Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T10:42:45.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Positivism and ‘Hocus-pocus’ in Germanic and English Linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Herbert Penzl
Herbert Penzl
Affiliation:
University of California at BerkeleyBerkeley, California 94720
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The modern history of Germanic and English (synchronic and diachronic) linguistics reveals two main types of scholarly approach to language data: positivism (labelled ‘God's truth’) and theoreticism (labelled ‘hocus-pocus’ by American structuralists). The latter seems to have been dominant in the last decade.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

WORKS CITED

Arndt, Walter A. 1959. “The performance of glottochronology in Germanic.” Language 35:180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braune, W. and Ebbinghaus, E. A.. 1966. Gotische Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bussmann, H. 1983. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Kröners Taschenausgabe, 452. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Hamp, E. P. 1957. A glossary of American technical linguistic usage. Utrecht and Antwerp: Spectrum.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Structural linguistics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar and Twaddell, W. F.. 1942. “Facts and phonemics.” Language 18:228–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1955. A manual of phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics, 24: 4, Pt. 1. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred. 1952. “Zellig Harris' Methods in structural linguistics.” International journal of American linguistics 18, 4:260–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joos, Martin, ed. 1957. Readings in linguistics: The development of descriptive linguistics in America, 1925–1956. Vol. 1. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1976. English phonology and phonological theory: Synchronic and diachronic studies. Cambridge studies in linguistics, 17. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1986. “Conventionalism, Invention and ‘Historical Reality’: Some reflections on method.” Diachronica 3:15–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. 1952. Proto-Indo-European phonology. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1952. “Zur Entstehung des i-Umlauts im Nordgermanischen.” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 66: 1–15.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1971. Lautsystem und Lautwandel in den althochdeutschen Dialekten. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1972. Methoden der germanischen Linguistik. Tübingen: NiemeyerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1975. Vom Urgermanischen zum Neuhochdeutschen. Grundlagen der Germanistik, 16. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1983. “The Old High German i-Umlaut and the models of historical sound-change.” Monatshefte 75, 2: 131–136.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1984. Frühneuhochdeutsch. Germanistische Lehrbuchsammlung, Band 9. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1986. Althochdeutsch. Eine Einführung in Dialekte und Vorgeschichte. Germanistische Lehrbuchsammlung, Band 7. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1988. “Can Proto-Germanic be reconstructed as a ‘natural’ language?” Germania: Comparative studies in the Old Germanic languages and literatures. Eds. Calder, D.G. and Christy, T. Craig. Wolsboro, New Hampshire: D. S. Brewer. Pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Pulgram, Ernst. 1959. Introduction to the spectrography of speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1980. Schools of linguistics. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, M. L. 1972. Linguistic evolution, with special reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1920. “Steigton und Fallton im Althochdeutschen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Otfrids Evangelienbuch.” Aufsätze zur Sprach- und Literaturgeschichte, Wilhelm Braune zum 20. Februar 1920. Dortmund: Ruhfus. Pp. 148–198.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M., ed. 1987. Studies in honour of René Derolez. Ghent: Seminarie voor Engelse en Oud-Germaanse Taalkunde. R.U.G.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1975. “Problems in the interpretation of the Great English Vowel Shift.” Essays on the sound pattern of English. Eds. Goyvaerts, D. L. and Pullum, G. P.. Ghent: Story-Scientia. Pp. 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trager, George L. and Bloch, B.. 1941. “The syllabic phonemes of English.” Language 17: 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1938. “A note on Old High German Umlaut.” Monatshefte 30: 177–181.Google Scholar
Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1956. “Pre-OHG */t/.” For Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Ed. Halle, M.. The Hague: Mouton. Vol. 2. Pp. 559–566.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Th. 1968. “Die Affrikaten in der generativen Phonologie des Deutschen.” Phonetica 18: 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, Patricia M. 1972. Linguistic change and the Great Vowel Shift in English. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, W. A. 1970. Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Studia Grammatica, 8. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar