- John Lotz, “Speech and Language,” Jour. Acoust. Soc. of Amer., 22.6 (Nov. 1950), 717.
- Edward Sapir, “The Status of Linguistics As a Science,” Language, 5 (1929), 214.
- See for example: Burt W. and Ethel G. Aginsky, “The Importance of Language Universale,” Word, 4.3 (Dec. 1948), 168ff.; Ethel G. Aginsky, “Language and Culture,” Proceedings of the Eighth Amer. Scientific Congress, Vol. II, pp. 271–276; Stuart Chase, The Proper Study of Mankind, New York (1948); Clyde Kluckhohn, Mirror for Man, New York (1949), p. 159; H. D. Lasswell, Nathan Leites and Associates, The Language of Politics, Studies in Quantitative Semantics, New York (1949); Bronislaw Malinowski, A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays, Chapel Hill (1944), passim; Elton Mayo, Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization, Boston (1945); Margaret Mead, “The Application of
- Anthropological Techniques to Cross-National Communication,” Transactions of the N. Y. Academy of Sciences, February (1947), passim; Pitirim A. Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics, New York (1941), Vol. 4, passim; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 1.1, Boston, (1874); Ludwig Klages, Die Sprache als Quelle der Seelenkunde, Zürich (1948).
- Ernst A. Cassirer, “Structuralism in Modern Linguistics,” Word, 1 (1945), 110.
- See, for example, the well-known work of Franz Boas and Edward Sapir; Harry Hoijer, “Linguistic and Cultural Change,” Language, 24.4 (1948), 335–345; Edgar H. Sturtevant, An Introduction to Linguistic Science, New Haven (1947), p. 2, p. 7; Eugene Nida, “Linguistics and Ethnology in Translation-Problems,” Word, I (1945), 194–208; Charles F. Hockett, “Language ‘and’ Culture: A Protest,” American Anthropologist, 52.1 (1950), 113, and the various articles of Benjamin Whorf collected as Four Articles on Metalinguistics (Washington, Foreign Service Institute, 1950).
- L. Bloomfield, Language, New York (1933), p. 139. For a restatement of the same position in even more exaggerated terms see L. Bloomfield, “Meaning,” Monatshefte, XXXV (1943), 101–106.
- That Bloomfield's tendency to avoid questions of meaning was more apparent than real is implicit in the above quotation from Language. From time to time Bloomfield himself corroborated this in conversation with friends, among them Roman Jakobson, and indicated that only lack of time had prevented him from tackling such highly important and pertinent questions as he would like to have done.
- Martin Joos, “Description of Language Design,” Jour. Acoust. Soc. of Amer., 22.6 (1950), 701.
- Language, 2 (1926), 153–64.
- M. B. Emeneau, “Language and Non-Linguistic Patterns,” Language, 26.2 (1950), 209.
- Roman Jakobson, “On the Identification of Phonetic Entities,” Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, V (1949), 205–13.
- As cited above.
- Ernst Cassirer, as cited above, p. 113. The first two quotations are from the context and derive from Plato's Sophist.
- Ernst A. Cassirer, as cited above, pp. 116–117.
- M. V. Mathesius, “La place de la linguistique fonctionelle et structurale dans le développement général des études linguistiques,” Actes Du Deuxième Congrès International De Linguistes, Genève, 1931, Paris (1933), p. 145.
- Ibid, pp. 145–6. However, see J. v. Laziczius, “Das sog. dritte Axiom der Sprachwissenschaft,” Acta linguistica, I (1939), 162–167 regarding the alleged incompatibility between de Saussure's la parole/la langue and von Humboldt's energeia/ergon.
- “Die Bedeutungslehre—ein Irrweg der Sprachwissenschaft,” GBM, XV (1927), 161–183; Die Entdeckung der Muttersprache im europäischen Denken, Lüneburg, 1948; Von den Kräften der deutschen Sprache: Vol. I, Die Sprache unter den Kräften des menschlichen Daseins, Düsseldorf (1949); Vol. II, Vom Weltbild der deutschen Sprache, Düsseldorf (1950); Vol. III, Die Muttersprache im Aufbau unserer Kultur (1950); Vol. IV, Die geschichtliche Kraft der deutschen Sprache (1951). (See review of Volumes I and II by R. E. Saleski, Language, 26.3 (1950), 439–441.
