<!-- image -->

## BETWEEN LINGUISTIC GEOGRAPHY AND STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUGENIO COSERIU'S VARIATIONAL APPROACH IN THE 1950S

Viggo Bank Jensen University of Copenhagen vbj@hum.ku.dk

Lorenzo Cigana University of Copenhagen lorenzo.cigana@hum.ku.dk

## Abstract

Abstract. In this paper, we follow the development of Coseriu's conceptual tools for variational linguistics during the 1950s. Our starting point is Pisani's notion of 'isogloss', which Coseriu initially regarded as a core idea for his own approach and yet progressively abandoned in favour of the more structuralist-oriented notion of 'functional language', adopted in the wake of Louis Hjelmslev's framework, through Leiv Flydal's mediation. Finally, we speculate about the reasons and the implications of Coseriu's failing to acknowledge Uriel Weinreich as an important source for variational linguistics.

Keywords: variational  linguistics,  functional  linguistics,  diasystems,  Coseriu, Hjelmslev, Flydal, Weinreich

## 1. Introduction

The aim of this paper is to follow the genesis and evolution of Coseriu's variational framework, focusing on three main sources: Sistema, norma y habla (1952), La  geografía  lingüística (1955)  and Los  conceptos  de 'dialecto',  'nivel'  y  'estilo  de  lengua'  y  el  sentido  propio  de  la dialectología (1981/1958). Our  first approach  deals with Coseriu's understanding and utilisation of the term 'isogloss' (§ 1) and its theoretical underpinning. We will then investigate how, and possibly why, the concept of a 'system of isoglosses', adopted by Coseriu after Pisani, is gradually replaced by the ideas of 'language architecture' and 'functional language'

Wellentheorie Schmidt (1843-1901)

Isoglosses

Ascoli (1829-1907)

Bielenstein (1826-1907)

Schuchardt (1842-1927)

Diasystems Weinreich (1926-1967)

Architecture Flydal (1904-1983)

(§§  2-4).  Finally  (§  5)  we  will  discuss  the  historical  and  theoretical relationship between  Coseriu's  variational  linguistics  and  three  key concepts that lie at its core -'connotation', 'architecture', and 'diasystems' - developed respectively by Louis Hjelmslev (1899-1965), Leiv Flydal (1904-1983), and Uriel Weinreich (1926-1967).

An overview of the conceptual migration can be summarised as follows (Figure1):

Figure 1

<!-- image -->

## 2. The notion of 'isogloss' and its issues

As is well known, nineteenth-century historical and comparative linguistics relied heavily upon a branching model of linguistic evolution called the ' Stammbaum theory', in which the Indo-European languages made up the prototype. This was especially popularised by August Schleicher (18211868), who saw the individual languages as a sort of autonomous organism whose development was directed by internal laws of birth, life (branching into particular historically attested languages), and death (Schleicher 186162, 1863). During the last decades of the nineteenth century, this vision of language evolution was challenged by the 'wave model', introduced in 1872  by  Johannes  Schmidt  (1843-1901).  According  to  this  model, linguistic  change  was  to  be  conceptualised  as  a  progressive  circular expansion  of  a  given  linguistic  feature  (or  a  combination  of  multiple features) from the geographical region of its first adoption across wider

Pisani (1899-1990)

Historical language areas,  spreading  across  clusters  of  dialects.  A  second  blow  to  the Stammbaum theory was imparted from the domain of dialect geography and  two  main  theoretical  outputs.  The  first  one  was  the  idea  of  the 'isophone', coined by Graziadio Isaia Ascoli (1829-1907) in 1873. It was composed  in  analogy  to  conceptually  close  terms  such  as  'isobar'  and 'isotherm',  and  designated  an  ideal  locus  of  identity  within  a  broader spectrum of phonetic phenomena (usually pronunciation). The second one was the idea of the 'isogloss', introduced by the Latvian pastor August Johannes Gottfried Bielenstein (1826-1907) in his 1892 Die Grenzen des lettischen Volksstammes und der lettischen Sprache in der Gegenwart und im  13.  Jahrhundert,  ein  Beitrag  zur  ethnologischen  Geographie  und Geschichte Russlands (cf.  Trudgill  &  Chamber 1998;  Nitina  2011:239). The intention was to chart spoken dialects of the region by drawing an ideal boundary between the use vs the non-use of a given linguistic feature (such as the pronunciation of a vowel, the meaning of a word, or the use of some morphological or syntactic  feature).  As  such,  an  isogloss  also  maps  the difference  between  these  variations  onto  a  geographical  territory,  thus serving as a differentiation parameter.

Despite its  rather  intuitive  character  and  easy  implementation,  the notion of the 'isogloss' is not exempt from ambiguity. It does not only represent an ideal boundary distinguishing two (or more) different areas in relation to different features, it may also be interpreted as a line connecting different  features  that  concur  in  identifying  and  circumscribing  a  given linguistic tradition, system, or community. This ambiguity is well known; c.f., for example, Trudgill & Chambers 1998:89:

Presumably, the word is intended to convey the fact that a line drawn across a  region  will  show  two  areas  on  either  side  which  share  some  aspect  of linguistic usage but which disagree with each other. Dialectologists have used the term in two slightly different ways, with the result that the isogloss has been represented graphically in two different ways:

A

1) (

) O

Map 7-1. A single line A separates the region where feature A is found from the region

where its counterpart O is found. Line A is an isooLoss

B

<!-- image -->

Map 7-2. Two lines separate the regions where 4 and O are found. The lines link

speakers with feature A (line B) and those with feature O (line C). The two

lines fonn a HETEROGLOSS

<!-- image -->

It is not by chance that the term 'heterogloss' was suggested (see Map 7-2 above), in an attempt to distinguish between the two concepts and resolve the ambiguity.

The issue is not purely terminological, but primarily conceptual, and its implications are far-reaching: isoglosses are instrumental in pinpointing individual  phenomena,  or  even  individual  instantiations  of  a  single linguistic  feature,  yet  they  are  scarcely  able  to  address  a  collection  of phenomena in terms of classes or systems . In fact, one could claim that it was this ambiguity, built into the very concept of the isogloss, which urged

A

Coseriu to choose a more structurally oriented interpretation of linguistic variation. In 1952, Coseriu still vacillated between two poles:

1. the  concrete  view  of  language  as  only  existing  in  the  acts  of  the speakers  -  the  latter,  in  turn,  being  conceived  as  the  source  of language, per se, not only of the innovative elements introduced to it. In Italy, this view gained momentum in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a way of countering the push towards the institution of a national  standard,  as  theorised  by  Italian  literates,  most  notably Manzoni (cf. De Mauro 1970:46 ff.), and it was endorsed by Benedetto Croce (1866-1952) who never ceased to stress the role of individuals as the only reality of language (see above);
2. the structural view of language, centred on the description of linguistic units as forming a system of possibilities, to be selected and realised by  speakers.  As  representatives  of  that  view,  Coseriu  singles  out Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  and  Louis  Hjelmslev,  the  latter  a  direct follower of Humboldt in this regard (see Coseriu 1973/1954:175).

