A matter of consequenz : Humboldt, race and the genius of the Chinese Language

John E. Joseph
The University of Edinburgh
Summary

Accusations of ‘racialism’ against Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1767–1835) theory of language have been based in large measure on remarks in Humboldt (1836) concerning the inferiority of Chinese as an organ of thought. His other comments asserting its excellence are either marginalised or used to suggest that his account of the language is incoherent and irrational. However, when read in the context of the work in which they were originally formulated, Humboldt’s 1826 letter to the Sinologist J.-P. Abel-Rémusat (1788–1832), their coherence becomes apparent. Reacting to a polarisation between Sinologists and Sanskritists in the Société Asiatique of Paris, he rises to the challenge put to him by Rémusat to solve the paradox of how, if synthetic, inflecting languages are to be credited with the development of higher thought, Chinese, the ultimate analytic language, could have produced one of the world’s great civilisations. Humboldt conducts his enquiry in the classical form of a thesis, largely corresponding to Rémusat’s views of the superiority of Chinese; an antithesis, corresponding in part to the strong view of the inferiority of Chinese put forward by Rémusat’s student Eugène Burnouf (1801–1852); and a synthesis, which locates the excellence of Chinese in the realm of ideas and that of the inflecting languages in the realm of thought, then explains how it is that Chinese acquired a structural defect and subsequently turned it into an advantage.

