic model of early Hindi Grammars
Authors: Bhatia Tej K. 
Published: November 2010

SummaryThe aim of this paper is three-fold: to call for a re-examination of the early Hindi grammars; secondly, to demonstrate that the grammars in question follow a unique model of language which can best be characterized as the ‘religious-colonial’ model; and finally, to argue that the existing criteria used to evaluate the traditional grammars cannot be indiscriminately applied to the grammars in question and, therefore, a set of new evaluationary criteria is required to arrive at the satisfactory perception of the grammars. The grammars depart from the perception of language embodied in the traditional prescriptive grammars. Compromising between the sociological and a purely linguistic view of language, the grammars are sometimes delinquent in presenting an accurate description of the language. However, treated as socio-historical data, they constitute a rich storage of sociolinguistic information which awaits exploitation by linguists working in the area of socio- and psycholinguistics in general and Hindi linguistics in particular. The claims made in the paper are supported by the analysis of the data drawn from the three oldest grammars of Hindi, primarily, from the oldest grammar, namely, that by Joan Josua Ketelaar (1659–1785?) of 1698, and secondarily, from those of Benjamin Schultze (1689–1760) of 1745 and of Cassino Beligatti (1708–1785?) of 1771.
Stoic syntax and semantics
Authors: Egli Urs 
Published: November 2010

Summary
The Stoic theory of loquia (lekta) contained a fairly explicit statement of formation rules. It is argued that one type of rule was called syntaxis (combination or phrase structure rule) by Chrysippus (e.g., “a subject in the nominative case and a complete predicate form a statement”). Two other types of rule were assignments of words to lexical categories (“Dion is a Noun Phrase”) and subsumption rules (“Every elementary statement is a statement”), often formulated in the form of subdivisions of concepts. A fourth type of rule seems to have been the class of transformations (enklisis, e.g., “A statement transformed by the preterite transformation is a statement”). Every syntactic rule was accompanied by a semantic interpretation according to a version of the compositionality principle familiar in modern times since Frege and elaborated by Montague and his followers. Though the concrete example of a syntax was a fairly elaborate version of some sort of Montague type or definite clause grammar, there was no effort to introduce a theory of grammar in the style of Chomsky. But the texts show awareness of the problem of the infinity of structure generated and of the concept of structural ambiguity. The Stoic system has been transformed into the formulation of the Word and Paradigm Grammar of the technical grammarians – “transformation” (enklisis) was the historical antecedent of paragôgê, declinatio, “inflection”, etc. Some formulations have survived into modern times, e.g., the notion of government, for which Stoic type formulations like “a deficient predicate can be combined with a subject in the accusative case to form a complete predicate” are a historical antecedent.
Islands in the stream
Authors: Kaster Robert A. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
The Latin grammarians of late antiquity seem to personify the cultural stagnation and decline that have commonly been thought to typify the age. Resting upon conceptual foundations that had been laid centuries earlier and repeating the same doctrine from generation to generation, their texts appear by and large to be wholly untouched by originality. This paper addresses the question: why was this so? To suggest one answer to this question, the argument begins from the premise that the tradition remained as stable as it did because it continued to satisfy certain needs; the paper then goes on to consider these needs and their interaction.
First, there are the needs of the grammarians themselves. From the beginnings of the profession’s history in the first century B.C. and first century A.D., when the grammarians’ schools first emerged as distinct institutions at Rome, the grammarians’ doctrine, with its emphasis on the rational analysis of the language’s ‘nature’, provided them with the authority they needed to prescribe correct speech for the social and cultural elite that they served. Once this exercise of reason had made a place for the grammarians as relative newcomers to the world of liberal letters, the doctrine was something to be prized and defended: the vivid instruction of the late antique grammarian Pompeius shows us a man fortified and buoyed up by his profession’s tradition, eager to assert its soundness or to add an improving touch here or there – and without the least wish or incentive to attempt some fundamental innovation; for to do so would be to tamper with the honorable social position that the profession provided. At the same time, the mainstream of the educated elite – the second group whose needs must be considered – would themselves have had little reason to encourage innovation: since a liberal education, based of course on grammar, had come to be one of the most important marks of social – and even moral – status, the honorable position of the elite was as much tied as the grammarians’ to the maintenance of the traditional doctrine. As a result, when the interests of the grammarians and the educated elite met in the institution of patronage, on which all teachers depended, the stability of the tradition was reinforced: for patrons did not seek innovative brilliance in their dependents, nor did they even look primarily for technical competence; they rather looked first for traditionally valued personal qualities like modesty and diligence, and other such qualities that would tend to preserve the status quo.
Latinitas, Hellenismos, ‘Arabiyya
Authors: Versteegh Kees 
Published: November 2010

