Wilhelm Von Humboldt Research Articles

Are Freedom and Dignity Possible? (review)

Reviewed by: Are Freedom and Dignity Possible? Larry A. Hickman Are Freedom and Dignity Possible? Bernard den Ouden. Dexter, Mich.: Thompson-Shore, 2004. xvi + 124 pp. pbk 0-9749726-0-6. Bernard den Ouden is one of those philosophers who proves by example that the activities of an intellectual and the activities of a human rights activist can flourish together in one career. His professional work involves a tight interface of theory and practice in which each informs and amplifies the other. His published work constitutes a kind of overflow from his broad reading of philosophical texts and his humanitarian activities in various places around the globe. In his hands, philosophy becomes a living instrument for solving some of the worst of the world's problems, as well as a body of theory that benefits from hands-on, real-world activities. After a brief introduction, this slim volume comprises three sections and an epilogue. The introduction provides an account of how the author's concern for working with "the poorest of the poor" arose from his philosophical quest. Uncomfortable with what he describes as the mass ideology of non self-critical "Critical Theory" as well as postmodern concepts of insular communities or "locales of undecidability," he rejected both options. Instead of accepting the postmodern notion of universals as products of "evil Eurocentric Imperialism," he was drawn to engagement with the real-world universals of the United Nations Covenants and Conventions on Universal Human Rights. Den Ouden's work with these real-world universalizables has taken him to places such as Egypt, Bangladesh, and the Dominican Republic on projects as diverse as potable water management, food distribution, and women's issues. Part I, "Ideologies of Self-Knowledge and Freedom," comprises five essays, most of which were originally published in Contemporary Philosophy, on issues such as the Wisconsin welfare reform project, the ways in which publics can be motivated to prize equality of opportunity, and the possibilities of fostering grass-roots democracies by promoting small-scale economic development. Part II, "Beyond Postmodernism," continues and amplifies den Ouden's criticism of postmodernist emphases on difference and what he regards as the movement's extreme versions of cultural relativism. Revisiting the humanism of Wilhelm von Humboldt and Gottfried Herder in considerable detail, he issues a call for a global perspective that emphasizes similarities while respecting differences and that envisions the possibilities of joint projects that are oriented toward common goods. [End Page 243] This section also contains an essay that presents a solid reading of Nietzsche—solid in the sense that den Ouden avoids some of the cherished dogmas of many of Nietzsche's postmodernist interpreters. There is deep irony, he suggests, in claiming allegiance to a philosopher who wanted no disciples. And there is perhaps even deeper irony in treating difference as if it were an absolute. It is no accident, he suggests, that elements of the French Right have appealed to the core ideas of postmodernism to support their own politics of racism and exclusion. Part III, "Tragic Landscapes and Technologies of Hope," presents brief essays on deforestation and several issues associated with alternative and sustainable technologies. These issues, he reminds us, are inherently neither those of the political right or the left. They are issues that take all human beings into account, and that will require creativity, imagination, and insight for their resolution. Finally, in a brief epilogue den Ouden presents a highly personal analysis of the traditional "mind-body" problem couched in terms of his own experience of living with acute pain. More important, he demonstrates how even such debilitating experiences can prove to be effective in energizing greater empathy for those to whom he has dedicated a good portion of his professional life: the poorest of the poor. The volume is not without minor defects. Some of the essays could have benefited from additional editorial attention. Others leave the reader wishing that the author had gone into more detail in terms of the solutions he proposes. This is especially true of the chapters on alternative and sustainable technologies. Some readers may object to the deeply personal nature of den Ouden's presentation. To this reviewer, however, it is...

Minding the Gap: Toward a Historical Poetics of Estrangement

Under different names, alienation has been around for a long time. However, Immanuel Kant's Copernican revolution marks a new and deeper degree of alienation. Kant's definition of the subject—denied contact with the world as such and forced constantly to synthesize the immediacy of intuitions with the lawfulness of concepts—is a hopelessly riven “I-think.” Reading Kant was a traumatic event for contemporaries, especially for philosophers, who attempted to make the world whole again by formulating new versions of absolute unity. It was Wilhelm von Humboldt who theorized a way both to accept the gap in Kantian epistemology and, at least partially—through language understood as inner speech—to overcome the gap. Reacting to later appropriations of von Humboldt, Russian linguists and such literary theorists as Victor Shklovsky, Roman Jakobson, Sergej Karcevskij, and Mikhail Bakhtin explored the complexity of alienation in language and offered proposals for negotiating it in different versions of literariness.

Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (review)

Reviewed by: Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thoughtby Noam Chomsky Julia S. Falk Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. 2nd edn. By Noam Chomsky. Ed. with an introduction by James McGilvray. Christchurch, New Zealand: Cybereditions, 2002. Pp. 161. ISBN 187727545X. $17.95. Noam Chomsky’s Cartesian linguistics( CL) was originally published in 1966 (New York: Harper & Row) and was preceded by four versions of his plenary session address to the 1962 Ninth International Congress of Linguists (ICL). The four versions are: (i) ‘The logical basis of linguistic theory’, Preprints of papers for the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, ed. by Morris Halle, 509–74, Cambridge, MA: Morris Halle, 1962; (ii) ‘The logical basis of linguistic theory’, Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 914–78, The Hague: Mouton, 1964; (iii) ‘Current issues in linguistic theory’, The structure of language, ed. by Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz, 50–118, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964; and (iv) Current issues in linguistic theory, The Hague: Mouton, 1964. Each version of the ICL paper incorporates increasingly lengthy and more detailed discussion of pre-twentieth-century views of linguistic creativity and the innate principles of mind that make language acquisition possible. These are the concepts that form the central themes of CL, which editor James McGilvray here calls ‘one of the most original and profound studies of language and mind in the 20th century’ (7). Chomsky’s presentations and interpretations of the ideas of René Descartes and of other rationalist and romanticist philosophers and writers (such as Géraud de Cordemoy, Ralph Cudworth, August Wilhelm Schlegel, and Wilhelm von Humboldt) brought to the attention of linguists in the 1960s an intellectual history that had been largely ignored during an extended period of ahistoricism in twentieth-century American academic life (for discussion see Julia S. Falk’s ‘Turn to the history of linguistics: Noam Chomsky and Charles Hockett in the 1960s’, Historiographia Linguistica30.129–85, 2003). CLand the earlier ICL papers led to a surge of American interest in the history of linguistic concepts and ideas, and it provoked some hostile critiques and misinterpretations (e.g. ‘The history of linguistics and Professor Chomsky’, by Hans Aarsleff, Language46.570–85, 1970; see the rejoinder to Aarsleff by Harry M. Bracken, ‘Chomsky’s Cartesianism’, Language Sciences22.11–17, October 1972). McGilvray has chosen to ‘not discuss the reviews here’ (40, n.1), but he does attempt to explain the ‘prominence of René Descartes’ name in the book’s title’ (8), which was one source of controversy among reviewers. McGilvray’s introduction (7–44) is ‘organized in terms of a distinction between rationalist and empiricist approaches to mind that Chomsky suggests but does not pursue in CL’ (7), taking up the topics of linguistic creativity, rationalist-romantic efforts to deal with such creativity, and the place of nativism and of contemporary forms of empiricism and rationalism in the study of mind. The main sections of CLitself are: ‘Creative aspect of language use’ (51–71), ‘Deep and surface structure’ (72–87), ‘Description and explanation in linguistics’ (88–93), and ‘Acquisition and use of language’ (94–103); there are also extensive notes (105–41) and a bibliography (143–50) that combines the original references and those added by the editor. Chomsky begins and ends his text with commentary on a remark by Alfred North Whitehead: ‘A brief, and sufficiently accurate, description of the intellectual life of the European races during the succeeding two centuries and a quarter up to our own times is that they have been living upon the accumulated capital of ideas provided for them by the genius of the seventeenth century’ ( CL, 1st edn., p. xvi). The quotation itself was left out of the new edition, but, according to the editor, it is included in later printings. In the first edition of CLmany quotations appeared in their original French or German, and McGilvray [End Page 774]suggests that this diminished the impact of the book. However, in the United States this is unlikely since at the time of its publication virtually all linguistics programs...