Both views have advantages and shortcomings. The intrinsic risk of the structural interpretation of language - a risk of which Coseriu was well aware - is that of losing connection with empirical data, i.e. the concrete linguistic acts ( Sprechakt, actes de parole, linguistic act ), instead offering an  overly  abstract  rendering  of  linguistic  phenomena.  The  concrete interpretation of language, while being able to capture concrete data, falls short  with  regard  to  conceptualising  them  in  a  cohesive  way,  i.e.  as belonging to an overarching entity (be it a dialect or a national language). Language  itself  is  then  bound  to  dissolve  into  a  mass  of  mutually disconnected facts, leading to an 'atomization' (Sp. atomización )  of  its very object (Coseriu 1955:68; see Mancini 2008).

We argue that Coseriu tried  to  resolve  the  gap  between  the  two positions  by  moving  (chronologically  as  well  as  logically)  towards  the latter,  thus  changing  his  way  of  conceiving  linguistic  variation  itself.  In what  follows,  we  trace  the  elaboration  of  Coseriu's  original  idea  of historical language as a 'system of isoglosses' into his theory of linguistic variation, including the so-called 'dia-concepts' and the idea of 'functional language'.

The change in Coseriu's concepts might be understood in connection to an inbuilt  dialectic  between individual facts  (like  the  ones  captured  by isoglosses) vs general facts. If isoglosses were a way to avoid acknowledging the existence of an overarching system, only a systematic collection  of  isoglosses  could  tackle  language  as  a  totality  begging description: the system, expelled through the front door, was likely to reenter  the  room  through  the  back  door  as  an  unavoidable  foothold  for linguistic analysis.

## 3. Combining the two approaches

In Coseriu's Sistema, norma y habla (1952), the oscillation between the two  abovementioned  positions  is  clear  and  palpable.  The  systemic alternative is fleshed out more consistently by Coseriu, inspired by Louis Hjelmslev's theory (see above). He conceived a layered model of different levels of abstraction:

The system presents  itself  […]  as  an  abstract  entity,  'a  network  of functions' 1  […] The system is a system of possibilities or coordinates that indicate  open  and  closed  paths  [...]  it  only  requires  that  the  functional conditions of the linguistic instrument are not affected. (Coseriu 1952:5859; our translation) 2

The norm is  […]  a  system  of  forced  realisations,  of  social  and  cultural impositions. (Coseriu 1952:59; our translation) 3

Yet he also maintained his focus on the role of the concrete speaker's act, or habla (Saussurean parole ),  in  the  flow  of  discourse.  This  was  not without a slight reformulation, however. To account for this, we return to the years Coseriu spent in Italy.

1 Coseriu (1952:7, 14) introduces this as Hjelmslev's notion. Coseriu (1952) does not give any precise reference to a Hjelmslev work but quotes two renderings of Hjelmslev's ideas, and these constitute the starting point of the book. For more details, see Bank Jensen (2021:106-110).

2 'El sistema se presenta […] como una entidad abstracta, 'una red de funciones' […] El s istema es sistema de posibilidades, de coordinadas que indican los caminos abiertos y los caminos cerrados […] exige que no se afecten las condiciones funcionales del instrumento lingüístico'.

3 'La norma es  […] un sistema de realizaciones obligadas, de imposiciones sociales y culturales'.

During his stay from 1940 to 1950 - the year in which Coseriu left for  Montevideo  (Uruguay)  -  he  prepared  several  of  his  most  important works, the first being Sistema, norma y habla , which, however, was only published  in  1952.  Quite  at  odds  with  the  structuralist  approach  which Coseriu was refining and implementing in the book, the Italian influence remains  apparent  and  stems  mostly  from  Benedetto  Croce  and  Vittore Pisani.

The Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce focused very much on the linguistic  creativity  of  the  individual  subject  -  a  line  of  thought  that dominated  the  Italian  panorama  of  humanities,  linguistics  included,  for several decades:

Language [...] is perpetual creation [...]. The continual new impressions give birth to continuous mutations of sounds and meanings, that is: to ever-new expressions. To look for a model language is, thus, to look for immutability within motion. Everyone speaks, and must speak, according to the echoes that  things  awaken  in  his  own  psyche,  that  is:  according  to  his  own impressions.  (Croce  1965/1902:164,  quoted  in  De  Mauro  1970:49;  our translation) 4

While  Croce  represented,  so  to  speak,  the  theoretical  climate  in  which Coseriu was immersed, Vittore Pisani (1899-1990) played a decisive role in  his  education.  Before  his  leaving  for  Montevideo,  Coseriu  attended several  meetings  of  the Sodalizio  Glottologico  Milanese ,  founded  by Vittore Pisani in 1948, and borrowed from him the notion of a 'system of isoglosses',  which  he  introduced  into  his  own  work,  albeit  somewhat reformulated, in 1952.

Dovetto  (2017:33)  has  rightly  noticed  that  Coseriu  (1952:54-55) gives a direct reference to Pisani's conception of language as a 'system of isoglosses'. Dovetto further points out that 'for Pisani 'language' must be understood as 'something continuously variable'':

4 'Il linguaggio [...] è perpetua creazione [...]. Le sempre nuove impressioni danno luogo a mutamenti continui di suoni e di significati, ossia a sempre nuove espressioni. Cercare la lingua modello è, dunque, cercare l'immobilità nel moto. Ciascuno parla, e deve parlare, secondo gli echi che le cose destano nella sua psyche, ossia secondo le sue impressioni'.

[…] The abstraction that we call 'language' therefore represents an average of models that is, or should be, of common property in a given moment and territory,  and  constitutes  a  sort  of  idealised  norm  for  those  speakers.  By defining the elements that are potentially shared across the members of a given linguistic community in a given moment as 'isoglosses', and thus by expanding the original geographic understanding of such a concept, we are able to define 'language' as a 'system of isoglosses that brings together the individual linguistic acts'. (Pisani 1947/1939:13, quoted in Dovetto 2017:33; our translation) 5

From the quotation given above, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) Pisani based his definition of language on the punctiform act of the speakers;  (2)  by  utilising  the  term  'isogloss',  Pisani  intends  to  capture concrete linguistic phenomena, yet he does not say anything about the way in which these phenomena constitute a language, thus incurring the risk of dissolving the very notion of language as such into an atomistic bundle of isoglosses;  (3)  Pisani,  however,  talks  of  an  'idealised  norm',  which  is necessarily potential ,  and  thus  conceived  as  a  virtual  condition  for  the individual linguistic facts themselves; (4) moreover, he speaks of a 'system of  isoglosses'.  It  is  not  completely  clear,  however,  what  he  means  by 'system':  he  seems  implicitly  to  conceive  such  a  virtual  condition  in  a systematic and cohesive way, yet he only uses the term loosely, echoing a concept  with  contemporary  currency,  possibly  due  to  the  technical connotation  attached  to  it.  At  any  rate,  this  loose  definition  has  an epistemological basis, as (5) Pisani explicitly rejects any reified conception of language, i.e. as a static entity existing independently of the acts of the speakers.  On  the  contrary,  for  both  Pisani  and  Croce,  language  is  in  a constant state of change. Coseriu (1952) takes up this approach pari passu :

5 'L'astrazione cui diamo il nome di 'lingua' rappresenta perciò una media di modelli che è,  o  dovrebbe essere, di dominio comune a un dato momento e in un dato territorio, e costituisce  una  sorta  di  norma  ideale  per  tutti  quei  parlanti.  Chiamando  isoglosse,  con ampliamento  del  concetto  in  origine  geografico,  gli  elementi  comuni  in  potenza  ai componenti  di  una  certa  comunità  linguistica  in  un  determinato  momento,  possiamo definire la lingua 'sistema di isoglosse riunente gli atti linguistici individuali''.

The concept of language constitutes itself upon the concrete linguistic acts, as an abstraction (cf. Humboldt, Paul, Jespersen, Croce, Bertoni), as a system of isoglosses (aspects proven to be common in the considered acts). According to us, the clearest and  most  coherent  formulation  in  this  sense  was  given  by Vittore Pisani [ La lingua e la sua storia ,  now in Lingüística generale e indeuropea, Milan, pp. 9-19]. (Coseriu 1952:54-55; our translation) 6

It  appears  that  Coseriu  is  trying  to  combine  Pisani's  definition  of 'language' as a 'system of isoglosses' with his own structural concepts of 'system'  and  'norm'.  He  does  so,  however,  by  subtly  redefining  what Pisani calls 'language', interpreting it in terms of 'historical language', thereby  separating  it  from  his  own,  now  more  structural,  vision  of functioning (functional) language. This distinction is first drawn in 1958, when he introduces a proper term for it. In 1952, the combination of these two dimensions is still rather obscure, resulting in a somewhat contradictory claim:

We  can,  therefore,  speak  of norm and system referring  to  a language (system of isoglosses), instead of referring exclusively to speech […] only that the concept of language […] is a historical concept […] while system and norm are structural concepts  and,  for  that  very  reason, synchronic . (Coseriu 1952:62; our translation) 7

Interestingly, in the passage which follows this citation, Coseriu leaves out the term 'system of isoglosses', focusing instead on the ideas of norm and system to account for the functioning of language (Sp. lenguaje ):

6 'Sobre la base de los actos lingüísticos concretos, se constituye como abstracción (cf. Humboldt, Paul, Jespersen, Croce, Bertoni), como sistema de isoglosas (aspectos comunes comprobados en los actos considerados), el concepto de lengua ,  cuya formulación más clara  y  coherente  en  este  sentido  ha  sido  dada,  según  nosotros,  por Vittore Pisani [ La lingua e la sua storia , ahora en Lingüística generale e indeuropea, Milán, pp. 9-19]'.

7 'podemos,  por  consiguiente,  hablar  de norma y sistema refiriéndonos  a  una lengua (sistema de isoglosas), en lugar de referirnos exclusivamente al hablar […] sólo que el concepto  de  lengua  […]  es  un  concepto histórico […]  mientras sistema y norma son conceptos estructurales y, por eso mismo, sincrónicos '.

the  distinction  between norm and system allows  us  to  better clarify  the  functioning  of  language,  the  linguistic  activity, which is at the same time creation and repetition (re-creation) within,  and  according  to,  the  coordinates  of  the  functional system (that is, of what is essential for language to fulfil its function);  forced  movement  and  free  movement,  within  the possibilities put forward by the system. (Coseriu 1952:62-63; our translation) 8

Coseriu  had  borrowed  and  redefined  the  two  terms  to  describe  the functioning of language on a synchronic level, as opposed to the historical language  as  a  'system  of  isoglosses',  thus  now  not  only  localised geographically, but also socially and stylistically. In this distinction, one can clearly see a double meaning of 'system' at work: system1, intended as an abstract overarching totality (thus denoting a quality of an entity); and system2 (of isoglosses), intended as a coherent collection of phenomena (thus denoting a quality of the method). These two implicit nuances were not completely disentangled, however, as only the notions of system and norm as  belonging  to  the  functioning  language  were  defined  in  any elaborate way.

## 4. Coseriu's La geografía lingüística (1956)

In 1956, Coseriu published La geografía lingüística, in which he discusses the method and the epistemological framework of linguistic geography.

8 'La distinción entre norma y sistema nos aclara mejor el funcionamiento del lenguaje, la actividad lingüística, que es al mismo tiempo creación y repetición (re-creación), dentro del  marco  y  según  las  coordenadas  del  sistema  funcional  (es  decir,  de  lo  que  es imprescindible  para  que  el  lenguaje  cumpla  con  su  función);  movimiento  obligado  y movimiento libre, dentro de las posibilidades ofrecidas por el sistema'.

pl;

FIG. 10. — Principales Bilo, milata, ojo, hombr

30000

H.

diptongación

м.

isoglosas hispánicas y

(según

----.§->6 (> cero)

R. MENENDEZ PIDAL y H. MEIER).

Rion According to Coseriu, linguistic geography has the merit of having done away with the Romantic view of language as an autonomous organism, initiated by Schleicher, by substituting it with the more  scientific conceptualisation  as  a  'system  of  isoglosses',  promoted  by  Pisani.  In general, however, Coseriu restricts the role of linguistic geography to being merely a method, instead further elaborating his structural turn of thinking initiated in 1952. The warning against the atomistic nature of geographical linguistic analysis has to be read as a push towards its complement, i.e. the striving towards homogeneity as a condition for description. Whereas in 1952  this  push  was  but  foreshadowed  in  the  concepts  of  'system'  and 'norm' (see above), by 1956 Coseriu actively combines the best of each perspective,  endorsing  the  use  of  a  structural  approach  in  the  field  of dialectology (that  is,  in  the  domain  typically  associated  with  variational linguistics and the geographical method), and distancing himself from at least a part of the Italian tradition.

Figure 2: Coseriu (1956:54)

<!-- image -->

It is significant that Coseriu repeatedly refers to Pisani's idea of a 'system of isoglosses', quoting it not only in his contribution to linguistic

## (28-54)

geography (1955), but also in one of his most influential works: Sincronía, diacronía e historia (1957-58) - a publication which marked a milestone in his career in more than one way.