Summary
The central thesis of this paper is that from the time of the Alexandrian conquests the Greek-speaking community was characterized by a diglossia in which the Attic dialect became the standard language, while a simplified version of this dialect served as the colloquial. On the basis of a comparison between the term ϰοινή in grammatical literature and the terms διάλεϰτος, συνήϑεια, and ἑλληνισμός, the following conclusions are drawn: 1) the grammarians used the expression ϰοινή διάλεϰτος for the Greek language in general; 2) this ϰοινή was for them their own language; 3) the ϰοινή contrasted with the dialects as regional varieties; and 4) the ϰοινή did not include the colloquial. From this it follows that the Classical language remained alive as the high variety of post-Classical diglossia, which was also used in a spoken form (the συνήϑεια of the grammarians). This means that the grammatical writings cannot be used as evidence of the development of the popular language in this period.
My recollections of Leonard Bloomfield
Authors: Despres Leon M. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
As Leonard Bloomfield’s lawyer and personal friend of his family during the 1920’s and 1930’s, the author evokes memories of Bloomfield himself and his family, with emphasis on the character of his parents and the intellectual and artistic achievements of his relatives. Illustrations are given of his personality, his (often bitter), wit, and his shyness. Light is cast on hitherto little known aspects of his life, especially on his marriage, the adoption of his sons, and his wife’s mental break-down in the 1940’s. Bloomfield’s character is contrasted with that of Edward Sapir (1884–1939), whom the author also knew during the latter’s Chicago years.
Bloomfield and historical linguistics
Authors: Hoenigswald Henry M. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
Bloomfield worked in both historical and synchronic linguistics. To the former, he contributed: (1) a large amount of work in specific fields; (2) scrutiny of the nature of historical linguistic investigation; and (3) an analysis of the phenomenon of linguistic change. In his Language (1933), he did not narrate the procedures involved in synchronic investigation, nor did he set forth the steps to be followed in analysis. In his exposition of the results of diachronic linguistics, his approach was one of respect and admiration for the achievements of nineteenth-century historical linguistics. Since he accepted the (often disputed) postulate of the regularity of sound-change, he defended it by indirect persuasion in setting forth the arguments by which it is confirmed. His view of the causation of phonological and morphological change is interpreted as an anticipation of later sociolinguistics. In so doing, he restated his predecessors’ and his own insights, thereby rescuing them from the ministrations of their would-be defenders.
Bloomfield and semantics
Authors: Hall Robert A. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
Bloomfield’s position with regard to meaning and its importance in human use of language has been persistently misinterpreted. From a Wundtian, mentalistic psychology in his 1914 Introduction, he passed to a Weissian, non-mentalistic approach, as a result of which he considered it impossible to capture the totality of meaning because of its inaccessibility to scientific investigation by currently available techniques. Far from excluding considerations of meaning from our study of language, he regarded them as nevertheless essential. The author finds both Bloomfield’s and his critics’ views of the nature of meaning unsatisfactory, because they regard meaning as existent somewhere outside of the individual speaker. In this respect, Bloomfield’s point of view in his 1914 book was closer to reality than that which he expressed in his 1933 Language.
Bloomfield as an Austronesianist
Authors: Wolff John U. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
Bloomfield’s contribution to Austronesian linguistics was quantitatively small, but qualitatively of high importance. He published only one book and one article on Philippine languages. His gigantic Tagálog Texts with Grammatical Analysis (1917) is still, after seventy years, the best single source of information in existence for an Austronesian language. It exemplified a successful application of descriptive analytical method to material dictated by an informant, and as such was an important step in the development of Bloomfield’s principles of linguistic analysis. As such, it represents a major advance over his 1914 Introduction to the Study of Language. The importance and value of his Tagálog Texts have never been given fully adequate recognition. His other contribution, the short “Outline of Ilocano Syntax” (1942) is a tour de force in demonstrating the possibility of making so economical statement as to cover in less than seven pages the entire taxonomic syntax of a language.
The historiography of Dutch linguistics a diachronic introduction
Authors: Schultink H. 
Published: November 2010