- Unfortunately Weisgerber's hieratic vocabulary and style are somewhat irritating and at times make one suspicious of the cultish character of his proposals. The repetition of words such as Sehweise, Sicht, Herzwörter, Weltbild der Sprache, geistige Zwischenwelt, welterschliessend, unfortunately convey the feeling of working magic, of ritual. They may be and probably are justifiable but they nonetheless lend his books a missionary tone which seems to argue a theology. He suggests the promise of a linguistic millennium but, although the documentation which he amasses is cogent, only an empirical beginning has been made.
- Jost Trier, “Das sprachliche Feld,” Neue Jahrbücher f. Wissenschaft u. Bildung, 10 (1934), 428–449. Translation mine.
- Ibid., p. 429.
- Wilhelm von Humboldt, Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus, Akad. Ausg. VII, I, 72. Translation mine.
- Gunther Ipsen and Walter Porzig, somewhat to the contrary, contend that the field concept is a formal device and that a linguistic field may be said to exist only when it is based on purely linguistic relationships. Trier replies that his criterion of linguistic content is linguistic and not formalogical. The structural relationship is not an intellectual tongs superimposed on language and therefore formalogical in character. The structural relationship is a linguistic reality which can be approached empirically with the result of discovering the linguistic content of given languages.
- See Gunther Ipsen, “Der neue Sprachbegriff,” ZDK, 46 (1932), 14ff.; Walter Porzig, “Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen,” PBB, 58 (1934), 70–97; Jost Trier, “Deutsche Bedeutungsforschung,” Germ. Philologie (Festschr. f. Behaghel), Heidelberg (1937), 189–193.
- Grund und Grat. Der Formaufbau der Bergwelt in den Sprachbegriffen der Schweitzerdeutschen Alpenmundarten, diss. Zürich, (1937) [“Ground and Grade. The Formal Structure of the Mountain World in the Linguistic Concepts of the Swiss-German Dialects”].
- Karl Vossler, “Volksprachen u. Weltsprachen,” Welt und Wort (1946), 98. Translation mine.
- Vom Weltbild, d. deut. Spr., p. 141. Translation mine.
- F. Dornseiff, Der deutsche Wortschatz nach Sachgruppen (1933).
- Jost Trier, Der deut. Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk d. Verstandes, die Geschichte eines Feldes. Heidelberg (1931).
- Fr. Mauthner, Die drei Bilder der Welt (1925); also referred to recently by Karl Jaspers, Von der Wahrheit (1946).
- Vom Weltbild d. deut. Spr., p. 178.
- Walter Porzig, Das Wunder der Sprache, Bern (1950), p. 369.
- H. Brinkmann, Sprachwandel und Sprachbewegung in ahd. Zeit, (1931).
- Erich Drach, Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre, Berlin (1937).
- So for example the cited study of Karl Bergmann, “Über eine wichtige bautiimliche Verschiedenheit der deutschen und der französischen Sprache,” ZDK, 47 (1933), 223–230, which purports to document the fact that French, as English, tends to form words by the addition of (Latin) suffixes, whereas German does it by compounding German words, e.g., French sculpteur, German Bildhauer. Bergmann concludes: “Valuable as the extraordinarily developed possibilities of compounding are in our language (i.e., German), there can be no doubt that the simple word or its extension (by suffixation) is superior in linguistic value to an equivalent compound: Wäscherin is linguistically superior to Waschfrau, Nähterin to Nähmädchen, Vermieterin to Vermietsfrau.” The criterion of linguistic value for Bergmann is obviously the economy of expression and the simplicity resulting from unity. Although Bergmann (and Weisgerber) conclude that these varying structural principles of French and German express the varying thought processes (Denkweisen) of the two linguistic communities, they do not venture to specify the how or the why of the matter.
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research