## 5. A second step: Coseriu (1981/1958)

First, some background. In August 1957, Coseriu met Leiv Flydal at the 8th International Congress of Linguists, held in Oslo (5-9 August). This acquaintance was to have a deep influence on Coseriu, possibly leading to his partial change of approach, as evidenced in his work on dialectology, prepared in 1958 but first published in 1981, Los conceptos de 'dialecto', 'nivel' y 'estilo  de lengua' y el sentido propio de la dialectología . In this text, the intertwining of the structural framework and the variational approach  based  on  Pisani's  'system  of  isoglosses'  is  carried  out  more consistently via the  adoption of Flydal's theoretical tools, i.e. the classification  into  diachronic,  diatopic,  and  diastratic  variations  and  the encompassing notion of an 'architecture of language'. The reference is so precise that it cannot go unnoticed:

To these three types of differences correspond, on the other hand, (i.e. in the sense of convergence and homogeneity of idiomatic traditions), three types of univocal systems of isoglosses (or at least more or less univocal), namely: syntopic unities, which can be called 'dialects' albeit being a specific kind of dialects; synstratic unities or levels of language (for instance 'cultivated language', 'middle-class language', 'popular language', etc.); and synphatic unities  or style  of  language (for  instance  'familiar  language',  'solemn language', etc.). (Coseriu 1981/1958:12; our translation) 9

On the very next page, Coseriu continues with Flydal's terms, adding his own, namely the 'diaphasic' and 'synphasic':

9 '3.1.2. A estos tres tipos de diferencias corresponden en sentido contrario (es decir, en el sentido de la convergencia y homogeneidad de las tradiciones idiomáticas) tres tipos de sistemas de isoglosas unitarios (o, por los menos, más o menos unitarios), precisamente: unidades sintópicas , que pueden seguir llamándose dialectos , pues son, en efecto, un tipo particular de 'dialectos'; unidades sinstráticas o niveles de lengua (por ejemplo, 'lenguaje culto', 'lenguaje de la clase media', 'lenguaje popular', etc.); y unidades sinfáticas o estilos de lengua (por ejemplo, 'lenguaje familiar', 'lenguaje solemne', etc.)'.

[…]  within  each  syntopic  unity,  diastratic  and  diaphasic  differences (respectively.  of  level  and  style)  may  exist;  at  each  level,  diatopic  and diaphasic differences may exist, and in each style of language, diatopic and diastratic differences. (Coseriu 1981/1958:13; our translation) 10

At  this  point,  he  also  introduces  his  new,  properly  structural,  nonvariational  concept,  i.e.  the  notion  of  'functional  language',  defined  as follows:

A linguistic system that is univocal from these three points of view, or a 'syntopic',  'synstratic',  and  'synphasic'  language,  respectively  (thus  a syntopic unity taken on a single level and in a single style of language), may be called functional language . (Coseriu 1981/1958:13; our translation) 11

From  this  point  on,  he  is  able  to  fully  distinguish  between  'historical language',  as  reflecting  the  whole  architecture  of  language  variation  as concretely  and  historically given,  and  'functional  language',  to  be understood as a level of description in which abstraction is made from all those variations in order to obtain a homogenous object for analysis.

On page 17, Coseriu uses the dia-terms in combination with that of a 'system of isoglosses' one last time: in the remaining fifteen pages of his 1981/1958 article, this concept is absent, never again to return - at least to our knowledge - in later works, i.e. after 1958. Let us summarise the steps of Coseriu's elaboration:

1. the concept of the 'isogloss' was developed within dialectology as a way  to  bring  into  focus  a  single  linguistic  feature  (or  a  relevant selection  thereof)  in  the  considered  language,  while  Flydal's  diaconcepts were developed within stylistics;
2. at  some  point,  Coseriu  must  have  realised  that  the  use  of  the  term 'isogloss' was equivocal and confusing,

10 '[…] dentro de cada unidad sintópica suele haber diferencias diastráticas y diafáticas (de nivel y de estilo); en cada nivel podrán comprobarse diferencias diatópicas y diafáticas, y en cada estilo de lengua, diferencias diatópicas y diastráticas'.

11 'Un  sistema  lingüístico  unitario  desde  los  tres  puntos  de  vista,  o  sea,  una  lengua 'sintópica', 'sinstrática' y 'sinfática' (es decir, una unidad sintópica tomada en un solo nivel y en un solo estilo de lengua), puede llamarse lengua funcional '.

3. to  tackle  this  issue,  Coseriu  adapts  Pisani's  notion  of  a  'system  of isoglosses', originally based on the speakers' individual linguistic acts and somehow implying a bottom-up perspective, by generalising it on the  basis  of  Flydal's  theory,  the  starting  point  of  which  is  in  the linguistic  system itself, and proceeding to concretise particular subsystems according to a top-down movement;
4. thanks to Flydal, Coseriu was able to get a new foothold for his theory, and to ground the variational linguistic phenomena within a systematic, general framework;
5. this process of systematisation, conceived in 1952 but only presented in  1958,  eventually  resulted  in  the  forging  of  the  new  term  of 'functional language'. Let us take a closer look at the possible sources of inspiration for this systematisation.

## 6. Coseriu's sources: Flydal, Hjelmslev, Weinreich

Coseriu's formulation came as the last of many redefinitions of a basic idea which had been taken up by at least three linguists before him, listed below from the most recent to the oldest:

- a) Louis  Hjelmslev,  whose  concept  of  'connotation'  represented  the theoretical foothold for Flydal's own variational linguistics;
- b) Leiv Flydal, who concretely handed down the variational dia-concepts to Coseriu and also invented the complementary concept of 'architecture of language' ( architecture de langue ), see 5.1 below;
- c) Uriel Weinreich, who was the first to develop the term 'diasystem' and introduce it into dialectology.

It  is  important to stress the fact that this constellation of linguists is not purely conceptual but first and foremost historical: the interaction, and thus the  influence,  at  least  between  Hjelmslev,  Flydal  and  Coseriu,  is  well attested  and  has  already  been  the  subject  of  reconstruction  (see  Völker 2009; Bank Jensen 2012, 2021).

## 6.1 Hjelmslev and Flydal

At the time of the meeting between Coseriu and Flydal, in 1957, the latter had already been working with Hjelmslev for three years. Hjelmslev, for his part, first met Coseriu in 1957, during the Oslo conference, yet he had already known (about) him since at least 1951. In 1955, Coseriu initiated a correspondence with Eli Fischer-Jørgensen, a close collaborator of Hjelmslev.  Fischer-Jørgensen  educated  him  thoroughly  in  matters  of glossematics  (Bank  Jensen  2015a).  And,  by  1954,  Coseriu  had  already criticised Hjelmslev's formalistic and 'algebraic' stance which, according to him, led to an overly abstract and mathematical rendering of language, hardly compatible with Coseriu's own concept of language as an historical output  of  human  freedom.  In  what  follows,  we  will  reconstruct  the conceptual exchange between the aforementioned linguists, as well as their interactions.

If we give credit to the role that Flydal's ideas played in Coseriu's conceptualisation,  then  we  also  have  to  acknowledge  the  important influence Hjelmslev - notably his Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse (1943) - had on Flydal. In this respect, two important ideas were developed by Hjelmslev in the forties: the notion of connotation and the distinction between  scheme  ('sprogbygning'),  norm,  usage  and  act,  achieved  by elaborating on Saussure's classic distinction ( langue , parole ). Even though Coseriu did not begin quoting and actually using Hjelmslev's theory until 1952  -  limiting  himself  to  Hjelmslev's  best-known  conceptual  tools: 'system/scheme', 'norm', 'act', 'form', and 'substance' (however, not 'usage' 12 ) - the first contact between the two linguists dates back to 1951. On 23 October of that year, Coseriu wrote to Hjelmslev from Montevideo to start an official collaboration between the newly founded Department of Linguistics in Montevideo and the Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen.

I am very pleased to notify you of the establishment of the Department of Linguistics within the Institute of Philology. It would be an honour for said Department to establish and maintain relations with a scholar as illustrious as yourself and to receive the suggestions and advice with which your long experience may favour us. I would also appreciate the eventual sending of publications and other bibliographical material that might prove to be of incalculable value for the fulfilment of the tasks carried out by the institute. For my part, as the Department develops, I will have the opportunity, in turn, to issue any information or publication of interest to you. Please accept my most distinguished consideration. (Coseriu 1951; our translation) 13

12 It is important to note that Coseriu (1952) does not quote Hjelmslev's concept of 'usage' as such because he refers to Hjelmslev's theory in an oblique and indirect way, not quoting Hjelmslev's own writings. See Bank Jensen 2015a, 2021.

There are no traces of an answer from Hjelmslev, yet the received letter bears  a  handwritten  reminder  to  send  to  Montevideo  the  issues  of  the Bulletins du Cercle Linguistique  de  Copenhague , one of the two publications produced by the Circle. 14

In the same year, Flydal contacted Hjelmslev, discussing Hjelmslev's idea of 'system/scheme' in connection to his 'architectural' concept of language. The connection was further deepened in 1954, the year in which Flydal decided to spend some months in Copenhagen to be close to Hjelmslev, where he had a kind of a 'glossematic turn'.

Flydal's idea of 'architecture' can be easily rephrased as a concept of language, as a system consisting of multiple, not necessarily mutually homogenous,  'states',  infelicitously  dubbed  as  'structures',  or  partial systems.  In  Flydal's  view,  for  instance,  elements  of  a  language  called 'archaisms' function simultaneously and perhaps in synchronic competition with other elements such as lexemes or idiomatic expressions, but must be classified as belonging to a different stage in the evolution of that language, as they are often recognised - and used - by the speakers themselves:

We will say that the different systems of French known by an erudite […] are for  him  simultaneous  linguistic structures. Within  his linguistic consciousness these different structures are disposed according to an axis on which certain simultaneities are arranged or, as we prefer to call them, certain temporal coexistences. Their heterogeneous character in relation to their environment confers on them an expressive value: as 'archaisms'. [...] Those partial systems, which are occasionally and individually borrowed from  other  structures  belonging  to  the  same  idiom,  will  here  be  termed 'extrastructuralisms' [intraidiomatic]. (Flydal 1952:244; our translation) 15

13   'Tengo el placer de comunicar a Ud. que acaba de establecerse el Departamento de Lingüística dependiente del Instituto de Filología. Para dicho Departamento sería un honor establecer u mantener relaciones con un estudioso tan ilustre como Ud., al tiempo que recibir  las  sugerencias  y  consejos  con  que  su  larga  experiencia  nos  pueda  favorecer. Agradecería, también, el eventual envío de publicaciones y detrás material bibliográfico que hace resultar de incalculable valor para al cumplimiento de las tareas que desempeña el instituto. Por mi parte, y a medida que el Departamento vaya desenvolviéndose, tendré ocasión, a mi vez, de emitirle cualquier información o publicación de su interés. He es muy grato saludar a Ud. con la consideración más distinguida'.

14 ' BCLC udveksles  med  Instituto  de  estudios  superiores  de Montevideo ,  sección  de filología y fonética  experimental  (der  sendes  Boletín  de  filología)'  (Hjelmslev's handwritten text on Coseriu 1951).

A  given linguistic structure (Coseriu [1958] 1981:21-22, 'internal structure',  Sp. estructura  interna or  'structure' tout  court )  consists  of elements co-occurring synchronically - or, as Flydal says, tied together by a relationship called 'solidarity'. Yet language as such is more complex than  that,  as  it  also  includes  another  kind  of  solidarity,  establishing  a different sense of structure: one that could be called 'extrasynchronic' (see Coseriu [1958] 1981: 'external structure', Sp. estructura externa , p. 31), as it ties together elements belonging to different states. This second kind of solidarity, existing across different partial systems, is said to be looser than  the  first  kind,  existing within a  given  partial  system,  yet  still indispensable in accounting for an historical language:

[…] we will henceforth call it the 'whole architecture of a language', and understand by 'architecture' not the architectonical disposition of the parts belonging to a totality, but the systematic totality itself made up of solidary parts,  whose  reciprocal  solidarity  is  less  marked  than  the  one  existing between  the different parts of the structure. (Flydal  1952:245;  our translation) 16

15 'Nous dirons donc que les divers systèmes de français que connaît l'érudit […] sont chez  lui  des  structures  de  langue  simultanées.  Dans  sa  conscience  linguistique  ces différentes  structures  s'ordonnent,  selon  ses  connaissances  avec  plus  ou  moins  de conformité  à  l'ordre  historique,  suivant  un  axe  qui,  d'un  point  de  vue  strictement synchronique, n'est plus un axe des successivités temporelles, mais un axe le long duquel se rangent certaines simultanéités ou, comme nous aimerons mieux les appeler, certaines coexistences temporelles auxquelles leur caractère hétéroclite par rapport à leur entourage confère une valeur expressive : les « archaïsmes ». […] Nous désignerons ci-après par le terme d'« extrastructuralismes », qu'on pourrait qualifier au besoin d'intraidiomatiques, ces  systèmes  partiels  occasionnellement  et  individuellement  empruntés  à  d'autres structures du même idiome'.

16 '[…]  nous  appellerons  ici  l' architecture  d'ensemble  de  la  langue ,  en  entendant  par l' architecture non pas la disposition architectonique des parties d'un tout, mais un tout systématique formé de parties solidaires, dont la solidarité réciproque est moins accusée que celle qui existe entre les différentes parties de la structure'.