Exporting the Humboldtian University

Many readers will associate the title of this book with the researcher and explorer Alexander von Humboldt, or even with the philanthropic foundation, named after him, which invites hundreds of academics to Germany every year, and so contributes powerfully to international collaboration in higher education and research. But it is not the movement of scientists or ideas that concerns this collection. And it is not Alexander, but his elder brother Wilhelm von Humboldt, famous for conceptualizing the 'model' of the modern 'research university' who is the guest of honour. What made Wilhelm von Humboldt's ideas so influential? Indeed, what makes them so attractive that twenty-five well-known historians were prepared to spend almost a week at Sigriswil (near Berne in Switzerland) to discuss the migration of his ideas through time and space? Although there were no doubt many motives, it seems to me that one point stands out: Humboldt's concept is still appealing to researchactive professors, and particularly today, when there appears to be a huge chasm between his vision of a university (with its potent academic myths) and the harsh realities of mass higher education. For Wilhelm von Humboldt, a modern university rested on four pillars: (1) the integration of teaching and research, including the obligation to foster the creation of knowledge as well as its preservation and transmission; (2) the complementary principles of Lehrfreiheit (freedom to teach) and Lernfreiheit (freedom to study); (3) the demand for Einsamkeit (solitude) and Freiheit (freedom) in the autonomous pursuit of truth; and (4) the introduction of the seminar system as the backbone of a community of teachers and students ('Gemeinschaft der Lehrenden und Lernenden'). Although

CROSSLINGUISTIC INFLUENCE AND CONCEPTUAL TRANSFER: WHAT ARE THE CONCEPTS?

This chapter surveys recent work on language transfer and focuses on the intersection of second language acquisition (SLA) and linguistic relativity in what is often termedconceptual transfer. The two most famous exponents of relativity, Wilhelm von Humboldt and Benjamin Lee Whorf, developed their ideas largely from their study of Kawi and Hopi respectively, and both scholars viewed crosslinguistic influence as a manifestation of the “binding power” (to use Whorf's characterization) of language on thought. The views of von Humboldt and Whorf diverge in some ways, and the difference is relevant not only to issues in SLA such as ultimate attainment but also to theories of linguistic relativity. Indeed, some recent work on conceptual transfer indicates that even highly proficient learners may never free themselves entirely of the “binding power” of L1. The research reviewed also includes work with native speakers of different languages, suggesting real cognitive differences related to language in, for example, spatial concepts. The importance of distinguishing concepts from meanings is emphasized, as is the difference between meaning transfer and conceptual transfer. The chapter discusses in detail research on transfer involving spatial, temporal, and affective meanings, with some of the studies being interpreted as evidence of conceptual transfer.

A focus on the individual

In January 2003, Time magazine published a feature article on the ‘brain drain’ of the brightest researchers in Europe to the USA (Chu, 2004) and cited two German scientists who, on returning from the USA, were so upset about the situation that they planned to cross the Atlantic again as soon as possible. The Scientist was another journal that ran several articles about this problem (Stafford, 2004). The foreign press are not alone in highlighting the problem—these criticisms are also shared by German scientists. Thomas Tuschl, an assistant professor at Rockefeller University (New York, NY, USA), explained why he left a group leader position at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Gottingen, Germany, to work in the USA. “I had to get really good postdocs in order to withstand the competition,” he said, and he found it easier to attract them to his laboratory at Rockefeller University than if he had stayed in Germany. Gunter Meister, one of Tuschl's postdocs who actually plans to return to Germany, was even more blunt. “[Science in] Germany is not attractive, not even for Germans,” he said, referring to the arcane and unpredictable career paths for young scientists. Many science policy‐makers and administrators in Germany share his view. “It is safe to say that the new academic generation was not sufficiently supported over the last few years,” commented Hans‐Jurgen Promel, Vice President for Research at Humboldt University in Berlin, Germany. > Rather than nurturing the best and brightest, the post‐war educational system in Germany focused on equality and equity, which ensured free and broad access to education but created mediocrity in many areas, including research The good news is that the problem has dawned on both university presidents and the federal government in Berlin. Since she took office in 1998, Edelgard Bulmahn, the …

Fashion of the times. The emergence and evolution of new research fields is as much determined by scientific interest as it is by social, political and economic pressures.

Originally coined by social scientists as a term used to describe changes in industrialized countries at the end of the twentieth century, the ‘knowledge society’—in which knowledge and creativity are principal factors for economic and social development—has become the new catchphrase in political, scientific and economic circles. Its popularity might come from its optimism—after all, what is bad about knowledge? However, its widespread use also reflects the growing influence of science on almost every aspect of society, be it health care, reproduction, economics, politics or justice. Yet this is not a one‐way relationship: science, as the most important producer of knowledge, has also come under scrutiny. Society increasingly expects science to tackle problems in all areas, relies on scientists in decision‐making processes and takes a more critical view—not just in the negative sense—of the social relevance of research. “Science and business have been intertwined at least since the nineteenth century,” said Peter Weingart, Director of the Institute for Science and Technology Studies (IWT) at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. “The new aspect of today's debates is that the intensity of this interconnection is increasing and the growth of science plays an important role in this process.” Science is under increasing pressure to leave its ivory tower and have a greater role in society. This raises some important questions. Does the pressure to find a cure for a disease, or to find clear answers to questions about risk, influence the way in which scientists work? What role do commercial interests have in defining new areas of research? What is the fate of new and established research fields once public or commercial interest and funding fade? “When decisions on research topics are based on where you gain the greatest market advantage rather than based on a theoretical framework, this changes the whole …

