Lateinische Sprachwissenschaft By Alfred Bammesberger (review)

208 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 1 (1986) word and each utterance as an absolutely new creation, with no equivalent in the speaker's own language or any other. He concluded that, since language is an on-going, never-ceasing spiritual activity, it is an unanalysable continuum . Historical linguistics could stiU be regarded as a permissible study, because it was part of history and hence a legitimate object of study in aesthetics. For C, however, non-aesthetically -based linguistics dealt only with an artificial creation of text-books, and hence was invalid. The non-Crocean linguist will perceive at least two basic faults in this approach: (a) the failure to recognize the existence of recurrent partial similarities between individual utterances in the usage ofone or more speakers; and (b) the confusion arising from the polysemy of It. linguaggio—which (like Fr. langage, Sp. lenguaje, Eng. language) can refer both to a specific linguistic system and to human communication in general, by narrowly linguistic or other means (e.g. 'the language of music'). Yet these confusions did not stand in the way of the acceptance of Cs doctrines in some quarters, as D makes abundantly clear. Of D's two volumes, the first is devoted to 'Les idées linguistiques de Croce', with three main subdivisions devoted to the development of Cs thought: 'La formation de la pensée (1866-1899)' (pp. 15-60); 'L'explicitation des idées linguistiques (1900-1914)' (61-220); and 'Une seconde linguistique? (1914-1952)' (221315 ). D makes it clear that Cs ideas remained basically those of the middle period, and underwent only slight modifications after 1914. Vol. II, 'L'influence de B. Croce sur la linguistique', deals first with 'Croce à l'étranger' (7-125), with ten subsections arranged by countries; then with 'Croce en Italie' (127-243). The far greater space aUotted to Italy is justified by Cs relatively stronger influence there and by the number of his followers, to whom D devotes ample discussion. Vol. II ends with a 'Conclusion gén érale' (244-72), a very fuU bibliography (273325 ), and a not wholly accurate index of proper names (327-34). It is evident that D is in basic sympathy with the Crocean approach; yet he is objective in his discussion of the reasons for its success in some regions, and lack thereof in others. Although D does not say so explicitly, itis nevertheless clear that Cs success in Italy and the Hispanic countries resulted chiefly from the low over-all level of linguistic work being done there in the latter part of the 19th century (in general, by thirdand fourth-rate foUowers of the German Junggrammatiker ). In Germany and Austria, Cs influence was felt chiefly in stylistics—in the work of K. Vossler, L. Spitzer, and E. Lerch— as part of a reaction against a largely misunderstood positivism. Elsewhere, linguistics was too far advanced and dealt with too broad a spectrum of human language-activities to take C and his aestheticizing approach seriously. D's work is thorough and meritorious. It wiU be useful primarily to historians oflinguistics as it was practised in Italy and the Spanish-speaking countries, and to those interested in curious aberrations in general linguistics. [Robert A. Hall jr., Cornell University.] Lateinische Sprachwissenschaft. By Alfred Bammesberger. (Eichstätter Materialien, Sprache und Literatur , 6.) Regensburg: Pustet, 1984. Pp. 128. DM 19.80. B starts from the premise that the beginner in Latin linguistics can hardly cope with the enormous literature devoted to 'die am besten durchforschte indogermanische Sprache' (5). Accordingly , this volume provides an introduction to that literature, with enough bibliographical aids to allow deeper research into the material covered . Some incomplete and missing references, however, will cause confusion. For example, Szemerényi 1972 is twice referred to simply as such, with no corresponding entry under 'Literaturverzeichnis '; evidently B means S's 'Comparative linguistics' (Current trends in linguistics 9.119-95). B concedes that his book 'verfolgt keine hohen wissenschaftlichen Ziele' (5); accordingly , its coverage is ratherrestricted in scope— incorporating the traditional areas of historical phonology and morphology and Indo-European , but not touching on contributions made to Latin studies within modern theoretical linguistics . B's phonological theory is that of...