Hoogvliet Versus Van Ginneken: Dutch linguistics around the turn of the century

Jan Noordegraaf
Free University, Amsterdam
Summary

In the last two decades of the 19th century the Dutch linguist Jan Marius Hoogvliet (1860–1924) developed an individual approach to non-historical linguistics, in which he sought to take expressly into account data from non-Indo- European languages. His linguistic views prompted him to attack the ideas of the proponents of the ‘world language’ Volapük, which was popular in the Netherlands in the 1880s. In 1903 his major work, Lingua, appeared. This book can aptly be characterized as a specimen of a universal grammar with psychological underpinnings; it was intended as a grammar for all languages in the world.

Hoogvliet’s main opponent, Jacobus van Ginneken (1877–1945) considered Lingua ‘a good book’, but he found various serious shortcomings in it. First, he thought the empirical bases too narrow; second, whereas Hoogvliet had based his thinking on rational psychology, van Ginneken preferred pathological psychology as put forward by Pierre Janet (1859–1947) in his L’automatisme psychologique (1889). Van Ginneken’s Principes de linguistique psychologique (1907) can be regarded as an elaboration on his Lingua review from 1903. However, the works of Hoogvliet and van Ginneken do have several points in common: both start from the psyche of the speaking individual and both take into account data from non-Indo-European languages. The controversy that arose between them can be traced back to their different views of language. Hoogvliet considered an unconscious and invariable ‘Normallogik’ to be the kernel of language, whereas van Ginneken regarded feeling as the innermost essence of language.

While van Ginneken still tried to incorporate the results of German historical comparative grammar into a grand, historically coloured synthesis, Hoogvliet’s writings were characterized by very sharp anti-German tones. The universal, logical classification of the parts of speech expounded in Lingua must be regarded as a direct reaction to Hermann Paul’s (1846–1921) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (1880). Moreover, Hoogvliet defended the scientific character of a non-historical approach of language against Paul. With that he is the most remarkable Dutch synchronic linguist of the last quarter of the 19th century. Hoogvliet’s theory, however, was highly idiosyncratic and many a reader was also repelled by his new and unconventional terminology. Only few linguists, among whom the Dutch structuralist Hendrik J. Pos (1898–1955), have studied Hoogvliet’s views thoroughly later on.