SummaryAt the end of the 19th century one had, for a summarizing survey of the historiography of Dutch linguistics, to make do mainly with German sources, namely von Raumer (1870), and, explicitly based on this, Hermann Paul (1891).In the decade immediately preceding the First World War the later Utrecht professor Cornells G. N. de Vooys discussed the history of Dutch in a series of papers. It was his opinion that the practice of historical linguistics in the Netherlands fell far short of its counterpart abroad. He indicated two causes for this: a distinction which he considered dogmatic between written and spoken Dutch, and an insufficient understanding of language as a social phenomenon. Nevertheless it was not until 1931 that the first edition of de Vooys’ monographGeschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal, in hoofdtrekken geschetst(‘History of the Dutch language, an outline’) was published. In this study he also gave ample attention to the Dutch grammarians and their works. Quite rightly de Vooys’ book was reissued several times.However, after his death in 1955 the need arose for a study in which the historiography of Dutch linguistics was described in its own right. This resulted in aGeschiedenis van de Nederlandse taalkunde(‘History of Dutch linguistics’), published in 1977. This was a cooperative project of eleven authors from the Netherlands and Flanders, with Dirk M. Bakker and Gerardus R. W. Dibbets as editors. Although this book, too, has many merits, it has been remarkably little influenced by changing views with regard to the historiography of linguistics.
Über die verbreitung lexikographischer werke in den Niederlanden und ihre wechselseitige beziehungen mit dem ausland bis zum jahre 1600
Authors: Claes Frans M. W. 
Published: November 2010

SummaryThe earliest Netherlandic lexicographical works were not only strongly influenced by foreign vocabularies and dictionaries, but they also strongly influenced lexicography abroad. Adaptations of the earliest vocabularies, which mainly aimed at the learning of Latin, were produced in various countries, with the vernacular language adapted to the idiom of each country. In German speaking regions originated for instance theVocabularius Ex quo(ca. 1400), theLiber Vagatorum>(ca. 1509) and theSynonymorum Collectanea(1513) of Hieronymus Cingularius (ca. 1464–1558), and in Italian speaking regions the polyglotDilucidissimus Dictionarius(1477Introito e porta), which afterwards in the Netherlands were provided with a Netherlandic text. In the middle of the 16th century Netherlandic lexicography was strongly influenced by the already modern looking, in a humanistic spirit fashioned and very copious dictionaries of the Italian Ambrosius Calepinus (ca. 1440–1510) and the Frenchman Robert Estienne (1503–1559).But it is also true that several Netherlandic lexicographical works were adapted into other languages. There are for instance German adaptations of the Latin-Netherlandic vocabulariesGemmula Vocabulorum(1484),Vocabularius Optimus(1495),Dictionarium Gemmagemmarum(1511) andCuria Palacium(ca. 1477–85), of the topical dictionary of Petrus Apherdianus (ca. 1520–1580) and of the conversation book of Simon Verepaeus (1522–1598), there are German and Czech adaptations of the topical dictionary of Johannes Murmellius (1480–1517) and German and English adaptations of the synonym dictionary of Simon Pelegromius (ca. 1507–1572). In the Netherlands originated polyglot works, such as the Vocabulare (ca. 1530) of Noel de Berlaimont (died 1531), the Nomenclator (1567) of Hadrianus Junius (1511–1575), as well as theCalepinus Pentaglottos(1545), experienced a large international diffusion.This survey suggests that the initial phase of lexicography in Western and Central European languages can only be adequately understood if seen within an international context.
Dutch philology in the 16th and 17th century
Authors: Dibbets Geert R. W. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
Within a hundred years the first Dutch vernacular orthographies and grammars were published in the Netherlands, as contributions to the cultivation of the language. In a number of these books the authors assumed the independence of the several Dutch dialects; in other publications we find the tendency towards a cultivated language, or we see that the authors started from the existence of a Refined Standard Dutch. However that may be the orthographists and grammarians aimed at the cultivation of written and spoken Dutch.
Generally the grammarians did not pay much attention to two traditional areas of the grammar: orthographia and prosodia, but the etymologia was stressed: the theory of the parts of speech, and – to a lesser degree – the syntaxis.