A degree of profit

A degree of profit

Rawlsian Harmonies

John Rawls’s distinction between a comprehensive liberalism and his political version remains unclear to even his sympathetic critics. They stress his over-reliance on intuitive ideas of a liberal political culture in formulating the original position and its principles of justice. In this article, I argue that Rawls defends his liberal intuitions in a way philosophers might least expect. He conveys the sense of justice that motivates political liberalism through his metaphors. Rawls draws his concept of a well-ordered society – a social union of social unions – from Wilhelm von Humboldt, a seldom-noticed source. Paralleling von Humboldt’s use of musical metaphors, Rawls characterizes liberal democracy as a symphony orchestra. Analyzing this metaphor, I argue, reveals the cultural limitations of Rawls’s overlapping consensus and the political project which undergirds his theory of justice.

Quo vadis cardiologia? Or: An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? (Pope Julius III)

In order to recognize and to solve problems, a look in the future is essential despite many uncertainties. Besides sound bed side-teaching, the main aim in the education of the students should be to acquire self-responsiveness and an attitude of permanent learning. It is more than doubtful whether the high expectations of health politicians will be met to limit the cost of in-patient treatment by introducing diagnosis-related groups in combination with evidence-based medicine, as this method has several severe limitations in order to fulfill this duty. The new financial system based on diagnosis-related groups will be in favor of private investors compared to the government-dependent university hospitals. The changing population pyramid implies not only higher costs but in addition severe medical problems. Within the changing society, alterations in the patient's behavior are to be expected. Several factors will contribute to make the doctor's profession less attractive. In the developing countries a rapid increase in the non-communicative diseases, i.e., in coronary heart disease, has to be expected. Apart from the prolongation of life - especially during its terminal phase - it is mainly the allocation of resources between industrialized and developing countries which will determine the ethical discussion. Germany has lost its leading position of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century in medical sciences. This was based on the liberal university system introduced by Wilhelm von Humboldt. Several pioneering innovations of German cardiologists during the 20th century have not strengthened German industry - in contrast to the situation in the 19th century. The general conditions in Germany, which are not research oriented, have prompted the majority of the pharmaceutical firms to transfer their research activities into foreign countries. In addition Germany's cardiological research has lost basic sciences partners for clinically orientated basic research, as many institutes which formerly worked in the cardiovascular field, are now devoted to other specialties. Restrictive legal regulations--such as the law regulating working hours, anti-corruption laws and the new legal university framework--are not conducive to internationally competitive research. Creative and innovative research requires liberal general conditions and cannot be planed.

After the GDR: New Perspectives on the Old GDR and the Young Länder ed. by Laurence McFalls, Lothar Probst (review)

