1887
Volume 40, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The term “Humboldt’s Universal”, introduced to linguistics in the 1970s, appears to be synonymous with a number of other expressions, some of which are also used to denote different phenomena (e.g. isomorphism). In this paper, the extent of the terminological problem is highlighted, and a plea is made for explanation of how the term is to be understood in the work of individual authors.

Résumé

L’expression « universel de Humboldt », introduite en linguistique dans les années 1970, semble être synonyme de nombreuses autres formulations, dont certaines sont également utilisées pour désigner d’autres phénomènes. Dans cet article, l’étendue du problème terminologique est soulignée et un plaidoyer est mené pour que soient expliqués les termes en question dans le travail de chaque auteur.

Zusammenfassung

Der in den 1970er-Jahren in die Linguistik eingeführte Begriff „Humboldts Universale“ wird gerne mit einer Reihe anderer Ausdrücke synonym verwendet, die aber teilweise auch andere Phänomene bezeichnen. In diesem Beitrag wird das Ausmaß des terminologischen Problems aufgezeigt, indem die Verwendungsweisen des Terminus im Werk der einzelnen Autoren erklärt wird.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22010.bau
2023-05-05
2024-05-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, John M. & Colin J. Ewen
    1987Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511753442
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753442 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anttila, Raimo
    1989Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.6 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauer, Laurie
    2016 Classical morphemics. InAndrew Hippisley & Gregory Stump (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology, 331–355. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139814720.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.013 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2020 Arbitrariness, motivation and idioms. Review of Cognitive Linguistics18(1). 162–179. 10.1075/rcl.00055.bau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00055.bau [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell, Lyle
    2013Historical linguistics: An introduction. Third edn.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chao, Yuen-Ren
    1934/1958 The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. Reprinted inMartin Joos (ed.), Readings in linguistics, 38–54. Second edn. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dressler, Wolfgang U.
    2005 Word-formation in natural morphology. InPavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds.), Handbook of word-formation, 267–284. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑3596‑9_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_11 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gaeta, Livio
    2010 Analogical change. InSilvia Luraghi & Vit Bubeník (eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 147–160. London: New York Continuum. (Also published as theBloomsbury companion to historical linguistics. London: Bloomsbury).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hock, Hans Heinrich
    2006 Analogy. InBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 441–460. Malden MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hockett, Charles F.
    1987Refurbishing our foundations. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.56
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.56 [Google Scholar]
  11. Humboldt, Wilhelm von
    1971Linguistic variability and intellectual development. Tr.George C. Buck & Frijthof A. RavenfromÜber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts (Berlin 1836) Miami FL: University of Miami Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Karlsson, Fred
    2014 Complexity in linguistic theorizing. InJuhani Järvikivi, Pirita Pyykkönen-Klauck & Matti Laine (eds.), Words and constructions: Language complexity in linguistics and psychology. [The Mental Lexicon 9(2)]. 144–169. 10.1075/ml.9.2.01kar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.2.01kar [Google Scholar]
  13. Kiparsky, Paul
    1992 Analogy. InWilliam Bright (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguisticsVol11, 56–61. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lass, Roger
    1984Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 1997Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620928
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620928 [Google Scholar]
  16. Mayerthaler, Willi
    1981Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. McMahon, April M. S.
    1994Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166591
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166591 [Google Scholar]
  18. Nathan, Geoffrey S.
    2008Phonology: A cognitive grammar introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.3 [Google Scholar]
  19. Trask, R. L.
    2000The dictionary of historical and comparative linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474473316
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474473316 [Google Scholar]
  20. Vennemann, Theo
    1972 Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. InTheo Vennemann & T. H. Wilbur (eds.), Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change: Four essays, 181–204. Frankfurt: Athenaeum. Also reprinted inPhilip Baldi & Ronald N. Werth (eds.) 1978 Readings in historical phonology, 258–274. University Park PA and London: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Wheeler, Max
    1993 On the hierarchy of naturalness principles in inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics291. 95–111. 10.1017/S0022226700000062
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700000062 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22010.bau
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error