bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Dutch dialectology
Authors: Hagen Anton M. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
This paper presents an historical sketch of Dutch dialectology in a twofold perspective: the national perspective, in which dialectology is an integral part of the study of Dutch, and the international perspective, in which Dutch dialectology participates in international developments in the field. The period until 1880 has a clearly self-centered orientation; especially in the 19th century, dialects are viewed as a part of the national heritage. The German and French schools in linguistic geography are used as examples in the period of the emergence of scientific Dutch dialectology (1880–1930); after pioneering work at the turn of the century, it takes until the twenties before a good infrastructure for dialect research is built up. Two of the promotors from that period, Jac. van Ginneken (1877–1945) and Gesinus G. Kloeke (1887–1963), receive special attention for their remarkable sociolinguistic contributions to dialectology. The period 1930–1960 is one of consolidation and of fundamental reflections upon the history and the differentiation of Dutch, as can be seen from different types of studies (basic projects, regional dialect studies, diffusion studies, contact studies). The most recent period since 1960 again displays a more international character as is demonstrated with reference to structural, generative, and sociolinguistic dialect studies.
Also Ran
Authors: Salmon Paul B. 
Published: November 2010

SummaryJohann Gottfried Herder’s (1744–1803)Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprachewas published in 1772 after winning a prize competition instituted by the Berlin Academy of Sciences for an essay to determine whether or how man, left to his own devices, could devise language for himself. The work was hastily written in the last weeks of 1770 in order to meet the closing date, and its diction and form bear the marks of hurried composition. Alhough it is generally considered to be a seminal work on its subject, it is anything but academic, and some critics have even gone so far as to regard it as a lampoon at the expense of the Academy by showing its question to be a ‘non-question’. At all events, the argumentation of theAbhandlungis not without its weak points; and it is interesting in this light to examine the work of others of the 30 entrants to the competition, who published their essays anonymously about the time when Herder’s work appeared, or a little later.The present paper traces the main lines of the arguments of three of these essays; and it emerges that Herder’s was not the only one to establish the importance of the distinctive feature(Merkmal)in identifying an object. The more cautious contestants, however, looked upon theMerkmalas an indispensable first step in creating a name; this in turn was to become an initial stage in language. They portrayed the origin of language as a continuous process rather than a sudden discovery by emphasizing the progressive development of abstraction or by examining the means by which the association between words and objects was established within communities. Herder’s rivals, however, do not take account of views expressed before their time, as Herder does in the prize-winning essay, nor do they stress, as he does, that language is necessarily a product of human ingenuity. Nevertheless, Herder was not the only competitor to make an original and positive contribution to the debate, and the essays examined here, too, throw valuable light on a problem which exercised scholars in the 18th century, and in which the 20th has shown renewed interest in the light of enhanced knowledge of linguistics, physiology and ethology.
Some remarks on the origin of ‘assimilation’ and ‘dissimilation’ in linguistic terminology
Authors: Grotsch Klaus 
Published: November 2010

Summary
The paper attempts to reconstruct when and by whom the terms ‘assimilation’ and ‘dissimilation’ were used for the first time in an expressly linguistic context, and thus became part of the scientific nomenclature. In the case of ‘dissimilation’, it may be said that it received wide currency through A. F. Pott’s use of the term in volume II of his Etymologische Forschungen in 1836. However, Pott used ‘dissimilation’ as early as 1832 and it appears that he was the introducer of the term into linguistics. The history of the term ‘assimilation’ goes further back than has thus far been assumed. Franz Bopp made use of it in 1824, and Jacob Grimm used it earlier in the second edition of volume I of his Deutsche Grammatik (1822) and even two years earlier in a letter to Karl Lachmann. It would appear, however, that the original source of ‘assimilation’ was Rasmus Rask’s Vejledning til det Islandske eller gamle Nordiske Sprog (1811), in which the term is frequently used. Grimm reviewed the book in 1812. Yet there is no indication in Rask’s writings that he considered himself the coiner or first user of ‘assimilation’ in linguistics.
CONSIGNIFICARE and ΠPOƩƩHMAINEIN
Authors: Rosén Hannah 
Published: November 2010

Summary

Consignificare is used in Modistic writings to express both the concept of signifying only in context and that of signifying in addition to another element. This fusion of meanings, distinct and unassociated in the corresponding Greek terms of συσσημαίνειν and ποσσημαίνειν, had come about already in the sixth century, when – as is evident from Boethius’ commentaries on Aristotle – πϱοσσημαίνειν was radically reinterpreted: while it originally meant “to mark with” or “to indicate”, this compound came to be understood as “to indicate additionally”, having been used exclusively in conjunction with accidental properties. However, a literal translation of πϱοσσημαίνειν, reflecting exactly Aristotle’s purport of the term, is extant in Varronian adsignificare.
Rasmus Kristian Rasks Konzeption Einer Welthilfssprache
Authors: Rück Heribert , Sakaguchi Alicja 
Published: November 2010

