LINGUIST List 25.2349
Thu
May 29 2014
Review: Historical
Linguistics; History of Linguistics: Metcalf
(author), van Hal & van Rooy (eds.)
(2013)
Editor for this issue:
Rajiv Rao <rajivlinguistlist.org>
Date: 01-Apr-2014
From: Monica Vasileanu
<monica.vasileanu
gmail.com>
Subject: On Language Diversity
and Relationship from Bibliander to Adelung
E-mail this message to a
friend
Discuss this
message
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.
Page Updated: 29-May-2014