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

Aarsleff, Hans
1988 “Introduction”. First ed. of Heath’s translation of Humboldt (1988[1836]),vii–lxv.Google Scholar
Benson, Phil
1996 Contributions to debate following Joseph (1996b) Current Issues in Language and Society 3,181–182. (Also in Wright & Kelly-Holmes, eds. 1997.75–76.)Google Scholar
Bopp, Franz
1824 Ausf ührliches Lehrgebäude der Sanskritasprache. Berlin: Ferdinand Dummler. (2nd ed. 1827.)Google Scholar
1825 “Vergleichende Zergliederung der Sanskrita-Sprache und der mit ihm verwandten Sprachen. Erste Abhandlung: Von den Wurzeln und Pronomen erster und zweiter Person”. Abhandlungen der K öniglichen Akademie der Wissen-schaften zu Berlin, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1825.117–148. (Repr. in Kleine Schriften zur vergleichendenden Sprachwissenschaft: Gesammelte Berliner Abhandlungen 1824–1854, 1–32. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR 1972.)Google Scholar
Brown, Roger Langham
1967 Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Conception of Linguistic Relativity. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnouf, Eugène
1825a Review of Bopp (1825) Journal Asiatique 6.52–62, 113–124.Google Scholar
1825b Review of Bopp (1824) Journal Asiatique 6.298–314, 359–371.Google Scholar
Grossman, Jeffrey
1997 “Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Linguistic Ideology: The problem of pluralism and the absolute difference of national character – Or, where do the Jews fit in?”. German Studies Review 20.23–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harbsmeier, Christoph
1979 “Zur philosophischen Grammatik des Altchinesischen im Anschluss an Humboldts Brief an Abel-Rémusat”. Published together with Brief an M. Abel-Rémusat über die Natur grammatischer Formen im allgemeinen und über den Geist der chinesischen Sprache im besonderen. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog. [German transi, of Humboldt 1826a.]Google Scholar
1992 “La connaissance du chinois”. Histoire des idées linguistiques ed. by Sylvain Auroux, vol.II, 299–312. Liège: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy & Talbot J. Taylor
1997 Landmarks in Linguistic Thought I: The Western Tradition from Socrates to Saussure. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm von
1823–1824 “Ueber die in der Sanskrit-Sprache durch die Suffixa twâ und yâ gebildeten Verbalformen”. Indische Bibliothek 1.433–473; 2.71–134.Google Scholar
1825 “Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen, und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwicklung”. Abhandlungen der historisch-philologischen Klasse der k önigliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin aus dem Jahren 1822 und 1823, 401–430.Google Scholar
1826a “Lettre à Monsieur Abel-Rémusat”, 7 mars 1826. Sections 1–7, 20–23 and 27–28 published as “Sur le génie grammatical de la langue chinoise, comparé à celui des autres langues” in Journal Asiatique 9 (1826), 115–123. First complete publication: Lettre à Monsieur Abel-Rémusat sur la nature des formes grammaticales en général et sur le génie de la langue chinoise en particulier par monsieur Guillaume de Humboldt. Observations sur quelques passages de la lettre précédente, par M. A[bel] R[émusat]. Paris: Doudey-Dupré 1827 Repr. in Humboldt (1841–1852), vol.V, 254–308. [For German translation, see Harbsmeier 1979.]Google Scholar
1826b “Über den grammatischen Bau der Chinesischen Sprache”. First published in Humboldt (1841–1852), vol.V, 309–324.Google Scholar
1836 Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluβ auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: König-lichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. English version: On Language: The Diversity of Human Language Structure and its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind, transl. by Peter Heath, intro. by Hans Aarsleff, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1988 (2nd ed., with an Introduction by Michael Losonsky, in press.)Google Scholar
1841–1852 Wilhelm von Humboldts gesammelte Werke. 7 vols. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Hutton, Christopher M.
1999 Linguistics and the Third Reich: Mother-tongue fascism, race and the science of language. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hutton, Christopher M. & John E. Joseph
1998 “Back to Blavatsky: The impact of theosophy on modern linguistics”. Language and Communication 18.181–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, John E.
1990 “Ideologizing Saussure: Bloomfield’s and Chomsky’s readings of the Cours de linguistique générale ”. Ideologies of Language ed. by John E. Joseph & Talbot J. Taylor, 51–78. London & New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
1991 Review of Humboldt 1988[1836] Language 67.843–851. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996a “The Immediate Sources of the ‘Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’”. Histo-riographia Linguistica 23.365–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996b “English in Hong Kong: Emergence and Decline”. Current Issues in Language and Society 3.166–185. (Also in Wright & Kelly-Holmes eds. 1997 60–79.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 “Basic English and the ‘Debabelization’ of China”. Intercultural Encounters – Studies in English Literatures: Essays presented to Rudiger Ahrens on the occasion of his 60th birthday ed. by Heinz Antor & Kevin L. Cope, 51–71. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
2000 “Language and ‘Psychological Race’: Léopold de Saussure on French in Indochina”. Language and Communication 20:1, in press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerner, Konrad
1989 “Friedrich Schlegel and the Emergence of Historical-Comparative Grammar”. Practicing Linguistic Historiography: Selected essays, 269–290. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchester, Martin L.
1985 The Philosophical Foundations of Humboldt’s Linguistic Doctrines. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rémusat, Jean Pierre Abel
1822 Élémens de la grammaire chinoise, ou principes généraux du Kou-wen ou style antique, et du Kouan-hoa, c’est-à-dire, de la langue commune généralement usitée dans l’empire chinois. (Nouv. éd augmentée d’une table des principales phonétiques chinoises par Léon de Rosny, Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve 1857; repr., with an Introduction by Alain Peyraube, Paris: Ala Productions 1987.)Google Scholar
1824 Review of Humboldt (1825) and (1823–1824) Journal Asiatique 5.51–61.Google Scholar
1826 See Humboldt (1826a).Google Scholar
Römer, Ruth
1985 Sprachwissenschaft und Rassenideologie in Deutschland. München: Wilhelm Fink. (2nd ed. 1989.)Google Scholar
Said, Edward W.
1978 Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Schlegel, August Wilhelm von
1818 Observations sur la langue et la littérature provençales. Paris: Librairie Grecque-Latine-Allemande. (Repr., with a Preface by Gunter Narr, Tubingen: TBL Verlag 1971.)Google Scholar
Schulz, Fréd. Edouard
1824 Review of W. von Humboldt, “Über die Buchsta-benschrift und ihren Zusammenhang mit dem Sprachbau” (“Sur l’écriture alphabétique et ses rapports avec la structure du langage”), mémoire lu à l’Académie de Berlin. Journal Asiatique 5.369–376.Google Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre
1986 Review of Harbsmeier (1979) Language 62.456–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varo, Francisco
1703[Ms.l682] Arte de la lengua Mandarina. ed. by Pedro de la Piñuela (1650–1704) Canton: [Publisher unknown]. (New ed., with an English translation, by W. South Coblin, and an Introduction by Sandra Breitenbach, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1999.)Google Scholar
Webb, John
1669 An Historical Essay Endeavouing a Probability that the Language of the Empire of China is the Primitive Language. London: for Nath. Brook.Google Scholar
Wright, Sue & Helen Kelly-Holmes
eds. 1997 One Country, Two Systems, Three Languages: Changing language use in Hong Kong. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar