Authenticity and the correction of errors in the context of language reclamation

Rob Amery
University of Adelaide

Introduction

Most languages spoken in the world today have an unbroken tradition. Languages like English, Japanese, Navajo and Pitjantjatjara have been passed on from generation to generation without intervention. Children in Ernabella, for instance, are born into a Pitjantjatjara-speaking society. They grow up immersed in the language and acquire the ability to speak Pitjantjatjara in much the same way that children born into an English-speaking family acquire English as a first language. From the viewpoint of a linguist, there is no question as to what is ‘correct’ Pitjantjatjara or ‘correct’ English. ‘Correct’ Pitjantjatjara are those varieties of Pitjantjatjara spoken by native speakers. ‘Correct’ English is that spoken by native speakers. Whilst the majority of English speakers in the world today are second language speakers, we would not hold up their English as an example of ‘correct’ English.

Reclaimed languages, by definition, are quite different. Reclaimed languages, such as Kaurna, have been constructed in the absence of native speakers. In this paper, I am most interested in pursuing ideas behind the notions of authenticity and ‘correctness’ as they apply to a reclaimed language, such as Kaurna, which is being revived and re-introduced on the basis of 19th century written documentation, primarily that of two missionaries of the Dresden Mission Society, Christian GottlobTeichelmann and Clamor Willhelm SchĂŒrmann. Their publications and manuscripts — principally Teichelmann & SchĂŒrmann (1840), henceforth T&S; Teichelmann (1857), henceforth TMs; and Teichelmann (1858) — are the foundation for ‘reclaimed Kaurna’ as we shall refer to the language that is learned and spoken today in Adelaide, South Australia.

Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Article, Australia, Linguistics, Revival linguistics, Revivalistics

Otto Neurath’s Isotype and his philosophy of language

James McElvenny
University of Sydney

The public image of the Vienna Circle, a group of thinkers active in Vienna in the 1920s and 30s (see Haller 1993; Stadler 2001[1997]), was characterised by a near-fanatical faith in ‘scientific’ thinking. In their manifesto (Verein Ernst Mach 2006[1929]), they declared their devotion to the wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung (scientific world conception) as the answer to ‘metaphysics’, a label they used for any philosophy that fell short of their scientific ideals. This was not simply an academic project, but also an effort to improve society and everyday life: their goal was ‘to fashion tools of thought for the everyday, not only for the everyday of scholars, but also for the everyday of all who in whatever way are involved in consciously working to shape our lives’ (ibid.:10-11).1

Among those leading the charge in this combative and politically engaged approach to philosophy was Otto Neurath (1882-1945). In the Circle’s internal debates he advocated a radical naturalistic epistemology, centred around a progressively refined form of our everyday language. His radicalism led him to denounce as ‘metaphysics’ even some theories — too abstract for his liking — that were espoused within the Circle itself (see, e.g., Reisch 2005:8; Cartwright et al. 1996:5-6). With his various political activities, he contributed greatly to marking out a place for the Circle in the contemporary political landscape (see chapter 10 of Haller 1993; Cartwright et al 1996). At the confluence of Neurath’s philosophical and political endeavours lay his project Isotype, a system of diagrammatic representation, originally designed to convey statistical information, but which in later years came to be marketed as an ‘international picture language’.

Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in 20th century, Article, History, Philosophy

Der Artikel ist keine ‘Wortart’! Zur synthetischen Grammatik von Sekiguchi

Kennosuke Ezawa
Ost-West-Gesellschaft fĂŒr Sprach- und Kulturforschung, Berlin

Die Linguistik war lange nicht zur Erkenntnis dessen gekommen, was durch den Artikel geschieht, wenn er verwendet wird.

„Allheit“ ist bekanntlich ein Inhalt, der im Deutschen mit dem sogenannten bestimmten Artikel realisiert werden kann: Der Mensch ist sterblich.

Der Inhalt „Allheit“ kann jedoch, wie Gabelentz zeigt (G. v. d. Gabelentz: Die Sprachwissenschaft, 1891: 98, 1901: 95), nicht nur mit dem bestimmten, sondern auch mit dem unbestimmten und dem Null-Artikel, aber auch mit verschiedenen anderen Mitteln (wie jed-er, all-e, insgesamt usw.) im Deutschen ausgedrĂŒckt werden:
Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Article, Linguistics, Semantics, Syntax

Linguists choosing the wrong side: Jacob van Ginneken and other alleged Nazi collaborators

Toon Van Hal
University of Leuven

Unlike the other posts to this blog, the present post is not intended as a contribution to learning. Its sole ambition is to open a discussion on a rather sensitive topic (which is not my own field of specialization). How do, or should, we deal today with linguists having chosen the ‘wrong’ side in the Second World War? The question came to my mind when I was reading Jac. van Ginneken under fire [“Jac. van Ginneken onder vuur”], the Dutch doctoral dissertation defended one year ago by Gerrold van der Stroom at the Free University of Amsterdam (Van der Stroom 2012). In English its subtitle reads “on contemporary and postwar criticism of the linguist J.J.A. Van Ginnekens S.J. (1877-1945)”. In the Interwar Period, Van Ginneken  ‒ professor at the Dutch Catholic University of Nijmegen from its 1923 foundation onward ‒ was a visionary and unconventional linguist, being prominently present on the European scene. Not only was he a trained scholar in Indo-European linguistics, he also tried to join linguistics with psychology, sociology and genetics in a truly interdisciplinary way. In the last year of the War Van Ginneken died of a brain tumor, and his intellectual legacy (almost) died with him. During and after the War Van Ginneken’s reputation suffered from his alleged sympathy for the German occupiers. The very fact that Van Ginneken had shown a profound interest for the interconnection between linguistics and biology made him suspect, not to say ridiculous, in the eyes of a later generation of scholars. Van der Stroom, a former employee of the Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies in English), argues in great detail that many of these accusations cannot be substantiated.

Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in 20th century, Article, History, Linguistics

Rethinking the history of the Aryan paradigm

Christopher Hutton
University of Hong Kong

My involvement with this topic began when I observed that the notion of a superior ‘Aryan race’, which functions in the English-speaking world as a near-universal shorthand for Nazi ideology, has no clear counterpart in the actual theories of Nazi ideologues. The term arische Rasse (‘Aryan race’) is not to be found in Nazi-era sources; the term used is arisches Volk (‘Aryan people’). In fact both academics and officials in the Nazi state rejected categorically the idea that ‘Aryan’ could be used to designate a racial identity. While the term arisch had immense ideological power in the public sphere in Germany between 1933 and 1945, it belonged, as far as race theorists were concerned, to the study of language and culture (Hutton 2005). The use of the phrase ‘Aryan race’ in English language sources derives from translating Volk (‘people’) as ‘race’, and then reading into the translated term ‘race’ a form of bio-racial essentialism. While ‘race’ (Rasse) was indeed a central concept in Nazi Germany, its actual status, and relationship to the concept of Volk, was the subject of complex and contentious debate. Despite the ubiquity of the term, the history of the Aryan paradigm has yet to be written. The most comprehensive guide to the early textual history of the term ‘Aryan’ remains that produced by a Nazi scholar, Hans Siegert (1941/42), but over the past twenty-five years a series of detailed intellectual histories and themed volumes that touch on the Aryan question have been published.1 The issue here however is not simply the correcting of a misleading translation or the creation of a historical narrative, but the reconceptualization of the Aryan paradigm, and, as a corollary, the political history of linguistic theorizing.

Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in 19th century, 20th century, Article, Germany, History, Linguistics

Program July-October 2013

[Program updated 30 July 2013]

24
July
Rethinking the history of the Aryan paradigm
Christopher Hutton
University of Hong Kong
31
July
Break
7
August
Linguists choosing the wrong side: Jacob van Ginneken and other alleged Nazi collaborators
Toon Van Hal
University of Leuven
14
August
Der Artikel ist keine ‘Wortart’! Zur synthetischen Grammatik von Sekiguchi
Kennosuke Ezawa
Ost-West-Gesellschaft fĂŒr Sprach- und Kulturforschung, Berlin
21
August
Otto Neurath’s Isotype and his philosophy of language
James McElvenny
University of Sydney
28
August
Authenticity and the correction of errors in the context of language reclamation
Rob Amery
Kaurna Warra Pintyanthi and University of Adelaide
4
September
Historical Chinese phonology as a meeting ground for the Indian, the Chinese, and the Western linguistic tradition
Lei Zhu
Shanghai International Studies University
11
September
From inductivism to structuralism: the ‘method of residues’ goes to the field
Michael Silverstein
University of Chicago
18
September
No beetle? Wittgenstein’s ‘grammatical illusions’ and Dalabon emotion metaphors
MaĂŻa Ponsonnet
Australian National University and Dynamique du Langage (CNRS/Université Lyon 2)
25
September
The social cognition of linguists
Andrea Schalley
Griffith University
2
October
Emile Benveniste et les langues amérindiennes
Chloé Laplantine
Laboratoire d’histoire des thĂ©ories linguistiques, UniversitĂ© Paris-Diderot
Tagged with:
Posted in Programs

Do linguists measure anything?

Nick Riemer
University of Sydney and Laboratoire d’histoire des thĂ©ories linguistiques, UniversitĂ© Paris-Diderot

Few questions in linguistics can be as hoary, fundamental or, perhaps, as unsatisfactorily handled, as that of the discipline’s empirical status – a question typically presented as one of linguistics’ ‘scientificity’. Among the many issues needing attention from anyone who wants to make a serious epistemological effort to clarify the character of linguistic theory, one in particular has received strikingly little discussion: the presence (or nonpresence) in linguistics of measurement.

Measurement couldn’t be more central to canonical sciences: theories are characteristically formulated in mathematical terms, and contain hypotheses about quantified data, a situation which naturally presupposes the measurement of the base phenomena (see Kuhn 1961 for a fascinating explosion of ‘myths’ about measurement in physics). In linguistics – or, at least, in the core theoretical domains of phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics – measurement comparable to that observed in the empirical sciences plays no obvious role. That, presumably, is the reason for the ambient silence about the topic. But could there be some more subtle respect in which theoretical linguistics does, after all, involve something analogous to measurement?

This question isn’t without interest, since it forms part of the comparatively neglected methodological side of the question of the scientificity of linguistics – taking ‘science’, of course, in its typical English sense, and not in the broader sense captured by German Wissenschaft. As everyone now knows, there’s no straightforward criterion of the ‘scientific’: just what qualifies something as a science, in fact, is – fortunately – a subject of debate (see the useful Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy entry). One thing, though, should be clear: it’s not enough for a discipline to count as a science that it simply have an empirical object. This, however, is typically the implicit grounds of linguists’ protestations about the scientificity of their discipline: languages are empirical objects, and the linguist studies them in the same way that other scientists study other empirical objects.

Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Article, Linguistics, Philosophy, Semantics

Early writing and printing in the Philippines

Rebeca FerndĂĄndez RodrĂ­guez
Universidade de TrĂĄs-os-Montes e Alto Douro

Printing and publishing began in the Philippines with the arrival of the Spanish in 1565. Encountering an enormous number of native languages, the Spaniards felt a pressing need to describe the languages most commonly spoken in the archipelago in order to communicate with the Filipinos. With the establishment of Spanish sovereignty over the Philippines, the Spanish Crown issued several contradictory laws regarding language. The missionaries were urged to learn the vernacular languages but were subsequently required to teach Spanish. For this reason, missionaries learnt the Philippine languages by writing vocabularies, grammars, and catechisms.

Philippine linguistic writing – grammars and vocabularies – is extensive and exhaustive. There was a pre-Hispanic writing system in the Philippines, baybayin, but it was used for personal communication and not for recording literature or history. For this reason missionaries had to start from the beginning. By describing the languages they contributed to their survival. In the last decades scholars have studied manuscripts and early editions of Tagalog, Bisaya and Ilocano texts and have been re-editing them. This is the case for Arte y reglas de la lengua tagala (1610) by Francisco Blancas de San JosĂ© (1560–1614) edited by Quilis in 1997; Bocabulario de lengua bisaya, hiligueyna y Haraya de la isla de Panay y Sugbu y para las demas islas (1632) by Alonso de MĂ©ntrida (1559–1637) edited by GarcĂ­a–Medall in 2004; and Arte de la lengua japona (1732), Tagalysmo elucidado (1742) and “Arte chĂ­nico” (1742) by Melchor Oyanguren de Santa InĂ©s (1688–1747), edited by Zwartjes (2010). There is also an unpublished PhD dissertation about the Calepino ylocano (ca. 1797) of Pedro Vivar (1730–1771) and AndrĂ©s Carro (?–1806) by FernĂĄndez RodrĂ­guez (2012).

Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in 16th century, 17th century, 18th century, Article, History, Philippines

Historical and moral arguments for language reclamation

Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
University of Adelaide

Language is an archaeological vehicle, full of the remnants of dead and living pasts, lost and buried civilizations and technologies. The language we speak is a whole palimpsest of human effort and history.
Russell Hoban (children’s writer, 1925-2011 – cf. Haffenden 1985: 138)

Introduction

Linguicide (language killing) and glottophagy (language eating) have made Australia an unlucky country. These twin forces have been in operation in Australia since the early colonial period, when efforts were made to prevent Aboriginal people from continuing to speak their language, in order to ‘civilize’ them. Anthony Forster, a nineteenth-century financier and politician, gave voice to a colonial linguicide ideology, which was typical of much of the attitude towards Australian languages (Report on a public meeting of the South Australian Missionary Society in aid of the German Mission to the Aborigines, Southern Australian, 8 September 1843, p. 2, cf. Scrimgeour 2007: 116):

The natives would be sooner civilized if their language was extinct. The children taught would afterwards mix only with whites, where their own language would be of no use – the use of their language would preserve their prejudices and debasement, and their language was not sufficient to express the ideas of civilized life. 

