In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The emergence of the modern language sciences: Studies on the transition from historical-comparative to structural linguistics in honour of E. F. K. Koerner ed. by Sheila Embleton, John E. Joseph, Hans-Josef Niederehe
  • Julia S. Falk
The emergence of the modern language sciences: Studies on the transition from historical-comparative to structural linguistics in honour of E. F. K. Koerner. Vol. 1: Historiographical perspectives. Pp. 1v, 311, $95.00. Vol. 2: Methodological perspectives and applications. Pp. 1v, 335, $99.00. Ed. by Sheila Embleton, John E. Joseph, and Hans-Josef Niederehe. Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.

With structuralism as their defining characteristic for twentieth century linguistics, Sheila Embleton, John E. Joseph, and Hans-Josef Niederehe, editors of this festschrift for E. F. K. Koerner, have organized the 42 invited papers around two enduring themes of Koerner’s own work, the origins of structuralism in the work of European historical linguists in the second half of the nineteenth century, most prominently Ferdinand de Saussure, and, more generally, the history of European and American linguistics in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Vol. 1 treats issues in the history of linguistics with Saussure as the centerpiece. The twenty papers here are divided into three parts: ‘Before Saussure’ (1–108), ‘Saussure’ (109–198), and ‘After Saussure’ (199–294). The scope of Vol. 2 is broader. With its 4 parts and 22 chapters numbered consecutively with Vol. 1, Vol. 2 begins with a section titled ‘Methodological perspectives’ (1–98). Here we find six papers that look at concepts in twentieth century linguistics ranging from Indo-European methodology in the work of Leonard Bloomfield and Edward Sapir to ordered rules, ranked constraints, and optimality theory. The next three parts contain historical analyses of language phenomena, divided into ‘Indo-European linguistics’ (99–162), ‘Latin and comparative Romance linguistics’ (163–236), and ‘Germanic, Caucasian, and Asian linguistics’ (237–312). Only three chapters in Vol. 2 deal with non-Indo-European languages (Tsez, Old Korean, and a review of three books on Southeast Asian languages).

Both volumes begin with the editors’ ‘Introduction: Problems of structuralist beginnings (and endings)’ (ix–xxviii), followed by a ‘Bibliography of writings by E. F. K. Koerner, 1968–1999’ (xxix–1v). The latter makes it clear that Koerner’s own prolific research and writing have been and continue to be historiographic efforts enhanced by his many organizational contributions to the history of linguistics, including the founding of the North American Association for the History of the Language Sciences and the creation and long-time editorship of the journal Historiographia Linguistica. Koerner’s contributions to historical-comparative linguistics lie in historiographic work on nineteenth century concepts and persons and in his role as founding editor of Diachronica: International Journal for Historical Linguistics.

Important as Diachronica has been since its first volume in 1984 in providing a venue for historical linguistic work, the editors understate the position of historical linguistics in North America at the time the journal was founded. They write that ‘North American journals tended not to publish historical linguistics’, and that prior to Diachronica, historical linguistics was ‘seen as virtually coterminous with Indo-European linguistics’ (xviii). Whatever journals they may have had in mind, these remarks do not apply to Language.

In the decade from 1975 through 1984, that is, the decade up to the appearance of Diachronica, 44 of the 304 articles and review articles appearing in Language dealt with historical linguistics (14.5%). Furthermore, of those articles, 13, or nearly one-third, concerned non-Indo-European languages (e.g. Proto-Austronesian, Chinese, Dravidian, Polynesian, Yuman). These numbers would have been higher had I used for my tally a broader view of what might constitute historical linguistics, including, for example, pidgin and creole studies and/or sociolinguistic accounts of language change in progress, both topics of great interest in the decade under discussion. In either case, the level of representation would not satisfy those whose specializations lie in diachronic studies, but it is not insignificant.

As a historian of linguistics, and not a historical linguist, I cannot fairly evaluate the sixteen historical chapters of Vol. 2 except to comment that those that are enhanced by a comparison [End Page 831...

pdf

Share