25.2349, Review: Historical Linguistics; History of Linguistics: Metcalf (author), van Hal & van Rooy (eds.) (2013)

Thu May 29 13:29:45 UTC 2014

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-2349. Thu May 29 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.2349, Review: Historical Linguistics; History of Linguistics: Metcalf (author), van Hal & van Rooy (eds.) (2013)

Moderators: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajiv at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/

Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 09:29:03
From: Monica Vasileanu [monica.vasileanu at gmail.com]
Subject: On Language Diversity and Relationship from Bibliander to Adelung

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-2349.html&submissionid=29607057&topicid=9&msgnumber=1

Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=29607057

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-4075.html

AUTHOR: George J.  Metcalf
EDITOR: Toon Van  Hal
EDITOR: Raf Van  Rooy
TITLE: On Language Diversity and Relationship from Bibliander to Adelung
SERIES TITLE: Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 120
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Monica Vasileanu, Romanian Academy, Institute of Linguistics

SUMMARY

The present volume gathers 11 articles of the late Professor George J. Metcalf
(1908-1994), whose works concern mainly the historiography of diachronic and
comparative linguistics. The collection of Prof. Metcalf’s scholarly
contributions was possible due to the efforts of the editors, Toon van Hal and
Raf van Rooy. The volume comprises a foreword, in which acknowledgements are
presented, an introduction (pp. 1-10) written by the editors, a list of
bibliographical references (pp. 11-16), and a bibliography of George J.
Metcalf (pp. 17-18), followed by the 11 chapters of the book, that is, the 11
articles of Prof. Metcalf (pp. 19-168). A master list of references (pp.
169-173) and the Indices (pp. 175-181) complete the volume.

The “Editors’ introduction” contains a survey of Metcalf’s life and works: his
biography is briefly presented and his academic positions enumerated. Although
Metcalf studied Latin and Germanic philology and published several works in
the field of German linguistics, only his works dealing with “Early Modern
views on language change, linguistic kinship and language diversity” (p. 2)
are taken into account. The field of ‘the prehistory of comparative
linguistics’ was not new and the editors emphasize the increasing interest in
this field. Metcalf’s merits lie, in the editors’ opinion, in his good
knowledge of source texts, in his good choice of metalanguage, in his just
understanding of contextual factors, and in his moderation in correlating
present day theories with Early Modern authors’ views on language change and
relationships (pp. 3-4). In the end, the editors make a short editorial note
in order to state their interventions in the author’s texts.

Metcalf’s works proper are disposed in the chronological order of their
coverage, not by their publication date. The first two chapters present
general surveys of views on genetic relations between languages from the 16th
to the 18th century, while the other nine chapters are specific case studies.

The first chapter, “Between methodology and ideology: how facts and theories
intertwine in earlier views on diachronic linguistics” (pp. 19-31), shows how
the idea of linguistic change was discussed by several Early Modern scholars
in Northern Europe: Theodor Bibliander, Abraham Mylius, Meric Casaubon,
Goropius Becanus, and others. The biblical story of the Babel was the source
of diachronic linguistics, since it offered the view of an original language
out of which others sprung. Whereas most scholars believed Hebrew to be the
original language, some others ascribed this status to vernaculars such as
Belgian, Dutch, or exotic languages, such as Chinese. The interpretation of
linguistic data was correct only when dealing with obvious facts, since most
vernaculars were grouped in their correct families, but the etymologies
provided were most of the time incorrect, as extralinguistic theories were
still twisting linguistic evidence.

In the second chapter, “The Indo-European hypothesis in the 16th and 17th
centuries” (pp. 33-56), Metcalf studies the ‘prehistory of the science … of
comparative linguistics’ (p. 55) in order to find traces of the Indo-European
hypothesis. It is true that the Indo-European theory was stated only after
Sanskrit was discovered, but scholars such as Andreas Jäger, with his Scythian
hypothesis, had already issued the idea of a parent-language that was no
longer spoken, but that produced most European and Asian idioms. The creation
of new languages from dialects was also a topos. Metcalf summarizes the
etymologizing procedures of Gorpius Becanus, Abraham Mylus, Schottelius,
Johannes de Laet, Stiernhielm, and Olaf Rudbeckius. Their merits are
heterogenous; however, they paved the way for Indo-European reconstruction by
finding ‘sound patterns’ and by trying to set some standards of etymologizing
practices.

The third chapter is dedicated to “Theodor Bibliander (1505-1564) and the
languages of Japhet’s progeny” (pp. 57-64). Bibliander’s lectures at the
“Münsterschule” in Zürich consisted of reading and interpreting texts from the
Old Testament, and among those texts, the story of Babel held an important
place. Bibliander tried to prove the unity of European languages, considered
as ‘Japhet’s progeny’, by comparing Latin, Greek, Germanic, Slavic words; he
not only noted sound patterns, but also paid special attention to affixes,
which were being ignored by scholars at the time. Bibliander’s metalanguage
contains many kinship terms, thus proving that he conceived linguistic
relations as genetic ones. Although he took the myth of the Babel literally,
Bibliander noted the difference between the linguistic spreading of languages
after Babel and the contemporary one, thus showing that he was not willing to
interpret linguistic data under the pressure of a myth.

The fourth chapter, “Konrad Gessner’s (1516-1565) general views on language”
(pp. 65-75), is an analysis of Gessner’s “Mithridates” (1555). This ambitious
treatise aimed at including as much linguistic information as possible,
illustrating this information with 22 versions of the Lord’s Prayer: the
languages included in the treatise are not only listed and illustrated, but
also ordered according to groups. Gessner’s sobriety and modesty, two rare
virtues at the time, make it sometimes difficult to grasp his own point of
view: he mentioned all the opinions issued on a subject, but sometimes did not
mention which of the conflicting views he supported. He was aware of
linguistic change, labeled as ‘corruption’, and moreover, he was aware of the
impact of social factors on linguistic facts.

The fifth chapter continues the analysis of Gessner’s work and is entitled
“Gessner’s views on the Germanic languages” (pp. 77-84). Metcalf warns the
reader not to be too enthusiastic about Gessner’s ideas on Germanic languages:
one should not modernize Gessner’s views and get a clearer picture than
Gessner himself had. Although he admitted the descent from a common ancestor,
the Swiss scholar did not conceive a coherent pattern of language evolution.
Gessner analysed the structure of the Germanic group; he was aware that the
current situation differed from the past one. Within the Germanic group, he
correctly distinguished between the living languages, but failed to make the
distinction between their ancestors: for Gessner, ‘old Celtic’ and ‘old
Germanic’ are two names attributed to the same language. This is Gessner’s
only striking error, as the rest of his observations are valid even today.

The sixth chapter, “Abraham Mylus (1563-1637) on historical linguistics” (pp.
85-107), deals with the achievements and shortcomings of Mylus’s works. His
theoretical framework sets up criteria for etymologizing in order to limit the
enthusiasm of deriving similar words. He emphasized the main role that
borrowing had in producing linguistic change and required that sound patterns
be checked in a number of word pairs before being accepted as etymologizing
rules. However, in practice, Mylus displayed less rigor. He considered
Teutonic the only pure and unchanged language older than Latin and Greek.

The seventh chapter, “Philippus Cluverius (1580-1623) and his ‘Lingua
Celtica’” (pp. 105-122), presents the views of a pioneer in historical
geography. Cluverius, in his “Germania antiqua” (1616), aimed at showing the
historical and geographical extent of ‘Germania’ and his linguistic theories
and facts were mere arguments that supported his ethno-historical conclusions.
Cluverius equated ‘Germania’ with the land of the Celts. He tried to identify
the reason behind phonetic changes and, unlike his contemporaries, paid
special attention to particles which appeared in names and, occasionally, as
independent words.

The eighth chapter, “A linguistic clash in the 17th century” (pp. 123-131),
discusses the academic quarrel between Johannes de Laet (1581-1649) and Hugo
Grotius (1583-1645) about the origin of the American Indians and, of course,
of their language. Grotius had argued in favor of a Norwegian origin for the
Indians of North America, an Ethiopian origin for the inhabitants of the
Yucatan and a Chinese origin for Southern Americans. De Laet, who had
travelled to the New World, showed that Amerindian languages were different,
and insisted on establishing several criteria for assessing linguistic
kinship. A number of related words are not enough to validate a genetic
relation between two idioms: one needs to observe the system of pronunciation,
the ‘nature of the structure’ (grammar) and basic vocabulary such as numbers,
parts of the body, close kinship terms and geographical terms. These criteria
are still valid nowadays.