246 Reviews remain firmlyand stubbornly rooted in the poet's intense German. By that I do not mean an obvious mistranslation such as the title 'Cologne, At the Station' (in 'Koln, Am Hof', 'Am Hof' is the name ofa small street near the cathedral and is not to be confused with 'Bahnhof'; the reference points to biographical information which is only partially clear). Rather, the expression 'one of | their painted lingos' (from 'eine | ihrer bebilderten Sprachen') seems less a product of poetic licence than a misunderstanding of the import of 'bebildert', coming from 'Bild' ('image' or 'metaphor'). Celan was always suspicious of metaphor, fearing it would displace the realities on which he grounded his writing. Felstiner otherwise follows the drift of the line with 'lingos'; Michael Hamburger translates as 'one | of their be-imaged languages'. In another instance, taken from Celan's speech 'The Meridian', the merits of 'choekabloek' (for 'dicht beieinander', i.e. 'close to one another', 'in closest proximity') are not readily apparent. German tolerates making adverbs into nouns, a feature at once elementary and immediate, as in the statement that the poem 'ceaselessly calls and hauls itself from its Now-no-more back into its Ever-yet'. Although the original appears on the surface to say the 'same' thing, its language is more accessible since it 'speaks' to us more directly, or we are naturally more receptive to it. 'Schon-nicht-mehr' and 'Immer-noch', of course, also do not in this form derive from everyday speech, but they do exude immediacy, and that in turn facilitates understanding. One suspects that more than one translator of Celan's German has absorbed his language so thoroughly?the cadences, syntax, ellipses, fissures, indeed the inherent trauma?that they write English as though it were German. Felstiner avoids this mostly, although his language slips into such a meta-English from time to time, es? pecially in the late poetry and in idiosyncraticor obscure sections of 'The Meridian'. In his preface Felstiner asks wisely: 'why not think of translation as the specific art of loss, and begin from there?' One of the strengths of Felstiner's translations lies less in the lexical precision (although he is mostly accurate and always thoughtful about the process) than in the cadences which he emulates where possible or productive for the new text. This is especially true for the short prose piece 'Conversation in the Mountains', which to my mind is the most successful and impressive textual transfer of the whole volume, the one which both captures the cadences, the syntax, and the urgency of the original and works as an English text in its own right. A translation can virtually never be the final word in mediating a text between cultures . The present translation, while no exception, is likely to open up the landscape of this vital poet for larger audiences, begetting reviews and discussions and making readers ofpoetry more curious about what Celan has to say. And that will continue and broaden awareness begun in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s with Michael Hamburger's important renderings. In fact, it is advisable to keep Hamburger's translations, and others, on the shelf next to Felstiner's. Wilhelm von Humboldt recommended that those without knowledge of the language of an original text should read as many dif? ferent translations of the text as possible to gain a sense of the original. The process is ongoing, without closure. Queen Mary, University of London Leonard Olschner After the GDR: New Perspectives on the Old GDR and the Young Ldnder. Ed. by Laurence McFalls and Lothar Probst. (German Monitor, 54) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. 2001. iv 4-310 pp. $28; ?30. ISBN 90-420-1326-5 (pbk). Like most books based on conference contributions, this collection is a mixed bag, both linguistically (four chapters in German, thirteen in English) and qualitatively. It is divided into four sections dealing with intellectual history, dictatorship and MLRy 98.1, 2003 247 resistance, modes of memory, and politics and political culture. The opening essay by Wolfgang Emmerich provides a very comprehensive overview of the role of East German intellectuals between 1945 and 1998. It is emblematic of the rest of...

Reading Humboldt Through the Theory of Communicative Action: The Democratic Potential of Symbolic Interaction

Wilhelm von Humboldt’s studies of language during the nineteenth century anticipated twentieth-century symbolic interactionism, suggesting a two-century intellectual history stressing the communicating subject as an intersubjective actor. Jurgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action, well known for its inclusion of George Herbert Mead’s symbolic interactionism, appeals in the same breath to von Humboldt’s work, thus inviting a critical re-appropriation of Mead beyond the social-psychological realm, into macro-level analyses of cultural reproduction and societal evolution. Read as a project of cultural cultivation, the model of the conversation achieves the status of life-giver for language as such. This project reaches the level of state interests to maintain individual creativity in the company of others, to consider language an explicit project of social and cultural policy, and to develop concrete institutions of education in the interest of the emancipated citizen. However, this rearticulated symbolic interactionism faces theory-practice disparities in a weak legacy of educational diversity.

Perfecting the Individual. Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Concept of Anthropology, Bildung and Mimesis

In the works of Wilhelm von Humboldt, education took on a new quality, focusing firmly on the importance of the individual. Bildung was to become the principle task with a view to preparing the individual for the requirements of future life. This article investigates two aspects relating to the Bildung of the individual. First, the significance of Humboldt’s outline of a ‘comparative anthropology’ for historico-educational anthropology; second, Humboldt’s idea of the connection between Bildung and mimesis. The following sets of relations will play a central role in the pursuit of these themes: the relationship between the individual and society, between old and new, between reality and the powers of imagination, between the inner and outer realms, the particular and the general, that which is historical as opposed to universal. To analyse these themes and problems, we shall pay close attention to some of Humboldt’s earlier works. The ‘Plan for a Comparative Anthropology’ , written in 1797, forms a fundamental part of Humboldt’s anthropology. This also applies to his text entitled ‘On the Human Spirit’ from the same year, which is of particular importance for educational theory, which supplements the essay ‘Theory of Human Bildung' (1794/95). ‘The Sphere and Duties of Government’ (1792), is similarly relevant to our aims. These works contain many of the origins of Humboldt’s later thought.