Overall, while an actual correspondence between Flydal's and Hjelmslev's frameworks is debatable, the theory of the former certainly builds upon the latter's ideas. At least three factors illustrate this. Firstly, as we have just seen, Flydal employs the notion of 'solidarity', which had already gained currency in the scientific koiné - mostly through the works of Meillet and Lalande but which was explicitly defined as a technical term of structural linguistics by Hjelmslev - to denote a relationship of co-occurrence (or codependence) between two elements. Secondly, Flydal refers to Hjelmslev's sprogbygning , broadly intended as the 'edifice' of a given language - thus covering both the meanings of 'scheme' and 'articulation' (Fr. charpente ) -and resonating with the Humboldtian idea of innere Form , despite being used by Flydal to denote the 'architectural language', i.e. a language as historically given. Thirdly, Flydal mentions Hjelmslev's Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse (1943)  as  particularly  relevant  to  his  own framework, specifically chapter 22, where the seminal notion of 'connotation' appears, the scope of which is to root the formal structure of a  sign  to  its  variational  (respectively  historical,  geographical,  possibly physiognomical, etc.) context. 17 The entanglement of these three factors can be appreciated in a letter sent to Hjelmslev on 14 December 1951:

When  I  had  finished  writing  the  article  about  language  and  style  last summer and thought I had mastered the material, I then re-read chapter 22 in Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse - which I had carefully refrained from opening during the actual work - yes, then I found myself saying that it  was  all  relatively  trivial.  However,  in  the  meantime, I  have  learned  to understand this chapter of your book somewhat better than before. Had I checked the text [ Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse ], I would also have been able to refer to the expression 'sprogbygning' instead of to 'charpente de la langue' from Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure . It must still be possible to hold me responsible for the fact that from what I write on p. 244 (of Style et  langue )  it  does  not  appear  with  sufficient  clarity  that  what  I  have borrowed from you is the picture . I should have added that I have used this picture in relation to the material I had in mind, and not to what you operate with in your dissertation on Langue et Parole - despite being related to it. I apologise for having given rise to such a misunderstanding and hope it will not have further consequences for the readers' apprehension of your ideas.

17 The resulting label is dubbed as 'connotator'. Thus guaglione , denotes a /young boy/, connoting a regional language stemming from the area of Naples, the stylistic form of prose, the normal style, the neutral value, etc: all these being its 'connotators'.

By referring to [your picture] in that way, I intended to guard myself against the accusation of having plagiarised or distorted it. If I didn't also borrow your designation, it was because 'charpente' cannot be so easily reconciled with  any  designation  for  subdivision  (such  as  architecture,  or  even  less easily in the case of 'sprogbygning') […] (Flydal 1951; our translation) 18

Significantly,  chapter  22  of  Hjelmslev's  (1943)  work  discusses  the necessary widening of perspective which comes once the analysis of the core  level  of  language  -  'denotation',  or  the  function  existing  between signifier (expression) and signified (content) - is exhausted. This first step is actually only possible by means of a suspension of all other functions that tie a given denotative structure to its historical context. These functions of  the  second  order  are  collectively  called  'connotation',  and  they  are instrumental in pushing the analysis further, i.e . towards language in all its complexity.  In  fact,  the  premise  of  a  structural  homogeneity  of  a  given language is only temporarily assumed to gain insight into its structure but is  dropped  in  order  to  account  for  the  variational  and  heterogeneous existence of the given language (see Hjelmslev 1961/1943:114-115).

This has several implications. For instance, no element in a given language is free of connotation, just as no element is 'neutral' with respect to certain stylistic, geographical, historical, or subjective contexts which may be regarded as variational parameters. Moreover, a connotator has to be described according to all those parameters simultaneously, which in Hjelmslevian  terms  works  like  a  Cartesian  system  of  coordinates  (see Cigana 2023: appendix for a tentative representation of this idea). This also means that homogeneity is only attainable by extracting, and temporarily removing, the relevant connotators: two signs become comparable in the mind of the linguist once the different connotators have been removed. A given language is thus assumed to function homogeneously while existing as heterogeneous, as made up by multiple systems, each possibly having 'their own diachrony' (Hjelmslev 1970/1946:102). In short, 'language is not one language, but many' (Hjelmslev 1973/1941:115; see also Cigana 2021), as, for instance, a single 'system' (properly: 'scheme') may support multiple, completely different or partially overlapping 'norms'.

18 'Da jeg i fjor sommer hadde skrevet ferdig artikkelen om språk og stil og syntes jeg behersket  stoffet,  og  så  på  ny  leste  Kapitel  22  i  Omkring  sprogteorien  -  som  jeg omhyggelig hade latt väre å åpne under selve arbeidet -, ja, da fant jeg sant å si selv at det hele var forholdsvis banalt. Men jeg hadde jo i mellomtiden lärt å forstå dette kapitlet av Deres bok noe bedre enn tidligere. - Hadde jeg slått opp i Sprogteorien, ville jeg for resten også ha kunnet henvise til dens uttrykk 'sprogbygning' i steden for til 'charpente de la langue' i Cahiers de F. de Saussure. Det må vel allikevel kunne legges meg til last at det ikke fremgår med tilstrekkelig tydelighet av hva jeg skriver på s. 244 (i Style et Langue) at det er billedet jeg har lånt fra Dem. Jeg burde vel ha tilføyet at jeg har anvendt dette billedet  på  det  stoffet jeg havde  for  øye,  og  ikke  på  det  -  riktig  nok  beslektede  De opererer med i deres avhandling om Langue et Parole. Jeg beklager å ha gitt grunn til mistydingen og håper den ikke vil ha videre følger for læsernes oppfatning av Deres idéer. Min  tanke  med  å  gi  henvisningen  den  form  den  har  fått,  var  å  gardere  meg  mot beskyldningen for å ha plagiert å fordreiet Deres billede. Når jeg ikke også lånte Deres betegnelse, var det fordi 'charpente' ikke så lett lot seg forlike med noen betegnelse for underavdelinger (slik som architecture, og enda lettere 'sprogbygning')'.

While  this  view,  and  the  corresponding  method,  was  tackled  by neither  Coseriu  nor  Flydal,  they  both  acknowledged  it  more  or  less implicitly as a good foothold for their respective theories. It is no surprise that  they  were  both  able  to  move  from  a  simplistic  opposition  (unitary system  vs  diversity  and  punctual  variation  as  expressed  by  isoglosses) towards a more nuanced one: macro-system (Flydal: architectural language; Coseriu: historical language) vs micro-systems (Flydal: partial systems; Coseriu: functional language).

Again, this is not to say that the three theories are just three versions of  the  same  framework,  nor  even  of  the  same  theoretical  stance:  For instance, one of the main differences between Coseriu and Hjelmslev lies in  the  fact  that  while,  for  the  former,  dialectology  deals  with  'external' correspondences  established  between  'internal'  structural  oppositions (Coseriu  1981/1958:22),  for  the  latter,  the  point  was  to  interpret  these external  correspondences  as  'functions  of  second  degree'  (see  Cigana 2023), thus ultimately providing a means of treating variation in a structural way. However, all three positions at stake here did endorse a conceptualisation  of  linguistic  phenomena  in  terms  of  functions  and networks  of  possibilities  to  be  realised  within  a  hierarchy  of  levels  systems, norms, or usages (see Bank Jensen 2015a, 2021).

## 6.2 Weinreich

To  what  extent  did  Weinreich  come  into  the  picture?  What  is  the  link between him and Coseriu? This is significantly more difficult to assess.

Coseriu did use Weinreich's concept of 'dia-systems' (Coseriu 1966:199), but he never explicitly acknowledged him for it. In 1954, Weinreich asked the question: Is a structural dialectology possible? (see his answer below). Coseriu (19811958, see below) seems to offer an answer to Weinreich's question,  albeit  without  reference  to  Weinreich's  work.  Consider  the following passages:

1. In  linguistics  today  the  abyss  between  structural  and  dialectological studies appears greater than it ever was. The state of disunity is not repaired if  'phoneme' and 'isogloss' occasionally do turn up in the same piece of research. Students continue to be trained in one domain at the expense of the other. Field work is inspired by one, and only rarely by both, interests. The  stauncher  adherents  of  each  discipline  claim  priority  for  their  own method and charge the others with 'impressionism' and 'metaphysics' as the case may be; the more pliant are prepared to concede that they are simply studying different aspects of the same reality. (Weinreich 1954:388)

4.5.1. We can then better understand why in a sense (that is: if by 'structural' we mean 'that which establishes and describes structures') the expression 'structural  dialectology'  is  a  contradiction  in  terms:  since  structures  are established within functional language which by definition does not present any diatopic variation, to speak of a 'structural dialectology' is to speak of a 'non dialectological dialectology' or 'science of variation which studies homogeneity'. (Coseriu 1981/1958:22; our translation) 19

Thus,  both  Weinreich  and  Coseriu  questioned  the  idea  of  a  'structural dialectology', reaching apparently opposite conclusions: while Weinreich claimed that a structural dialectology indeed exists, Coseriu claimed that it could and does not. Considered more closely, however, the state of play is slightly  different.  Weinreich's  answer  is  actually  twofold:  structural dialectology  is  indeed  possible,  provided  that:  1)  it  supplements  its conceptual framework with the 'social-science tools' of 'external dialectology' (Weinreich 1954:398, 400); and 2) it treats a collection of

19 'Se entenderá ahora mejor por qué, en un sentido (si por ' estructural ' se entiende: 'que establece y describe estructuras'), la expresión dialectología estructural es una contradicción  en  los  términos:  puesto  que  las  estructuras  se  establecen  en  la  lengua funcional, que, por definición, no presenta variedad diatópica, hablar de 'dialectología estructural' es como decir 'dialectología no dialectológica' o 'ciencia de la variedad que estudia la homogeneidad''.

1

1,2,3

2,23

e 3. 6 he actual vowel inventory of Viddish considered as a dias

2

3

ı/i:~i/

NoRu

/i:~i/ž@ž/a:~a/žOžU

= e z

à

isoglosses  systematically,  as  a  hierarchy,  by  establishing  a  series  of correspondences or substitutions - which Coseriu calls 'equivalences' (Sp. equivalencias ,  Coseriu  1981/1958:21)  -  within  a  shared  overarching structure. Take, for example, Weinreich's treatment of the variations within the Yiddish language, considered a transversal system (or 'dia-system', significantly labelled as 1, 2, 3, see Figure 3), including five elements, the first  /i/  and  the  third  /a/  of  which  constitute  a  class  including  different realisations, respectively belonging to the Polish, the Ukrainian, and the Lithuanian: 20

Figure 3: 'the actual vowel inventory of Yiddish considered as a diasystem of three dialects, 1. Central ('Polish'), 2. Southwestern ('Ukrainian'), and 3. Northwestern ('Lithuanian')'. (Weinreich 1954:394)

<!-- image -->

This is, however, consistent with Coseriu's framework, since, under his definition,  dialectology  describes  -  or,  properly  said, establishes -  the relations between the varieties as occurring between different 'structures':

Figure 4: Tentative transposition of Figure 3 in Coserian framework

<!-- image -->

20 Which, in Hjelmslev's terms, constitute three 'connotators'.

Only in this sense, then, is a 'structural dialectology' problematic: that is, dialectology does not 'describe' structures (the varieties labelled '1', '2', and '3' in Fig. 3, 4), but 'deals with structures' ( opera con estructuras , see Coseriu 1981/1958:23), and those have been established by 'another discipline' ( establecidas por otra disciplina ,  see Coseriu 1981/1958:33), namely grammar. It thus seems that the divergence between the respective answers lies more in the terminology than in the concept itself: While, for Weinreich, the predicate 'structural' applies to the method, for Coseriu, it applies to a given entity, i.e. a homogenous linguistic layer. Yet they both maintain  the idea that studying  dialectal variations is a matter of systematically treating the functions -'correspondences' or 'equivalences',  respectively  -  across  different  levels:  not  just  the  diasystems  (Weinreich) 21 ,  but  also  between  systems,  norms,  and  usages (Coseriu). 22

## 7. Open conclusions

Let us sum up. Roughly speaking, we can say that Coseriu approached the structural  argument  based  on  three  sources:  Leiv  Flydal,  whose  theory Coseriu enriched by adding the idea of 'diaphasic' and of 'dia-systems'; Louis Hjelmslev, who had already been a source for Flydal, but who was referred to by Coseriu, for a different reason, and only later acknowledged for  his  concept  of  'connotation'  (1981/1958, Tekstlinguistik );  and  Uriel Weinreich, who was never explicitly acknowledged for his 'dia-systems' despite clearly representing a fruitful reference.

21 'It  may  be  feasible,  without  defining  'dialect'  for  the  time  being,  to  set  up 'dialectological' as the adjective corresponding to 'diasystem', and to speak of dialectological research as the study of diasystems. Dialectology would  be the investigation of problems arising when different systems are treated together because of their partial similarity. A specifically structural dialectology would look for the structural consequences of partial differences within a framework of partial similarity' (Weinreich 1954:390).

22 'Dialectology, as an investigation of the entire diatopic variation, cannot be carried out only within the level of the 'system', but must be carried out also - and in the first place - on the level of the norm of realisation' (our translation of Coseriu 1981/1958:24, 'la dialectología, en cuanto estudio de toda la variedad diatópica, no puede hacerse sólo en el plano del 'sistema', sino que debe hacerse también - y en premier lugar - en el plano de la norma de realización').

We  could  speculate  on  this  last  point  by  saying  that  Coseriu's avoidance  of  quoting  Weinreich  led  -  or  at  least  contributed  -  to  the division of sociolinguistics into two traditions, the American scholarship (including Weinreich, Labov, Herzog) and the Romance one. For instance, Berruto  (2017:272)  observes  that  the  system-oriented  trend  of  Italian sociolinguistics is mostly inspired by the qualitative variational (socio)linguistics of Coseriu, while the quantitative sociolinguistic approach of Labov is somewhat underrepresented.

What  is  certain,  at  any  rate,  is  that  while  Hjelmslev  and  Flydal adopted a top-down approach to linguistics, Coseriu tried to systematise his ideas on linguistic variation, adopting Pisani's bottom-up point of view, centred on the notion of a 'system of isoglosses'. After the milestone event of 1957, however, he moved closer to Hjelmslev's and Flydal's position, elaborating on it and eventually developing his own idea of 'functional language'.

It would certainly be worthwhile examining this connection further, interpreting  the  evolution  of  Coseriu's  stance  in  the  light  of  how  his thinking was - and still is - perceived, whether in terms of continuity or innovation (see Renzi 2013; Bank Jensen 2015b).