The ninth chapter, “Justus Georg Schottelius (1612-1676) on historical
linguistics” (pp. 133-146), focuses on a very influential German scholar of
the 17th century. Schottelius’ book, “Ausfürliche Arbeit von der Teutschen
Haubstsprache” (1643) contains many remarkable ideas, despite its patriotic
bias. Scottelius sought out a permanent element in language, that would not
undergo change, and this was, in his opinion, the structure of the word. Every
language had a definite structural system; the particular structure varied
from one language to another, but it was constant in language over time. The
system of compounding was also part of this permanent element. Linguistic
change was determined by borrowing: when foreign words entered a language,
they did not reflect the word structure of the target language.  Phonetic
change within the same language, on the other hand, preserved its original
structure and served to distinguish dialects of equivalent rank.

The tenth chapter, “Andreas Jäger’s (c. 1660-1730) ‘De lingua vetustissima
Europae’ (1686)” (pp. 147-152), is considered by the editors as outdated. The
academic dissertation discussed in this article has recently been proven as
not belonging to Jäger; the (main) author should be considered Jäger’s
supervisor, Georg Kaspar Kirchmaier (p. 9). Although later reprints and
reviews of the dissertation do not mention Jäger’s name, Metcalf considers him
the author, arguing that it was a practice of the 17th and 18th century to
mention the name of the dissertation’s supervisor on title pages or in reviews
rather than the author’s name.

The eleventh chapter, “Johann Cristoph Adelung (1732-1806) discovers the
languages of Asia” (pp. 153-168), presents the views of a scholar at the
beginning at the 19th century. Adelung assumed that words sprung up from
onomatopoeic roots that became more complex over time. He analysed the
languages of Asia and concluded that, except for Sanskrit, they had not
reached the complexity of Western European idioms and, thus, were closer to
their original language.

EVALUATION

Metcalf did not invent the domain called ‘the prehistory of comparative
linguistics’, but he surely made a great contribution to its development. The
eleven articles gathered in this volume are not mere presentations of
linguists whose works have fallen into oblivion. The author performs a deep
analysis of the source-texts, correlating them with extralinguistic theories
that might have influenced them. Metcalf maintains a good balance between
enthusiasm about finding remarkable ideas at an early date, and disappointment
regarding the shortcomings of the works analysed, namely caused by patriotic
or religious bias. His knowledge of the times allowed Metcalf to correctly
judge the merits of each scholar. While many might be tempted to dismiss those
Early Modern scholars’ works as outdated, Metcalf finds remarkable insights
that predict modern approaches to historical linguistics. At the same time, he
warns the reader not to identify these insights with modern concepts, for
these interesting Early Modern views were fragmentary and did not form a
coherent system.

The two editors surpassed what they state in their editorial note on pp. 9-10.
Not only did they give unity to the volume by using the same orthographical
norms for the Latin texts and translating all the Latin passages that had
remained untranslated (it would have proven beneficial for the reader to
translate the German fragments too), but the disposal of the material in
chronological order of the authors discussed gives a new meaning to the
volume. As such, the reader notices a certain evolution in dealing with the
question of linguistic change and better grasps how the Indo-European
hypothesis became ripe.

“On Language Diversity and Relationship from Bibliander to Adelung” is aimed
primarily at linguists, especially those interested in historical linguistics,
comparative linguistics and in the history of linguistics. Scholars dealing
with language variation and linguistic typology will find interesting insights
that might prove profitable for their work. Finally, since Metcalf always
connects linguistic concepts to extralinguistic theories, the volume can also
be relevant for those in the fields of cultural history and the history of
ideas.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Monica Vasileanu is a scientific researcher at the 'Iorgu Iordan - Al.
Rosetti' Institute of Linguistics in Bucharest, Romania, where she is
currently working in projects such as 'Dicţionarul limbii române' (the
comprehensive dictionary of Romanian) and 'Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii
române' (the etymological dictionary of Romanian). She defendend her PhD
dissertation in 2012. Her main interests are in the fields of historical
linguistics and of critical text editing. She also teaches Romanian language
to non-native speakers at the University of Bucharest.

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-2349	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/