History and Perspectives of Language Study (review)

Reviewed by: History and perspectives of language study ed. by Olga Mišeka Tomić, Milorad Radovanović Alan S. Kaye History and perspectives of language study. Ed. by Olga Mišeka Tomić and Milorad Radovanović. (Current issues in linguistic theory 186.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000. Pp. xxi, 305. $79.00. This is a festschrift for Ranko Bugarski, whose Selected writings (Sabrana dela, Belgrade: Čigojaštampa and XX vek, 1996–97) were published in twelve volumes. Among his numerous accomplishments, let me single out his service as President of the Societas Linguistica Europaea during 1999–2000. Since it is virtually impossible to comment in any meaningful manner on all seventeen articles by nineteen authors from eleven countries, I must perforce restrict my remarks to a few contributions chosen in accordance with my background and interests. I end by listing the authors and titles of the remaining papers. My selection in no way implies a two-tiered taxonomy, and there is no justification for concluding that those works not discussed are in any way less satisfactory than the ones selected. Wolfgang Kühlwein’s ‘The impact of the relationship between language, thought, and action on [End Page 819] the applied potential of approaches to the study of language’ is, in many ways, a short history of linguistics using many eighteenth and nineteenth century German authors, for example, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Gottfried Leibniz, August Leskien, Max Müller, and Chaim Steinthal (3–41). It surveys linguistics in ancient India, Greece, and Rome, then moves on to the medieval period, including Arab and Jewish studies (14), and continues to the present. A highlight is the extensive evaluation of the structuralist and generative approaches. It is disappointing, however, that the author suggests no clear guidelines for his recommended ‘chance for [linguistics in] the 21st century to scrutinize 20th century approaches, and to mold them into a cybernetically stable construct’ (38). I, for one, do not see how this would be possible, given today’s numerous conflicting paradigms. Ljubiša Rajić’s ‘Historical linguistics in time’ discusses the historiography of historical linguistics (43–69). One of the fundamental questions posed is ‘What is happening in historical linguistics today?’ (64). The answer, in my view hyperbolic, is not particularly flattering for the theory of this subfield: ‘A weariness with theoretical problems is evident, which may be the consequence of a weariness with theory in science in general’ (64). This essay, I suspect, was written many years before publication since the latest reference employed in the five-page bibliography (65–69) is Raimo Anttila’s (1989) Historical and comparative linguistics (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), which Rajić states ‘brings nothing new compared with previous editions’ (64); however, there was only one previous edition published in 1972. Two articles deal with Ferdinand de Saussure. W. Keith Percival’s ‘Saussure’s view of the value of diachrony’ makes it clear that de Saussure did not prefer it over synchrony (101–14). Percival asks: ‘Do we not have every right to ask why the Cours has been misinterpreted for so long . . .?’ (113). The evidence presented is convincing; even the linguists who are (or claim to be) followers of the father of modern linguistics misrepresent him, since he would not have approved of this so-called basic tenet of structuralism which calls for the abandonment of the diachronic perspective. E. F. K. Koerner’s ‘J. R. Firth and the Cours de linguistique générale: A historiographical sketch’ demonstrates that Firth was a Saussurean (115–30). Koerner even offers the ‘conjecture’ that Firth’s ideas about collocation and colligation ‘might [italics added] owe certain insights to Saussure’ (126), and Koerner is, I believe, right when he asserts that Firth relied on the Cours throughout his career (119). However, Firth did not agree with Saussure on everything, for example, he did not endorse the Saussurean perspective that meaning could be studied ‘as a mental phenomenon’ (124). The remaining studies are: László Deszö, ‘Two approaches to morphological typology and the diachronic characterization and comparison of languages’; Dubravko Škiljan, ‘The amnesic syndromes of structuralism’; Wayles Browne, ‘Serbo-Croatian adjective-declension nouns and Viggo Brondøl’s...

Heidegger, Language, and World-Disclosure (review)

