Cover not available
Part of
Chapters of Dependency Grammar: A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière
Edited by András Imrényi and Nicolas Mazziotta
[Studies in Language Companion Series 212] 2020
► pp. 163–188

Chapter 5
Sámuel Brassai in the history of dependency grammar

 | Eszterházy Károly University, Eger
 | Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
The paper presents the syntactic work of Sámuel Brassai with special regard to his dependency-based theory of the sentence. Brassai is already relatively well-known as a pioneer in the study of information structure, where his discoveries predate Gabelentz by several years. The present work aims to show that Brassai also developed a consistently dependency-based theory of syntax long before Tesnière. The paper first discusses the motivations and influences underpinning Brassai’s work. Secondly, it presents Brassai’s verb-centred theory, expressed both metaphorically and by sentence diagrams. The latter appeared as early as 1873, thus Brassai may well have been the first to produce verb-centred dependency diagrams of clause structure. Finally, we show that Brassai’s discovery of a bipartite (information structural) division of the sentence does not amount to an early adoption of constituency; rather, it is seamlessly integrated into his dependency-oriented approach.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Motivations and influences behind Brassai’s work
    • 2.1Motivations, general agenda
    • 2.2Influences behind Brassai’s verb-centred theory of the sentence
    • 2.3From techne to episteme
  • 3.Brassai’s verb-centred theory of the sentence
    • 3.1Metaphors
    • 3.2Sentence diagrams
    • 3.3Dependency notions in Brassai’s description of Hungarian
      • 3.3.1Határzó ‘dependent’
      • 3.3.2Jelző ‘attribute’ and egészítvény ‘post-dependent’
  • 4.Inchoative and bulk. Does duality require constituency?
    • 4.1Brassai’s interpretation by É. Kiss in constituency terms
    • 4.2A consistently dependency-based explication of Brassai’s ideas
  • 5.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.212.06imr
References (61)
References
A. Primary sources
Apollonius Dyscolus. (1981). Syntax (Ed. by F. W. Householder). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (2nd c. AD)Google Scholar
Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics (2nd ed., Trans. T. Irwin). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (349 BC)Google Scholar
Arnauld, A., & Lancelot, C. (1975). General and Rational Grammar: The Port-Royal Grammar (Trans. J. Rieux & B. E. Rollin). The Hague: Mouton. (Original work published 1660). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, F. (1830). A grammar of the German language. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Beilhack, J. G. (1840). Deutsche Grammatik zum Gebrauche in lateinischen Schulen (5th ed.). München.Google Scholar
Billroth, G., & Ellendt, F. (1838). Lateinische Schulgrammatik (2th ed.). Leipzig.Google Scholar
Brassai, S. (1845). Okszerű vezér a német nyelv tanulásában [Reasoned guide to the learning of German], Part I. Kolozsvár: Stein János.Google Scholar
(1862). Nyílt válasz Szemere Miklós úrnak [Open reply to Miklós Szemere]. Szépirodalmi Figyelő, Vol. II(1), issue 19–20.Google Scholar
(1863). Ingyen tanító francia nyelvmester [Language guide for the free study of French]. Kolozsvár: Stein.Google Scholar
(1867–1869). A módszerről. Három értekezés [On method. Three treatises]. Pest.Google Scholar
(1873). Paraleipomena kai diorthoumena. A mit nem mondtak s a mit roszul mondtak a commentatorok Virg. Aeneise II. könyvére. [What the commentators did not say or wrongly said about Book II of Virgil’s Aeneid]. Budapest: MTA.Google Scholar
(1874). Laelius. Hogyan kell és hogyan nem kell magyarázni az iskolában a latin autorokat? [On how Latin authors should and should not be interpreted at schools]. Kolozsvár: Stein.Google Scholar
(2011). A magyar mondat [The Hungarian sentence]. Texts selected by L. Elekfi & F. Kiefer. Budapest: Tinta. (Original works published 1860–1888)Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabelentz, Georg von der. (1868). Ideen zu einer vergleichenden Syntax: Wort- und Satzstellung. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 6, 376–384.Google Scholar
Götzinger, M. W. (1850). Deutsche Sprachlehre für Schulen (7th, improved and expanded ed.). Aarau: Sauerländer.Google Scholar
Kern, F. (1883). Zur Methodik des deutschen Unterrichts. Berlin: Nicolaische Verlags-Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (2015). Elements of structural syntax (Trans. by T. Osborne & S. Kahane). Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Trans. of Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966, 2nd ed.; 1st ed., 1959). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
B. Critical sources
Ágel, V., & Fischer, K. (2010). Dependency grammar and valency theory. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 223–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atherton, C., & Blank, D. (2013). From Plato to Priscian. Philosophy’s legacy to grammar. In A. Keith (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics (pp.283–341). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cigana, L. (2020). Chapter 7. Some aspects of dependency in Otto Jespersen’s structural syntax. In A. Imrényi & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (Studies in Language Companion Series 212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinneen, F. (1995). General linguistics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. (2002). The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, K. (2005). Brassai Sámuel és a generatív magyar mondatszerkezet [Sámuel Brassai and the generative syntactic structure of Hungarian]. In J. Péntek (Ed.), A nyelvész Brassai élő öröksége (pp. 11–20). Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület.Google Scholar