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

Barnouw, Adriaan Jacob
(1877–1968). 1904Review of Hoogvliet (1903). Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 112:12.190–94.Google Scholar
Beckering Vinckers, Jan
(1821–1891). 1877 “Voorrede van den bewerker”. Taal en taalstudie. Voorlezingen over de gronden der wetenschappelijke taalbeoefening door William Dwight Whitney. Eerste série, i–xii. Haarlem: F. Bohn.Google Scholar
Brom, Gerard
(1882–1959). 1955 [1945] “Pater Van Ginneken”. Roeping 31.273–88.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold
(1842–1922). 1919Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen. 6th rev. ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Dèr Mouw, Johan Andreas
(1863–1919). 1903Review of Hoogvliet (1903). Unpubl. ms., 41 pp. [Printed in Noordegraaf 1987, 11–33.]Google Scholar
(1863–1919). 1949 [1900] “Dr. Hoogvliet’s opvatting van taalstudie en methode van taalonderwijs”. Verzamelde Werken. VI. Verspreide geschriften by Johan Andreas Dèr Mouw, 255–387. Amsterdam: G.A. van Oorschot. (1st ed., Amsterdam: S.L. van Looy 1900.)Google Scholar
Essen, Arthur J. van
1983E. Kruisinga: A chapter in the history of linguistics in the Netherlands. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fresco, Marcel
1987 “Ueber das Verhältnis von Sprache, Denken und Welt. Ontologische Fragen unter besondere Berücksichtigung der Philosophie von J.A. dèr Mouw”. Logos and Pragma: Essays on the philosophy of language in honour of professor Gabriel Nuchelmans ed. by L. M. de Rijk & H. A. G. Braakhuis, 259–81. (= Artistarium, supplementa, 3.) Nijmegen: Ingenium Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ginneken S. J., Jacobus Joannes Antonius van
(1877–1945) See also J. van Groenendaal.Google Scholar
(1877–1945). 1904–1906Grondbeginselen der psychologische taalwetenschap. 2 vols. Lier: Jozef van In & Cie. (= offprint Leuvensche Bijdragen 6 & 7.)Google Scholar
(1877–1945). 1907Principes de linguistique psychologique.(= Bibliothèque de philosophie expérimentale, 4.) Paris: M. Rivière; Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz; Amsterdam: E. van der Vecht.Google Scholar
(1877–1945). 1917Als ons moedertaalonderwijs nog ooit gezond wil worden. Nijmegen: Malmberg.Google Scholar
(1877–1945). 1923De nieuwe richting in de taalwetenschap. Utrecht & Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt – J.W. van Leeuwen.Google Scholar
(1877–1945). 1929 “Zeker, voor een deel terug naar August Schleicher”. Donum natalicium Schrijnen, 10–22. Nijmegen & Utrecht: Dekker & van de Vegt.Google Scholar
Golling, Joseph
(1848–19??). 1904Review of Hoogvliet (1903). Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie 21, cols. 1006–1008.Google Scholar
Groenendaal, J. van [alias J. van Ginneken]
1903 “Psychologische taal-wetenschap”. Taal en Letteren 13.408–424, 545–62. [Review of Hoogvliet 1903.]Google Scholar
Haeringen, Coenraad B. van
(1892–1983). 1917 “Over het grammaties ges-lacht”. Neophilologus 2.81–85. [Review of Hoogvliet 1913.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1892–1983). 1954Netherlandic Language Research: Men and works in the study of Dutch. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (2nd ed. 1960.)Google Scholar
Hamel, Anton Gerardus van
(1886–1945). 1945Geschiedenis der taal-wetenschap. Den Haag: Servire.Google Scholar
Heeroma, Klaas
(1909–1972). 1960De Nijmeegse Nederlandistiek. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Herbig, Gustav
(1868–1925). 1916Review of Hoogvliet (1913). Deutsche Literaturzeitung 37, cols. 709–714.Google Scholar
Hesseling, Dirk Christiaan
(1859–1941). 1924 “Levensbericht van Dr. Jan Marius Hoogvliet 30 Junie 1860–22 Junie 1924”. Handelingen van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde te Leiden en levensberichten harer afgestorven medeleden (1923–1924), 86–95. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Hoogvliet, Jan Marius
(1860–1924). 1884a “Eene algemeene wereldtaal”. Het Nieuws van den dag of 1 Oct. 1884.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1884b “Eene nabetrachting”. De Amsterdammer: Weekblad voor Nederland of 16 Nov. 1884, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1885Studia Homerica. Lugduni Batavorum: S.C. van Doesburgh.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1889a “Latijn en Grieksch, ja of neen?”. De Nederlandsche Spektator 1889.52–53.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1889b “Verdediging der methode ‘Proagoon’, in den vorm eener Voorrede”. Coniunctis Viribus 4:1.62–70.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1894 “De waarde der klassieke litteratuur voor den tegenwoordigen tijd”. Vragen van den dag 9.561–77.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1895Grondbeginselen der Algemeene of Univerzeele Spraakleer. Bes-temd om als grondslag te dienen voor de wetenschappelijke Studie van doode en levende, Indo-europeesche en niet-Indo-europeesche talen. Wageningen: privately printed.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1896Het verbum in het hedendaagsch Fransch wetenschappelijk be-schreven. Barneveld: G.W. Boonstra.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1898 “Oudere en nieuwere taalmethodes”. Handelingen van het Eer-ste Nederlandsche Philologencongres, 108–125. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1903Lingua. Een beknopt leer- en handboek van Algemeene en Nederlandsche taalkennis. Amsterdam: S.L. van Looy.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1910 “Taalmathézis en taalchemie”. Vragen en Mededeelingen op het gebied der geschiedenis, taal- en letterkunde 1:1.26–29, 38–40.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1911 “Gewoon lezen en schrijven volgens de opvattingen der geleerden”. De Tijdspiegel 68:1.320–36.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1912 “Gebrek aan zedelijken moed als nadeeligen factor op de letterkunde en op den volksgeest”. Handelingen van het 32ste Nederlandsch Taal- en Letterkundig Congres, 254–64. Antwerpen: V. Resseler.Google Scholar
(1860–1924). 1913Die sogenannten “Geschlechter” im Indo-Europäischen und im Latein nach wissenschaftlicher Methode beschrieben. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Iordan, Iorgu