The influence of Latin grammar on Dutch was enormous, but could not prevent particularly van Heule (1633) and Leupenius (1653) from following their own course, for the most part within the traditional framework. In doing so the grammarians based themselves on the language usage, in which the nature of the language was given a concrete form.
Gerardus Joannes Vossius (1577–1649) and the study of Latin grammar
Authors: Rademaker Cornelis S. M. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
Gerardus Joannes Vossius (1577–1649) published his De arte grammatica libri septem in 1635. From the second edition in 1662 the work became known as Vossius’s Aristarchus. This important Latin grammar of Vossius, and also his other publications devoted to Latin, have their particular place in the evolution of grammatical studies in the 17th century. Vossius’s works were used in the first place because in them he had given a complete survey and systematization of all the scholarly information concerning Latin existing up to his own days. Neoscholastic Aristotelism was the philosophical basis of his treatment with Latin language and grammar. However, we find at the same time in Vossius’s work sometimes hints at a new approach to the study of Latin grammar. He followed in many respects the new directions pointed out by men like Scaliger and Sanctius. Thus, on the one hand, Vossius stood in the Humanist tradition of his day while, on the other, his work could be used profitably also by the Port-Royal grammarians and other philologist of the late 17th and 18th centuries. Following an appraisal of Vossius’s place in the Humanist tradition and of the contribution he made in his Aristarchus, the paper deals at some length with the analogy principle as used by Vossius and his successors. It concludes with sections on the evolution of grammatical ideas in the 17th and early 18th centuries marked especially by the tradition associated with the works of Sanctius, Vossius, and Port-Royal.
Anglo-Dutch linguistic scholarship
Authors: Salmon Vivian 
Published: November 2010

SummaryAlthough political, social and cultural relationships between 17th-century England and the Netherlands have inspired several books and articles, no general account has yet been produced of the linguistic achievements, academic and applied, which resulted to a large extent from the common personal interests of English and Dutch scholars of the period. This brief survey attempts to present such an account, beginning with the linguistic problems which beset religious refugees in both countries, and their attempted solutions – more especially for the Dutch in England. This and other topics referred to here have already been discussed elsewhere on an individual basis; by considering them together in a single paper, it is hoped to demonstrate that the results of Anglo-Dutch linguistic collaboration were worthy to be compared with achievements in other and better-known fields.
Tenses in 19th-century Dutch sentence-grammar
Authors: Loux-Schuringa J. A. Le 
Published: November 2010

Summary
In this paper some theories on tenses are described. These theories appeared in the Netherlands in the first half of the 19th century. The purpose is not just describing the different tense-systems of P. Weiland (1805), W. Bilderdijk (1826), W. G. Brill (1846) and L. A. te Winkel (1866). In the first half of the 19th century some fundamental changes took place. It is shown that these changes are based upon continuity of research of time and tense in the Dutch tradition. This continuity is found on three levels: (a) The research was concentrated on the verbal forms, no other information from the sentence was used. (b) The grammarians took the relationship between linguistic forms and logical categories as a one-to-one relation. (c) The morphological form of the Dutch language determined the grammatical representation of the tense-systems more and more.
Hoogvliet Versus Van Ginneken
Authors: Noordegraaf Jan 
Published: November 2010

Summary
In the last two decades of the 19th century the Dutch linguist Jan Marius Hoogvliet (1860–1924) developed an individual approach to non-historical linguistics, in which he sought to take expressly into account data from non-Indo- European languages. His linguistic views prompted him to attack the ideas of the proponents of the ‘world language’ Volapük, which was popular in the Netherlands in the 1880s. In 1903 his major work, Lingua, appeared. This book can aptly be characterized as a specimen of a universal grammar with psychological underpinnings; it was intended as a grammar for all languages in the world.
Hoogvliet’s main opponent, Jacobus van Ginneken (1877–1945) considered Lingua ‘a good book’, but he found various serious shortcomings in it. First, he thought the empirical bases too narrow; second, whereas Hoogvliet had based his thinking on rational psychology, van Ginneken preferred pathological psychology as put forward by Pierre Janet (1859–1947) in his L’automatisme psychologique (1889). Van Ginneken’s Principes de linguistique psychologique (1907) can be regarded as an elaboration on his Lingua review from 1903. However, the works of Hoogvliet and van Ginneken do have several points in common: both start from the psyche of the speaking individual and both take into account data from non-Indo-European languages. The controversy that arose between them can be traced back to their different views of language. Hoogvliet considered an unconscious and invariable ‘Normallogik’ to be the kernel of language, whereas van Ginneken regarded feeling as the innermost essence of language.
While van Ginneken still tried to incorporate the results of German historical comparative grammar into a grand, historically coloured synthesis, Hoogvliet’s writings were characterized by very sharp anti-German tones. The universal, logical classification of the parts of speech expounded in Lingua must be regarded as a direct reaction to Hermann Paul’s (1846–1921) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (1880). Moreover, Hoogvliet defended the scientific character of a non-historical approach of language against Paul. With that he is the most remarkable Dutch synchronic linguist of the last quarter of the 19th century. Hoogvliet’s theory, however, was highly idiosyncratic and many a reader was also repelled by his new and unconventional terminology. Only few linguists, among whom the Dutch structuralist Hendrik J. Pos (1898–1955), have studied Hoogvliet’s views thoroughly later on.