, K. (2008). A pioneering theory of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55, 23–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elekfi, L. (1950). A százötven éves Brassai Sámuel [The 150-year-old Sámuel Brassai]. Magyar Nyelv, 46(4), 351–359.Google Scholar
Farina, M. (2017). The Syro-Arabic glosses to Barhebraeus’ metrical grammar. In P. Molinelli (Ed.), Language and identity in multilingual Mediterranean settings (pp. 157–170). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitz, J. (1911). Brassai Sámuel. Budapest: Németh József.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed., revised by C., Matthiessen). London: Arnold. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1990). English word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2007). Language networks. The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Imrényi, A. (2013). Constituency or dependency? Notes on Sámuel Brassai’s syntactic model of Hungarian. In P. Szigetvári (Ed.), VLlxx. Papers presented to László Varga on his 70th birthday (pp. 167–182). Budapest: Tinta.Google Scholar
Imrényi, A. (2017). Form-meaning correspondences in multiple dimensions: The structure of Hungarian finite clauses. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 287–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar syntax. A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, L. G. (2011). The discipline of writing and speaking correctly: Priscian and his legacy. Historiographia Linguistica 38(1/2), 127–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, F. (1998). Brassai Sámuel és a XIX. század nyelvtudománya [Sámuel Brassai and 19th century linguistics]. Nyelv- és Irodalomtudományi Közlemények, 41(2), 113–118.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Law, V. (2003). The history of linguistics in Europe: From Plato to 1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 458–489). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lőrinczi, R. (2005). Brassai Sámuel könyvtárának nyelvészeti részlegéről [On the linguistic catalogue of Sámuel Brassai’s library]. In J. Péntek (Ed.), A nyelvész Brassai élő öröksége (pp. 108–115). Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület.Google Scholar
Luhtala, A. (2020). Chapter 1. Syntactic relations in ancient and medieval grammatical theory. In A. Imrényi & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (Studies in Language Companion Series 212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1993). The instructive metaphor: Metaphoric aids to students’ understanding of science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 561–578). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazziotta, N. (2020). Chapter 4. Dependency in early sentence diagrams: Stephen W. Clark. In A. Imrényi & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (Studies in Language Companion Series 212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. (1988). Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62, 56–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ninio, A. (1996). A proposal for the adoption of dependency grammar as the framework for the study of language acquisition. In G. Ben Shakhar & A. Lieblich (Eds.), Volume in honour of Shlomo Kugelmass (pp. 85–103). Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar
Nivre, J. (2005). Dependency grammar and dependency parsing. Vaxjo: Vaxjo University.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (1998). The syntax of idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 279–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. (2005). Beyond the constituent: A dependency grammar analysis of chains. Folia Linguistica, 39, 251–297.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. (2006). Shared material and grammar: Toward a Dependency Grammar theory of non-gapping coordination for English and German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25, 39–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. (2020). Chapter 4. Franz Kern. An early dependency grammarian. In A. Imrényi & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of Dependency Grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (Studies in Language Companion Series 212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T., & Groß, T. (2012). Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 165–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Priscianus Grammaticus. (1961). Institutionum grammaticorum libri XVIII. Hildesheim: Teubner.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. (1970). Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language, 46, 259–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (2002). The way we think. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wacha, B. (2005). Brassai előtt, Brassai után [Before Brassai, after Brassai]. In J. Péntek (Ed.), A nyelvész Brassai élő öröksége (pp. 83–104). Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület.Google Scholar
Weil, H. (1844). De l’ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes. Paris.Google Scholar
Wurst, R. J. (1836). Praktische Sprachdenklehre. Reutlingen.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. (Eds.). (2008). The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Mazziotta, Nicolas
2023. Syntaxe en n dimensions : choisir et représenter les espaces d’analyse. Travaux de linguistique n° 84-85:1 ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Imrényi, András
2022. Chapter 4. ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend.’. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Cigana, Lorenzo
2020. Chapter 7. Some aspects of dependency in Otto Jespersen’s structural syntax. In Chapters of Dependency Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 212], ► pp. 216 ff. DOI logo
Hudson, Richard
2020. Towards a pedagogical linguistics. Pedagogical Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.