Even Governor of South Australia George Grey, who was relatively pro-Aboriginal, appeared to partially share this opinion and remarked in his journal that ‘the ruder languages disappear successively, and the tongue of England alone is heard around’ (Grey 1841: 200-201). What was seen as a ‘civilizing’ process was actually the traumatic death of various fascinating and multifaceted Aboriginal languages.

It is not surprising therefore that out of 250 known Aboriginal languages, today only 18 (7%) are alive and kicking, i.e. spoken natively by the community children. Blatant statements of linguistic imperialism such as the ones made by Forster and Grey now seem to be less frequent, but the processes they describe are nonetheless still active, let alone if one looks at the Stolen Generations between approximately 1909 and 1969.

There are approximately 7,000 languages currently spoken worldwide. 96% of the world’s population speaks 4% of the world’s languages, leaving the vast majority of tongues vulnerable to extinction and disempowering for their speakers. Linguistic diversity reflects many things beyond accidental historical splits. Languages are essential building blocks of community identity and authority. However, with globalization, homogenization and Coca-colonization there will be more and more groups added to the forlorn club of the powerless lost-heritage peoples. Language reclamation will become increasingly relevant as people seek to recover their cultural autonomy, empower their spiritual and intellectual sovereignty, and improve their wellbeing.

Revivalistics – including Revival Linguistics and Revivalomics – is a new interdisciplinary field of enquiry studying comparatively and systematically the universal constraints and global mechanisms on the one hand (see Zuckermann 2009), and particularistic peculiarities and cultural relativist idiosyncrasies on the other, apparent in linguistic revitalization attempts across various sociological backgrounds, all over the globe (Zuckermann & Walsh 2011).

Read more ›

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Article, Australia, Philosophy, Revival linguistics, Revivalistics

The creation of ‘parts of speech’ for Chinese: ‘translingual practice’ across Graeco-Roman and Sinitic traditions

Edward McDonald
University of Sydney

The English term ‘parts of speech’ is actually a mistranslation of long standing of the Latin partēs oratiƍnis, itself a translation of the Greek merē logou, in which the term oratiƍ / logos takes not its common meaning of ‘speech’ but rather the technical sense of ‘sentence’ (Halliday 1977/2003: 98). So the notion of ‘parts of speech’, which may seem to suggest that these ‘parts’ are natural classes somehow inherent to the language, should in fact be read ‘parts of the sentence’, in other words, constructs of language analysis. This confusion seems fitting as an epigraph to tracing the process of ‘translingual practice’ (Liu 1995) whereby this category came to be introduced from the Graeco-Roman tradition of linguistic scholarship to its Sinitic counterpart by a multilingual Chinese scholar just over a century ago. This notion allows us to understand the complexity of an achievement which cannot be reduced to ‘explaining change in terms of either foreign impact or indigenous evolution’ (Liu 1995: xix, emphasis added), but rather allows us to recognise the scholar, deeply versed in both Chinese and European scholarly traditions, strategically deploying concepts from both traditions in the service of his scholarly and political project.

The ‘responsible party’ in this case, Chinese diplomat and scholar Ma Jianzhong 銏ć»șćż  (1845-1900), was educated not only in Chinese but in Latin and French at a French Catholic school in Shanghai. In 1876 he went to France to study international law, becoming the first Chinese to achieve a baccalaurĂ©at, followed by a diploma in law in 1879. After a professional career as a diplomat, Ma transferred his energies to the scholarly arena, devoting the last decade of his life to writing the first grammar of Chinese produced by a native scholar, éŠŹæ°æ–‡é€š Mashi Wentong [Mr Ma’s Compleat Grammar] (1898/1956).*

Read more ›

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in 19th century, 20th century, Article, China, History, Linguistics, Syntax

Upcoming events


21-23 January 2026
Paris
SHESL Conference 2026
Versification and the History of Linguistic Ideas


17–20 March 2026
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona (Spain)
XV Congreso Internacional de la Sociedat Española de HistoriografĂ­a LingĂŒĂ­stica
Prescriptivism and descriptivism from the peripheries


23–25 March 2026
Montpellier (France)
Asian Languages in the History of Lexicography


2-4 September 2026
Nottingham (UK)
Henry Sweet Society Colloquium 2026
(Non-)Native Speakers in the History of Linguistic Ideas


10-11 September 2026
Fribourg (Switzerland)
The Prague Linguistic Circle in Geneva and Paris: Circulations and Decenterings


19-21 November 2026
Sofia (Bulgaria)
La linguistique ‘fonctionnelle’ cent ans aprùs la fondation du Cercle linguistique de Prague


23-27 August 2027
NiterĂłi, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
ICHoLS XVII