1937An Introduction to Romance Linguistics, its Schools and its Scholars. Rev., transl. and in part recast by John Orr. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
Janet, Pierre
(1859–1947). 1889L’automatisme psychologie: Essai de psychologie expérimentale sur les formes inférieures de l’activité humaine. Paris: F. Alcan.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
(1860–1943). 1894Progress in Language, with Special Reference to English. London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.Google Scholar
Josselin de Jong, Jan P. B. de
(1886–1964). 1915 “Geschiedenis der taal-wetenschap”. Geschiedenis der wetenschappen, 61–92. Baarn: Hollandia-drukkerij.Google Scholar
Kluyver, Albert
(1858–1938). 1895 “Een algemeene spraakleer”. De Nederlandsche Spektator 1895.274. [Review of Hoogvliet 1895.]Google Scholar
(1858–1938). 1903Review of Hoogvliet (1903). Museum 10, cols. 359–62.Google Scholar
Koerner, E. F. Konrad
1972 “Hermann Paul and Synchronic Linguistics”. Lingua 29.274–307. (Repr. in Towards a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected essays by E. F. Konrad Koerner, 73–106. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins 1978.)Google Scholar
Large, Andrew
1985The Artificial Language Movement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Lecoutere, Charles Pierre François
(1865–1921). 1914Review of Hoogvliet (1913). Dietsche Warande en Belfort 1914:2.92–94.Google Scholar
Madvig, Johan Nicolai
(1804–1886). 1843Bemerkungen über verschiedene Puncte des Systems der Lateinischen Sprachlehre und einige Einzelnheiten derselben. Als Beilage zu seiner Lateinischen Sprachlehre für Schulen. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg & Sohn.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
(1866–1936). 1914Review of Hoogvliet (1913). Revue critique d’histoire et de littérature N.S. 77:8.147.Google Scholar
Müller, Friedrich Max
(1823–1900). 1861–1864Lectures on the Science of Language. 2 Vols. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
(1823–1900). 1913The Science of Language. London-Bombay-Calcutta: Longmans, Green & Co. 2 vols. (= Collected Works of the Right. Hon. F. Max Müller, 11 & 12.)Google Scholar
Muller, Hendrik C.
(1855–1927). 1888 “Antwoord aan Dr.J.M. Hoogvliet op zijn artikel in den Spectator”. Coniunctis Viribus 3:2.108–111.Google Scholar
Nassau, Hendrik Jan
(1791–1873). 1879 [1854] “De Nederlandsche taal-kunde in haren aard en hare strekking”. Geschriften van Dr. H.J. Nassau. III, 242–51. Groningen J.B. Wolters. [Review of de Vries 1853.]Google Scholar
Noordegraaf, Jan
1980 “Jac. van Ginneken en de signifische beweging”. Was ik er ooit eerder ? Een bundel opstellen aangeboden aan Dr.H.A. Wage ed. by Sjoerd A. J. van Faassen, 41–61. ’s-Gravenhage: Bzztôh.Google Scholar
1985Norm, geest en geschiedenis. Nederlandse taalkunde in de negen-tiende eeuw. (= Geschiedenis van de Taalkunde, 3.) Dordrecht & Cin-naminson: Foris.Google Scholar
1987Dèr Mouw contra Hoogvliet. Universele Grammatica anno 1903. Schiedam: Huis te Riviere Pers.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann
(1846–1921). 1898Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 3rd. ed. Halle/S.: Niemeyer. (1st ed. 1880.)Google Scholar
(1846–1921). 1920Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 5th ed. Ibid.Google Scholar
Proosdij, Boricus Antonius van
(b.1901). 1954“Two thunder-clouds, closing in conflict”: The meeting of Madvig and Cobet at the tercentenary of Leyden University and its historical background. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
(1884–1939). 1921Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. [References are to a later paperback reprint.]Google Scholar
Schmitz, Heinrich Walter
1985Verständigungshandlungen. Eine wissenschaftshistorische Rekonstruktion der Anfänge der signifischen Bewegung in den Niederlanden (1892–1926). Unpubl. Habilitationsschrift, Univ. of Bonn.Google Scholar
Sommervelt, Alf
(1892–1965). 1961 “The French School of Linguistics”. Trends in European and American Linguistics 1930–1960 ed. by Christine Mohrmann, Alf Sommervelt & Joshua Whatmough, 283–93. Utrecht & Antwerpen: Spectrum.Google Scholar
Stroom, Gerrold P. van der
1981 “De receptie van Jac. van Ginnekens taalbiologie”. Voortgang 2.81–102.Google Scholar
Sütterlin, Ludwig
(1863–1934). 1907Die Deutsche Sprache der Gegenwart. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Voigtländer. (1st ed. 1900.)Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, Christianus Cornelius
(1866–1951). 1918 “Johan Hendrik Caspar Kern 6 april 1833–4 juli 1917”. Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen 1917, 15–47. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller.Google Scholar
(1866–1951), Eugenius Marius (b.1913). 1977 “Roman Jakobson and Dutch Linguistics”. Roman Jakobson: Echoes of his scholarship ed. by Daniel Amstrong & CH. van Schooneveld, 485–502. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.Google Scholar
Vachek, Josef
1968Dutch Linguists and the Prague Linguistic School. Leiden: Universitaire Pers.Google Scholar
Vollgraff, Johann C.
(1848–1920). 1903 “Het nieuwe boek van Dr. Hoogvliet”. Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant of 19 April 1903.Google Scholar
Vries, Matthias de
(1820–1892). 1853De Nederlandsche taalkunde in haren aard en hare strekking. Haarlem: A.C. Kruseman.Google Scholar
Weijnen, Antonius Angelus
(b.1909). 1948 “Jac. van Ginneken (Ouden-bosch, 21 April 1877 – Nijmegen, 20 October 1945)”. Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde te Leiden 1946–1947, 50–61. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Welby, Victoria
(1837–1912). 1903What Is Meaning? London & New York: Macmillan. (Repr., with an Introductory essay by Gerrit Man-noury and a Preface by Arnim Eschbach, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins 1983 [= Foundations of Semiotics, 2].)Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight
(1827–1894). 1867Language and the Study of Language: Twelve lectures on the principles of linguistic science. London: Trübner. (Repr., Hildesheim & New York: Georg Olms 1973.)Google Scholar
(1827–1894). 1875The Life and Growth of Language. London: Henry S. King. (Repr., Hildesheim & New York: George Olms 1970.)Google Scholar
Witte, [A.] Josephus Johannes de
(1911–1977). 1950 “Een psychologische grammatica?De Nieuwe Taalgids 43.1–9.Google Scholar