Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

A-Z 793K.Verner, A. Leskien, H.Paul, O.Behaghel. The name, used derogatorily by the oldergeneration, stems from F.Zarncke and is first attested in Osthoff and Brugmann (1878).The beginning of the Neogrammarian school is considered to be the publication dates ofK.Verner’s 1877 explanation of apparent exceptions to Grimm’s Law, A.Leskien’s 1876investigations of declension, in which the postulate of the inviolability of sound laws isformulated, and above all H. Paul’s Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (‘Principles of thehistory of language’), published in 1880.The works of the Neogrammarians, inasmuch as they pertain to general linguistics,can be characterized by the following aspects. (a) The object of linguistic investigation isnot the language system, but rather the language as it is localized in the individual, andtherefore is directly observable ( idiolect). This is seen as a psychological as well as aphysical activity. (b) Autonomy of the sound level: according to the postulate ofobservability of the material (instead of abstractions), the sound level is seen as the mostimportant level of description, and absolute autonomy of the sound level from syntax andsemantics is assumed. (c) Historicism: the chief goal of linguistic investigation is thedescription of the historical change of a language. This almost exclusive interest in thediachronic development of language ( synchrony vs diachrony) is documented in thelarge number of comparative historical compendia (cf. Leskien, Osthoff and Brugmann,and others), which excel in their wealth of facts as well as in the exactness of theirmethods of reconstruction. (d) Inviolability of sound laws: this much-debated postulate,patterned after the natural sciences, is not based on empirical findings, but rather is an apriori assumption, made to ensure the uniformity of the investigatory methods oflinguistics and the natural sciences. (e) Analogy: wherever the premise of theinviolability of sound laws fails, analogy is applied as an explanation, i.e. exceptions areunderstood to be a (regular) adaptation to a related form.Despite their strong repercussions, the methods and goals of the Neogrammarian viewof language have been criticized from various quarters and with various emphases. Suchcriticism has been aimed especially at the following: reduction of the object ofinvestigation to the idiolect; restriction to the description ‘of surface phenomena (soundlevel); overvaluation of historical languages and neglect of contemporary ones;description of i ndividual processes instead of systemic connections.ReferencesJankowsky, K.R. 1972. The Neogrammarians: a reevaluation of their place in the development oflinguistic science. The Hague.——1990. The neogrammarian hypothesis. In E.C. Polomé (ed.), Research guide on languagechange. Berlin. 223–39.Leskien, A. 1876. Die Deklination im SlavischLitauischen und Germanischen. Leipzig.Osthoff, H. and K.Brugmann. 1878. Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiet derindogermanischen Sprachen, part 1. Leipzig.Paul, H. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen. (9th edn 1975.)Steinthal, H. 1890–1. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Römern mitbesonderer Rücksicht auf die Logik, 2 vols. Berlin. (Repr. Hildesheim, 1961.)Vennemann, T. and T.H.Wilbur (eds) 1972. Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and thetransformational theory of phonological change. Frankfurt.Verner, K. 1877. Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung. ZVS 23. 97–130.