SummaryApart from his numerous works in comparative linguistics, Rasmus Kristian Rask (1787–1832) is also the author of a manuscript in which he sets forth in detail his conception of a universal auxiliary language. Written during 1819–1820, this 72-page treatise, entitledOptegnelser til en Pasigraphie,has been neglected by linguistic research up to the present, in part because it remained in manuscript form. Rask’s draft of a planned language is divided into three sections: (1) The grammatical system and basic vocabulary; (2) numerous examples of word-formation, morphology etc. and (3) samples of texts. Rask deplores the waste of energy resulting from the multiplicity of languages in international communication. In his opinion, many intellectual achievements are lost or cannot be further developed owing to lack of exchange facilities. Instead of having to learn words and structures, people should be placed in a position to tackle the subject matter. The practical aim of linguistic studies should therefore be the creation of an international means of communication to be used in the field of science as well as in every-day life. Important postulates of such a conception would be: improved learnability by means of simplification of grammatical structures, consistency in word-formation and easy articulation for people of different language communities. To conform to these aims, Rask decided to create a system mainly on the basis of romance languages, i.e., Latin, Spanish, French and Portugese, complemented by Greek and English. Rask’s essay presents a hitherto unknown type of planned language, commonly described as ‘naturalistic’. Whereas other aposterioric systems like Esperanto give priority to regularity and logic and are therefore called ‘autonomous’, Rask tries to remain faithful to the results of historical evolution. In that respect, Rask’s project resembles Otto Jespersen’s ‘Novial’, which was to be conceived a century later.
Rhetoric as a methodological basis for 17th-century linguistics
Authors: Vagle Wenche 
Published: November 2010

Summary
The purpose of this paper is to throw light on the role of rhetoric as a methodological basis for 17th-century linguistics through a Danish case study. After a presentation of the Danish grammarian Peder Syv (16311702) and the main ideas of his text Nogle Betenkninger om det Cimbriske Sprog (Some Reflections on the Cimbric Language), of 1663, a brief characterization of the rhetorical tradition is given with special emphasis on invention and its topical method of inquiry. Through an analysis of the argumentation in Syv’s text it is found that the author employs topic inquiry as his fundamental method of investigation, and that his line of argument relies on rhetorical evidence of all three kinds: ethos, pathos, and logos. In conclusion, it is suggested that the sociological theory of rationalization offers an explanation as to why we as modern readers have difficulties appreciating the rhetorical method.
Greenlandic in comparison
Authors: Plank Frans 
Published: November 2010

Summary
The first descriptive grammar of Greenlandic Eskimo was published in 1760 by Paul Egede, continuing the work of his father, Hans, and his missionary collaborator, Albert Top. Curiously, however, the comparative study of Greenlandic had already been inaugurated in 1745, when Marcus Wöldike (1699–1750), professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen, read a remarkable paper to the Kiøbenhavnske Selskab af Lœrdoms of Videnskabers Elskere, published next year in the proceedings of that Society. Based on information obtained from the Egedes, Wöldike presented a grammar of Greenlandic in summary form and compared Greenlandic to about two dozen other languages on some sixty phonological, morphological, and syntactic criteria. As it turned out, Greenlandic was rather similar to Hungarian, sharing with it a great many features (especially such as Hungarian did not share with European languages such as Icelandic, Norwegian, Danish, English, German, Irish, Welsh, Breton, Latin, Italian, French, Ancient Greek, and Slavonic) and showing preciously few differences. American languages, represented by Tupi, Carib, Huron, Natick, and Algonkin, were found to differ considerably from Greenlandic; and Hebrew, Arabic, and Turkish did not much better. Lapp and Finnish came out as close structural relatives of Hungarian – which amounted to the first published demonstration of the Finno-Ugric hypothesis, antedating Saj-novics’s of 1770 and Gyarmathi’s of 1799. For Wöldike the large-scale agreements especially between Greenlandic and Hungarian were no inexplicable chance coincidences. The explanation he suggested was not typological, drawing on necessary correlations of the structural features shared, but historical. Rather than positing a common Ursprache, as was and continued to be the fashion, however, he invoked diffusion within a Sprachbund, localized, somewhat vaguely, in Tartary, from where the Greenlanders and Hungarians (and Lapps and Finns too) had supposedly migrated to their present habitats.
Sir George Cornewall Lewis
Authors: Posner Rebecca 
Published: November 2010