Reviewed by: Heidegger, language, and world-disclosure by Christina Lafont Natalie Sciarini-Gourianova Heidegger, language, and world-disclosure. By Christina Lafont; translated by Graham Harman. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Pp. 298. Cloth $59.95. Interpreting Martin Heidegger’s ideas has been a credo for linguists and philosophers more than once, providing a plot and background for both individual studies and schools with long-lasting research traditions. This new volume by Christina Lafont is a valuable contribution to the field. It continues the series of work in modern philosophy on schools of thought prominent in the Kantian and post-Kantian European tradition. The discussion focuses on the most interesting philosophical problem which gained a dramatic importance in the last quarter of the twentieth century: the idea of language as world disclosure. This basic concept is characteristic of the German tradition of the philosophy of language which evolved during the course of engagement with Kant by authors such as Johann Georg Hamann, Johann Gottfried von Herder, and Wilhelm von Humboldt and which had been further developed by Heidegger. In her attempt to bridge the gap between analytic philosophy and Continental philosophy, the author tries to find her way among the diversity of commentaries and possible interpretations of Heidegger’s work. L analyzes the philosophically relevant features of linguistic paradigm shift from the philosophy of consciousness to the philosophy of language in the Hamann-Herder-Humboldt tradition. In Part 1 (11–178) L explores the Heideggerian conception of language in depth and points out that Heidegger, indeed, had developed one of Hamann and Humboldt’s core concepts: overcoming the philosophy of consciousness by taking into account the symbolically structured character of the world. Looking into Heidegger’s understanding of language as world disclosure, L found out that Heidegger was unable to determine what kind of being corresponds to language in general, saying that the necessary holistic character of the system of meaning makes it impossible to differentiate between factual knowledge and linguistic knowledge. L gives a brief characterization of Heidegger’s hermeneutic turn in his ‘Being and time’ and finds it possible to extract the basic elements responsible for both the continuity and the break between this new hermeneutic approach and transcendental philosophy. In Part 2 (179–289), L draws our attention to recent work of direct reference (Hilary Putnam, Keith Donnellan, Saul Kripke, et al.) to reveal the limitation of Heidegger’s views and to show how language shapes our understanding of the world without making learning impossible. Part 2 mainly considers Heidegger’s thesis that world disclosure as a ‘happening of being’ determines all intra-worldly truth. On the one hand, with his interpretation of the ontological difference, Heidegger is taking for granted the constructivism expressed in Kant’s highest principles of synthetic judgments. On the other hand, his interpretation leads to understanding the essence of the objects of experience as only the plurality of linguistic world disclosures resulting from the historical process of projecting meaning for interpreting the world. L examines the foundations of these theses in Heidegger’s conception and draws the conclusion that it might lead to an explicit linguistic relativism completely foreign to Kant’s philosophy. More than that, in L’s opinion it leads to an obvious reification of language. Regardless, the conclusion sounds optimistic as L states that the danger of linguistic idealism and relativism that arises with the linguistic turn is not a consequence of this paradigm shift as such. Rather it results only from an absolutization of the world-disclosure function of language and a corresponding misinterpretation of its designative function. L’s approach is an interesting consideration of many possible variations in understanding one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century; that is why it should be heartily welcome. The book is really well-done, the amount of research truly amazing, and the language as clear as philosophical discourse can allow. The book will certainly appeal to a broad range of students and professionals in philosophy and in other humanities as well. Natalie Sciarini-Gourianova Guilford, CT Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America

Commercialism in Education: Historical Perspectives, Global Dimensions and European Educational Research Fields of Interest

Around the globe, the systems of public education currently are being transformed into marketised institutions. Education is essential to the basic needs of every individual. But in a so-called ‘free-market’ economy, access to schools and universities is open only to those who can afford it. Jan Amos Comenius, Adam Smith, and Wilhelm von Humboldt, among others, laid the theoretical foundations of public education. Today, however, their ideas are being functionalised by corporate libertarians and ‘free-market’ ideologues. With the help of the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services they promote the abolishment of the public sector worldwide, including the EU. In opposition to this, the struggle for public education cannot be grounded on the demand for free und full access to (higher) education alone. It has to be conceptualised, in addition, within the horizon of a non-eurocentric, postmodern, global public sphere.

Dutch linguists between Humboldt and Saussure

Summary The impact Ferdinand de Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale (1916) had on Dutch linguistics in the 1930s and 1940s has not yet become the object of a thorough investigation. It can be pointed out, however, that in the interwar period Dutch reactions to the Cours were of a mixed character. When one finds Saussure’s book referred to by leading Dutch linguists such as Etsko Kruisinga (1875–1944), H. J. Pos (1898–1955) and A. W. de Groot (1892–1963), the question should be asked to what extent the Cours was seen as a new and important specimen of linguistic theorizing. Moreover, it can be argued that several Dutch linguists felt themselves to be in a different linguistic tradition. Such is definitely the case with Jac. van Ginneken (1877–1945). He took part in the organization of the first international congress of linguists (1928) and the first international phonetic congress (1932). Although critical of the Cours, he sympathized with the Prague approach to phonology, of which he was one of the early propagandists in Western Europe. However, he did not become a confirmed structuralist. Practising a holistic approach to language and culture he felt more affinity with the ‘Neolinguists’, and tended to revert to 19th-century thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), as some of his papers clearly show. In an intriguing posthumous essay, Het mysterie der menschelijke taal (‘The mystery of human language’, 1946), Van Ginneken acknowledged that over the years language had become a mystery to him.

