Chapter Nine WHITNEY AND BRÉAL, PAUL AND STEINTHAL, AND THEIR RELATION TO WEGENER
Chapter Nine WHITNEY AND BRÉAL, PAUL AND STEINTHAL, AND THEIR RELATION TO WEGENER
In many respects Wegener’s Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens (1885, US), the main body of writing to be studied in this part of the book, forms the third panel in the triptych of Whitney’s, Bréal’s, and Wegener’s theories of language and communication. Wegener’s work constitutes to some extent the continuation and completion of Whitney’s LSL (1867) and LGL (1875), as well as Bréal’s articles on the form and function of words (1866) and on latent ideas (1868). All three linguists had a functionalist view of language and an instrumentalist view of words; Whitney and Wegener even showed signs of a behaviourist approach to language. All three worked in
a framework of ‘pragmatic and semantic evolutionism’, that is to say they gave pragmatics primacy over semantics, and semantics primacy over syntax and phonetics. The nature of language is action and interactive communication, and this nature provides the reasons and rationales of language-change. More specifically, Wegener and Whitney regarded language as a purposeful and goal-directed activity, and language-change as a function of communication. There are also some overlaps in more detailed aspects of their theories, such as the analysis of the evolution of the relative clause, for example. As for Bréal, Wegener shared with him a conception of the evolution of syntax in general. They also held similar views on the importance of language comprehension for the study of language in general, and they both used the formfunction distinction to explain some forms of language-change. Bréal’s analysis of the subjective element in language has some features in common with Wegener’s study of the description of actions from the point of view of the speaking subject, especially the explanation of linguistic connectives. They also agree upon a critical view regarding the Lautgesetzfrage, and deny the value of
a sharp distinction between physiological and psychological factors in the explanation of language-change (cf. Osthoff 1879), the former explaining sound change, the latter changes in meaning. Bréal and Wegener believed that phonetic as well as semantic changes have to be explained psychologically (cf. Wegener’s review of Paul [1880], 1882). Bréal writes: ‘It’s in intelligence, in the brain, that we must look for the primary cause of phonetic changes. The word is some sort of vocal image imprinted in memory, the reproduction of which is entrusted to our organs, which have their own tendencies’ (1897:7). Whitney did not share Wegener’s and Bréal’s enthusiasm for psychological explanations. What Bréal, Whitney, Wegener, and Hermann Paul had in common,
Change in language 112
however, was their quest for the basic principles that govern the ‘life and growth’ of language.
DIRECT INFLUENCES AND UNINTENTIONAL SIMILARITIES Some of the parallels and overlaps in Whitney’s, Bréal’s, and Wegener’s thought can be
explained by direct influence; some are, or at least seem to be, of a more accidental nature. Wegener, who was often criticized for scarcely referring to already existing literature, mentions Whitney twice, once in his review of Paul (1880), once in his Untersuchungen. In the first case he reports that Whitney had often accused German linguistics of its obsession with detail at the expense of a more general study of language, the nature of language-change and the principles that govern the history of language (cf. Wegener 1882:301). All this has been achieved, or at least touched upon, by Hermann Paul in his Principien der Sprachgeschichte (1880). In the Untersuchungen Wegener mentions Whitney alongside Paul, Steinthal, and Lazarus, as one who has had some sound and sober insights into the nature of language (US: 6). Whitney’s influence on Wegener can therefore hardly be disputed.
What about Bréal? Wegener denied that he ever read his 1868 article on latent ideas, despite the fact that Paul mentioned it in his book, which Wegener reviewed. But more importantly (for anyone can overlook a footnote), Bréal’s article on latent ideas was reviewed by Wegener’s admired teacher and colleague, Heymann Steinthal (cf. chapter 7, p. 142.). Wegener’s denial can be found in a reply to a review of his own book by Ziemer (1886), who had suggested this parallel (cols 181, 184) (cf. Wegener 1886). However, the similarities between Wegener and Bréal remain striking.
Language and the speaking subject 113