Summary
George Cornewall Lewis (1806–1863) was a Liberal statesman who attained high office, but whose interest in the ‘new philology’ was maintained throughout his life, although he also wrote extensively on politics and history. His most interesting philological work is an Essay on the For- mation of the Romance Languages (1835) which predates the more famous 4-volume Grammar, by Friedrich Diez (1794–1876), which appeared during 1836–1844, and which advances the hypothesis that a creolization process was responsible for the change of Latin to Romance, rejecting as unsubstantiated Diez’s suggestion that a popular Latin was at the origin of the Romance languages. Lewis’s work on Romance is placed in the context of the development of the study of modern languages at Oxford University, and of the ‘new philology’ which was gaining ground in intellectual circles in 19th-century Britain.
Langue and parole or only parole?
Authors: Antal László 
Published: November 2010

Summary
Inspired by an excellent article of J. Hewson (1976), this short paper points out some negative consequences of the fact that the Saussurean dichotomy of langue and parole has never received wider acceptance in American linguistics. The negligence of this important distinction has culminated in Chomsky’s astonishing proposition (1986) according to which the notion of ‘language’ is unimportant and dispensable. Such a view would in effect lead to the elimination of the proper object of linguistics. Language (langue) cannot be defined as the totality of utterances, in the same way, as human legs cannot be defined as the totality of the steps, which will be made by them. The understanding of important phenomena (e.g., language learning and linguistic change) is impossible without the notion of a social code (langue) and its individual use (parole). Necessarily, the denial of langue results in an increased proposition of ‘explanations’, that are empirically unverifiable. The notion ‘natural language’ cannot be derived from the speakers’ subjective knowledge of this language; every attempt to this effect must remain incurably circular.
The first quarter century of the Linguistic Society of America, 19240–1949
Authors: Murray Stephen O. 
Published: November 2010

SummaryThe Linguistic Society of America was founded in 1925 by scholars trained in traditional philological methods but more interested in building a science of linguistics than in literary studies.Language, the official journal of the new society became an organ for structural descriptions of sound systems of diverse languages. The Linguistic Institute, a summer training program, speeded diffusion of the new structuralist methods. Focus on native speech rather than on literary texts was a hallmark of the ‘application’ of structuralist linguistics to the teaching of languages in military intensive language programs during the Second World War, and in some academic programs (notably at Cornell University) after the war. After the warLanguageexpanded, and a number of other linguistics journals began publishing. The extent to which these other journals were complements and the extent to which they were rivals remains controversial. Patterns of publications follow lines of theoretical divergence within what is sometimes mistakenly regarded as a neo-Bloomfieldian monolith. It is argued that the self-annuling prestige of the linguistic analyst in the process of language learning contributed to the difficulty of establishing a profession based on ‘the science of language’ in the late 1940s and through the 1950s. The analytical role of native speakers in the Bloomfieldian tradition is contrasted with that in the Sapirian tradition.
The Linguistic Society of America and North American Linguistics, 1950–1968
Authors: Hill Archibald A. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
The author, Secretary-Treasurer of the Linguistic Society of America during the crucial phase of the post-World War II growth of linguistics as an autonomous academic speciality, 1950–1968, reports on the events that shaped the LSA and the discipline in North America in general. Whereas the Society counted only 829 members, individual and institutional, in 1950, the total number had risen to 4,375 by 1968. The author narrates, in a year-by-year manner, the acitivities that held the Society together during this period and furthered the exchange of ideas among the different generations of linguists, namely, (1) the annual meetings, traditionally held at the end of December, at which both established scholars and fledgling researchers presented papers and had them discussed; (2) the annual summer institutes, first held for a number of years in a row at the University of Michigan and subsequently at several other campuses in the United States, and (3) the publication of Language, the Society’s organ, ably edited by Bernard Bloch from 1941 until his death in 1965.
Bloomfield’s revisions of Language (1933)
Authors: Smith Sidney R. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
Leonard Bloomfield’s Language (1933), a milestone in 20th-century linguistics, was revised for the British edition of 1935 to accommodate British English readers. A slightly revised American edition also appeared beginning in 1941. However, no edition following the original publication fully reflects Bloomfield’s wish for more extensive additions and corrections, no doubt because the publishers did not want any resetting of type that would alter pagination and require considerable revision of the whole book. But Bloomfield’s extensive additions and corrections are recorded in notes which he wrote in the margins of a copy owned by his student and junior colleague, John G. Kunstmann (1894–1988). The present article, based on these notes, presents those changes and additions which the author deems of greatest value as improvements in Bloomfield’s treatise. Purely stylistic changes are not included. In general, the modifications amount to clarification of concepts and correction of flawed examples rather than a shift in theoretical positions.
Richard Johnson
Authors: Biletzki Anat 
Published: November 2010

SummaryThe grammarians of 16th, 17th, and 18th century England were, in the main, conservative, but the elements of continuity and change characteristic of these times make for a strange blend of uniformity and variety in the grammars they produced. Of all the grammatical categories, the treatment ofmoodis most hesitant, variable, and problematic. Building on this confusion, and taking a cue from the modern discussion of mood which lends itself to pragmatic analysis, the paper asks about pragmatics in the treatment of mood in earlier periods. In this it is claimed that although numerous hints and inklings provide evidence of some pragmatic tendencies, only one grammarian, Richard Johnson, in theGrammatical Commentariesof 1706, comes close to an explicit rendering of moods akin to speech acts and based on language use. His theory of moods is presented and analyzed; it is seen to formulate theoretical, pragmatic principles for moods and, furthermore, to apply such principles in the detailed analysis of specific moods. Johnson emerges as unique in his time for his treatment of moods, but obviously still limited by its conceptual frameworks.
The Place of G. F. Stout’s “Thought and Language” (1891) in the History of English Semantics
Authors: Nerlich Brigitte 
Published: November 2010

Summary
This article is intended to fill a gap in the history of semantics and the history of the psychology of language in England at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. The work of the psychologist and philosopher George Frederick Stout (1860–1944) is analysed, focusing on an article on ‘thought and language’, published in 1891. In this article Stout proposes a new theory and typology of signs – his contribution to semiotics. He also puts forward a new definition of language as a system of signs and an instrument of communication. Finally, he develops a new conception of word meaning, sentence meaning and meaning in discourse, based on the notion of ‘apperception’. He compares his concept of meaning and meaning change with that of Hermann Paul and uses it to criticize the latters definitions of usual and occasional meaning.
La Particule Làkinna vue par un Grammairien Arabe du XIIIe Siècle
Authors: Larcher Pierre 
Published: November 2010

Résumé
Cet article se veut une double contribution matérielle et méthodologique à une histoire bien comprise de la linguistique. Partant de la description, de nature pragmatique, donnée de la particule lākinna par le grammairien Radī l-dīn al-’Astarābāḏī (XIIIe siècle), nous montrons en 2 que, par le biais de l’interprétation qu’en propose ce grammairien (lākinna = ‘istadraktu, où ’istadraktu est un verbe à la lère personne), elle s’inscrit en fait dans le cadre d’une véritable théorie générale, elle-même de nature pragmatique, où fa’altu représente la formalisation d’un objet dont la catégorie de ’inšā (= “création”) constitue la conceptualisation. En 3, enfin, nous montrons que l’utilisation d’un texte ‘marqué’ par rapport à la grammaire arabe ‘moyenne’ permet non seulement de faire l’histoire de celle-ci, mais encore de représenter des nuances importantes entre groupes de grammairiens, voire d’un grammairien à l’autre.
Berkeley’s Theory of Meaning
Authors: Land Stephen K. 
Published: November 2010

Summary
Recent scholars disagree over whether Berkeley’s theory of meaning constitutes a radical departure from Locke in the direction of current philosophy of language or offers no real alternative to the semantics of Locke’s Essay concerning Human Understanding. Berkeley agrees with Locke that linguistic meaning consists in the transmission of ideas from speaker to hearer by means of words, but he does not accept the Lockean account of this transmission. Specifically he departs from Locke at two fundamental points: he insists that ideas themselves have meanings and stand in need of interpretation, and he holds that the meanings of ideas may vary with the contexts in which they occur. To accommodate Berkeley’s principle of contextual meaning the account of communication must relate not individual ideas to individual words but strings of ideas to strings of words. Words and ideas, moreover, are not isomorphic as Locke implies they are: Berkeley indicates in particular the cases of general terms and names for spiritual substances, for neither of which Corresponding ideas can be discovered. To accommodate such cases within the general theory that meaning depends upon corresponding ideas an encoding process must be introduced into the account of the verbal transmission of ideas, a process whereby verbal structures including such terms as universals and names for spirits can be related to different ideational structures in which no such terms appear. The conclusion is that Berkeley accepts from Locke the fundamental principle that meaning depends upon corresponding ideas in the mind but that he holds this relation of correspondence to be much more complex than Locke allowed: in particular Berkeley introduces structural considerations by abandoning the traditional view that words and ideas correspond on a one-to-one basis, and he requires the mind to perform certain interpretative encoding procedures in translating between verbal and ideational structures.
English in Latin Guise
Authors: Enkvist Nils Erik 
Published: November 2010

Summary
The balance between Latin and English in 16th and 17th-century school grammars is of particular interest in the light of textbooks such as Joshua Poole’s English Accidence (1646), which could be described as a grammar of Latin entirely in English. The aim of such books was to make the study of Latin grammar easier for beginners. But the classroom procedures they reflect must also have added precision to the pupils’ views of the structural differences between Latin and English, and contributed to the pupils’ understanding of the structure of their mother tongue.