The History and Status of Linguistic Anthropology in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

This article summarizes the historical development and future prospects of German‐speaking anthropology, beginning with the role of German scholar Wilhelm von Humboldt, often referred to as the founding father of linguistic anthropology. From Humboldt until World War II, language was frequently dealt with within Austrian, German, and Swiss anthropology. However, after the war, German‐speaking anthropologists did not pay much attention to language and linguistics, a situation that has recently begun to change.

The Perennial Search for Paradise: Garden Design and Political Critique in Dorothea Schlegel's Florentin

Fange define Herzenskultur nicht mit dem Anbau der edlen Triebe, sondern mit dem Ausschneiden der Schlechten an. Ist einmal das Unkraut verwelkt oder ausgezogen, dann richtet sich der edlere Blumenflor von selbst kraftiger in die Hohe. -From Dorothea Schlegel's Tagebucher (In Berlin and Jena, 1798-1802)1 How to interpret Dorothea Schlegel's novel Florentin has been an ongoing problem for literary critics and scholars since the work's first publication in 1801. Should the text be understood as a product of the Jena Romantic circle, an embodiment of the ideals of the Aufklarung, or simply as Dorothea Schlegel's artistic Handwerk to financially support her husband?' Is it a more straightforward development of the same Romantic aesthetic put forth in Friedrich Schlegel's Lucinde or a critical response to Romanticism from the perspective of a marginalized Jewish woman? Are the characters and stylistic elements of Florentin best understood according to Dorothea Schlegel's literary influences, her personal biography, or something else?3 Critics have addressed these issues over the past two hundred years and, while there has been no real consensus on how Florentin should be read, scholarship has demonstrated that one of the major difficulties in interpreting this novel is precisely the question of how to deal with its enigmatic author. What makes Florentin so difficult to interpret is Dorothea Schlegel's unique position as simultaneously an insider and an outsider in late-18th-century German society and culture. While Dorothea Schlegel never had any illusions about her place as a Jewish woman within German intellectual and social spheres, she was in many ways an insider.4 Throughout her youth and into the new century, she was continually in the company of some of the most important and influential figures of 18t-century Romanticism, indeed of modern European thought. Any study of Dorothea Schlegel's literary production, however, must also seriously consider the real restrictions placed upon her as an author since, as a Jewish woman, her participation in 18th-century German social and cultural spheres was at best limited and usually out of the question. Active engagement in political negotiations was even less an option because it was restricted to men from the most elite families. Despite these strict limitations on political activity, near the end of the 18th-century models of socio-political reform began emerging from the tradition of Enlightenment thought. Based on the assumption of basic human equality and a faith in the transformative power of Bildung, thinkers proposed notions of civil society in which intellectual and religious freedom could be balanced with the authority of the monarchical state.5 Following the French Revolution in 1789, discussions of the ideal form of government took on new urgency among German intellectuals. How were the ideals of the Enlightenment to be achieved if not by gradual popular Aufklarung within the monarchical order? It was in this context that Early Romanticism and the first forms of political Liberalism emerged as socio-political discourses about the nature of the ideal, post-- absolutist state. Romantics like Friedrich Schlegel and Novalis formulated an organic, communitarian model of the state that sought to balance individual freedom with what Isaiah Berlin refers to as a positive notion of liberty.6 According to the Romantic model of the state, real freedom is only possible within the context of a community. Society, as a whole, offers individuals the means to a self-fulfillment that they would be unable to achieve on their own. The Romantic notion of liberty is therefore a freedom within and enabled by the state. Liberal thinkers like Kant, Schiller, Forster, and Wilhelm von Humboldt, on the other hand, actively promoted a negative concept of liberty (Berlin 132). In contrast to Romanticism, Liberalism asserts that the state's only function should be to protect the individual rights of its citizens. …

A Lesson for Life

Schools have existed since timeimmemorable. From the perspective of the modernworld, the most radical change has been thatschools are now expected not only to reflectcurrent reality, but also to prepare its pupilsfor a changing world. In this article, Wilhelmvon Humboldt's great university reform ishighlighted. Humboldt's ideas of Bildungwere never fully realised in the universitysystem, due to a structural contradiction inhis university plan between specialisedresearch and all-embracing philosophy. The ideaitself, however, remains fruitful, especiallyif combined with John Dewey's moredown-to-earth conceptions.