## References

- Bank Jensen, Viggo. 2012. Eugenio Coseriu, Scandinavian linguists and variational linguistics. Dacoromani a, serie nouă, XVII, 2, 154-162.
- Bank  Jensen,  Viggo.  2015a.  Eli  Fischer-Jørgensen,  Eugenio  Coseriu  et Louis Hjelmslev: Quelques points d'une correspondence. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure , 68, 27-45.
- Bank Jensen,  Viggo.  2015b.  Il  ruolo  della  'Scuola  di  Copenaghen'  nel 'rimodellamento' coseriano degli assiomi saussuriani. V. Orioles and  R.  Bombi  (eds.) Oltre  Saussure:  l'eredità  scientifica  di Eugenio Coseriu. Atti del IV Convegno Internazionale Università degli  Studi  di  Udine (1-2  ottobre  2013).  Firenze:  Franco  Cesati, 121-132.
- Bank  Jensen,  Viggo.  2021.  Coseriu's  Hjelmslev.  K.  Willems  &  C. Munteanu  (eds.) Eugenio  Coseriu. Past,  present  and  future . Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 97-113.

- Berruto, Gaetano. 2017. System-oriented and speaker-oriented approaches  in  Italian  sociolinguistics. Sociolinguistic  Studies , 11 (2-3-4), 271-290.
- Bielenstein,  August  Johann  Gottfried.  1892. Die Grenzen des lettischen Volksstammes und der lettischen Sprache in der Gegenwart und im 13. Jahrhundert, ein Beitrag zur ethnologischen Geographie und Geschichte Russlands , St. Petersburg: Eggers.
- Cigana,  Lorenzo.  2021.  Coseriu  and  glossematics:  an  uncompleted dialogue. K. Willems and C. Munteanu (eds.) Eugenio Coseriu. Past, present and future . Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 116-134.
- Cigana, Lorenzo. 2023. Beyond linguistic languages. Glossematics and the  origins  of  connotation.  L.  Cigana  and  F.  Gregersen  (eds.) Structuralism  as  one  -  structuralism  as  many.  Studies  in Structuralisms . Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 436-475.
- Coseriu, Eugenio. 1951. Letter to Louis Hjelmslev dated 23 October 1951, conserved in Hjelmslev's Archives at the Royal Library of  Copenhagen,  now  available  in  digitalized  form  on  the database of the project 'Infrastructuralism', reachable at https://glossematics.dk/app/reader/acc-1992\_0005\_022\_Coseriu\_0010-tei.xml
- Coseriu, Eugenio. 1952. Sistema, norma y habla . Montevideo: Universídad de la República, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias.
- Coseriu, Eugenio. 1955. La geografía lingüística. Revista de la Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias (Montevideo), 14, 29-69.
- Coseriu, Eugenio. 1966. Structure lexicale et enseignement du vocabulaire. Actes du premier colloque international de linguistique appliquée . Nancy : Université de Nancy, 175-217.
- Coseriu,  Eugenio.  1973/1954.  Forma  y  sustancia  en  los  sonidos  del lenguaje. E. Coseriu (ed.) Teoría del lenguaje y lingüística general. Cinco estudios . Madrid: Gredos, 115-234.
- Coseriu,  Eugenio.  1975/1955. Die  Sprachgeographie .  Tübingen:  Narr (German translation of Coseriu 1955).
- Coseriu. Eugenio. 1981/1958. Los conceptos de 'dialecto', 'nivel' y 'estilo de  lengua'  y  el  sentido  propio  de  la  dialectología. Lingüístíca española actual , III/1, 1-32.

- Croce,  Benedetto.  1965/1902. Estetica  come  scienza  dell'espressione  e linguistica generale. Teoria e storia . Bari: Laterza.
- De Mauro, Tullio. 1970. Storia linguistica dell'Italia unita . Laterza: Roma. Dovetto, Francesca. 2017. Pisani, le isoglosse e le onde. Alessandria, Rivista di glottologia , 11, 33-41.
- Flydal, Leiv. 1951. Letter to Louis Hjelmslev dated 14 December 1951, conserved  in  Hjelmslev's  Archives  at  the  Royal  Library  of Copenhagen, now available in digitalized form on the database of the project 'Infrastructuralism', reachable at https://glossematics.dk/app/reader/acc-1992\_0005\_023\_Flydal\_0100-tei.xml
- Flydal, Leiv. 1952. Remarques sur certains rapports entre le style et l'état de langue. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskab , XVI, 241 -258.
- Hjelmslev Louis. 1973/1941. A causerie on linguistic theory. L. Hjelmslev (ed.) Essais  linguistiques  II (Travaux  du  Cercle  Linguistique  de Copenhague 14), 101-117.
- Hjelmslev, Louis. 1943. Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse , København, Festskrift udgivet af Københavns Universitet.
- Hjelmslev,  Louis.  1961/1943. Prolegomena  to  a  theory  of  language , Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
- Hjelmslev, Louis. 1970/1946. Language and system (19.09.46). Bulletin du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 1941-1965 , 8/31 . Copenhague: Akademisk Forlag, 101-102.
- Mancini,  Marco.  2008.  Contatto  e  interferenza  di  lingue  nei  lavori orientalistici di G. Bolognesi. R. B. Finazzi and P. Tornaghi (eds.) Dall'Oriente all'Occidente. Itinerari linguistici di Giancarlo Bolognesi . Milano: EDU-Catt, 23-52.
- Nitina, Daina. 2011. Der Einfluss der Deutschen Sprachwissenschaft auf die  Erforschung  der  lettischen  Sprache  im  19.  Jahrhundert.  S. Beckmann and S. Frilling (eds.) Satz - Text - Diskurs. Band 1: Akten des  27.  Linguistischen  Kolloquiums,  Münster  1992 .  Berlin/New York: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 239-246.
- Pisani, Vittore. 1947/1939. La lingua e la sua storia. Linguistica generale e indoeuropea. Saggi e discorsi , vol. 1. Milano: Libreria Editrice Scientifico-Universitaria, 9-19.

- Renzi, Lorenzo. 2013. Il concetto di stile in Eugenio Coseriu. Lingua e stile , XLVIII, 79 -112.
- Schleicher, August. 1861-62. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der  indogermanischen  Sprachen.  Kurzer  Abriss  einer  Laut-  und Formenlehre der indogermanischen Ursprache, des Altindischen, Alteranischen, Altgriechischen, Altitalischen, Altkeltischen, Altslawischen,  Litauischen  und  Altdeutschen,  2  voll.  Weimar: Böhlau.
- Schleicher, August. 1863. Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft.  Offenes  Sendschreiben  an  Herrn  Dr.  Ernst Hackel . Weimar: Böhlau.
- Trudgill, Peter & John Kenneth Chambers. 1998. Dialectology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Völker,  Harald.  2009.  La  linguistique  variationelle  et  la  perspective intralinguistique. Revue de Linguistique Romane , 73, 27-76.
- Weinreich, Uriel. 1954. Is a structural dialectology possible? Word , 10(23), 388-400.