The Kantian Influence on Humboldt’s Linguistic Thought

Uhlan V. Slagle
Arlington, Virginia
Summary

Humboldt’s theory of language reflects Kant’s influence to a far greater extent than is generally realized. In fact, Kantian cognitive and perceptual universals play a crucial role in the later formulations of Humboldt’s linguistic thinking. Indeed, not only did Humboldt derive the universals of grammatical case from the Kantian categories of relation in his mature work, but he also applied Kant’s schema concept in a systematic way to the fundamental problems of language during his last period of scholarly activity. Moreover, it can be shown that the Kantian aspects of his theory do not conflict with his widely quoted and misinterpreted formulations concerning the nature of linguistic diversity. It is suggested that much of the confusion in regard to just what Humboldt actually meant would have been dispelled long ago had researchers made adequate use of two neglected, but extremely important, major manuscripts from his mature period. More importantly still, one can plausibly argue that Humboldt was correct in assuming that Kant, not Descartes, provided linguistics with the key for dealing adequately with the central problems of language and mind.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Beck, Lewis W.
1969Early German Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Brekle, Herbert E.
1970Generative Satzsemantik und transformationelle Syntax im System der englischen Nominalkomposition. Munich: W. Fink.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger L.
1967Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Conception of Linguistic Relativity. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst
1923 “Die Kantischen Elemente in Wilhelm von Humboldts Sprachphilosophie”. Festschrift für Paul Hensel, 105–27. Greiz i. V.: Ohag.Google Scholar
1964Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. Vol. 1: Die Sprache. 4th ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. [First ed. 1923]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1966Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Christmann, Hans Helmut
1967Beiträge zur Geschichte der These vom Weltbild der Sprache. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
Ehrenstein, Walter
1965Probleme des höheren Seelenlebens. Munich: Reinhardt.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, Michael
1970The Bisected Brain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Haym, Rudolf
1856Wilhelm von Humboldt. Berlin: Gaertner.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm von
1903–08Werke. 7 vols. ed. by Albert Leitzmann. (= Gesammelte Schriften, 1–7.) Berlin: B. Behr. (Repr. Berlin: W. de Gruyter 1967–68.)Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel
1956Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Critical ed. Hamburg: F. Meiner. [Contains the text of both the 1781(A) and 1787(B) editions.]Google Scholar
Köhler, Wolfgang, and H. von Restorff
1935 “Zur Theorie der Reproduktion”. Psychologische Forschung 21.56–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Körner, Stephen
1955Kant. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin.Google Scholar
Leitzmann, Albert
ed. 1908Briefwechsel zwischen Wilhelm von Humboldt und August Wilhelm Schlegel. Halle: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
ed. 1940Wilhelm von Humboldts Briefe an. Christian Gottfried Körner. Berlin: Ebering.Google Scholar
Paton, H. J.
1936Kant’s Metaphysic of Experience. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Penn, Julia M.
1972Linguistic Relativity versus Innate Ideas. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheinert, Moritz
1908 “Wilhelm von Humboldts Sprachphilosophie”. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie 13.141–95.Google Scholar
Schiller, Paul von
1933 “Stroboskopische Alternatiwersuche”. Psychologische Forschung 17.179–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slagle, Uhlan V.
1973 “On the Possibility of Correlating the Structure of Perception with the Structure of Thought and Meaning”. Linguistics 117.85–96.Google Scholar
1974Language, Thought, and Perception. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Norman Kemp
1962A Commentary to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Spranger, Eduard
1908 “W. v. Humboldt und Kant”. Kant-Studien 13.57–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinthal, Heymann
ed. 1884Die sprachphilosophischen Werke Wilhelm von Humboldts. Berlin: F. Dümmler.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm
1909 “Kant und die Sprachwissenschaft”. IF 26.382–422.Google Scholar
Wallach, Hans
1961 “Some Considerations concerning the Relation between Perception and Cognition”. Documents of Gestalt Psychology, ed. by Mary Henle, 164–71. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, Max
1923 “Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt”. Psychologische Forschung 4.301–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Robert P.
1963Kant’s Theory, of Mental Activity. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Wundt, Wilhelm
1900Völkerpsychologie. Vol. 1, pt. 2. Leipzig: W. Engelmann. (3rd. ed. 1911.)Google Scholar