Search

The paper contrasts the careers, theories and organizational contributions made by Roman Jakobson and Louis Hjelmslev respectively. Though both are prominent structuralists, they diverged on several important points as to their views of theories and language. Their histories are intertwined because they fought for supremacy in the filed of linguistics and collaborated on the journal Acta Linguistica. Their different views were, however, not fully expressed in the 1930s since an important paper by Hjelmslev was suppressed and remained unpublished until 1973. During Jakobson's escape from Czechoslovakia Hjelmslev was instrumental in bringing Jakobson and his wife to Denmark where he worked for half a year before going on to Norway. We document the various meeting points and divergencies as well as the close friendship which despite their theoretical differences united them. Keywords: Roman Jakobson, Louis Hjelmslev, history of linguistics, history of structuralism

Abstract. In this paper, we follow the development of Coseriu’s conceptual tools for variational linguistics during the 1950s. Our starting point is Pisani’s notion of “isogloss”, which Coseriu initially regarded as a core idea for his own approach and yet progressively abandoned in favour of the more structuralist-oriented notion of “functional language”, adopted in the wake of Louis Hjelmslev’s framework, through Leiv Flydal’s mediation. Finally, we speculate about the reasons and the implications of Coseriu’s failing to acknowledge Uriel Weinreich as an important source for variational linguistics.Keywords: variational linguistics, functional linguistics, diasystems, Coseriu, Hjelmslev, Flydal, Weinreich

Otto Jespersen (1860-1943) was a Danish linguist, best known for his studies of English, of phonetics and of general linguistics. In my paper, I introduce a lesser-known side of Jespersen, i.e. as an Italianist and a Romanist. A special focus is on how he deals with the passive tenses in Romance languages, in particular Italian and French. Drawing on the theory developed by the German Romanist Friedrich Diez (1794-1876), who notably differentiated between perfective and imperfective verbs, and subsequently connecting this differentiation to the general discussion of aspect and Aktionsart around 1900, Jespersen in a few pages elaborates a rather advanced analysis of the passive tenses in the Romance (and some other) languages. I suggest that Jespersen’s statement forestalls an important part of the description of the passive tenses in Italian elaborated by the Danish Italianist (and Romanist) Jørgen Schmitt Jensen (1931-2004) and published in a comprehensive Italian grammar (1990). I further propose that even though Jespersen’s text probably is not a direct source for Schmitt Jensen, it helps understanding the general frame of the latter’s presentation of the subject. Finally, I claim that the relevant pages in Jespersen (1924) are interesting concerning the historiography of the concept of Aktionsart.

In the 1930s the two Danish linguists Otto Jespersen (1860–1943) and Louis Hjelmslev (1899–1965) both referred to the Finnish case-system in their discussions of the importance of the concept of case. In my paper, I examine first the problems that arise when cases are excluded from the (syntactical) analysis as in Jespersen’s symbolic system, and thereafter the problems that arise when one tries to establish a localist based system of cases and their semantic values, as in Hjelmslev’s work. Further, I examine the problems that John M. Anderson is confronted with when he analyses the Finnish cases with his localist theory of universal cases. It is concluded (1) that Jespersen’s syntactically based symbolic system cannot capture much of the grammatically encoded information in Finnish; (2) that Hjelmslev’s localist model, which takes Finnish as a benchmark in order to explain the structure of complex case-systems, includes the semantic issue of the relationship between the localistically defined categories and the grammatical ones; (3) that Anderson uses Finnish to showcase his theory, but that his rendering of Finnish also represents a challenge for this., In the 1930s the two Danish linguists Otto Jespersen (1860–1943) and Louis Hjelmslev (1899–1965) both referred to the Finnish case-system in their discussions of the importance of the concept of case. In my paper, I examine first the problems that arise when cases are excluded from the (syntactical) analysis as in Jespersen’s symbolic system, and thereafter the problems that arise when one tries to establish a localist based system of cases and their semantic values, as in Hjelmslev’s work. Further, I examine the problems that John M. Anderson is confronted with when he analyses the Finnish cases with his localist theory of universal cases. It is concluded (1) that Jespersen’s syntactically based symbolic system cannot capture much of the grammatically encoded information in Finnish; (2) that Hjelmslev’s localist model, which takes Finnish as a benchmark in order to explain the structure of complex case-systems, includes the semantic issue of the relationship between the localistically defined categories and the grammatical ones; (3) that Anderson uses Finnish to showcase his theory, but that his rendering of Finnish also represents a challenge for this.

In this paper, inspired by research in the Hjelmslev Archive, I examine how three Danish scholars have approached the Finnish case system. It is demonstrated (1) that Rasmus Rask (1787-1832) historically had an important role in the systematization and denomination of the Finnish cases; (2) that Rask’s schematic systematization plays an important role for the case theory published in 1935 by Louis Hjelmslev (1899-1965); (3) and that Hjelmslev’s rendering of Rask’s case diagram causes some criticism from his former teacher of Finnish, Ferdinand Ohrt (1873-1978).

In 1952 Roman Jakobson (1896-1982) gave the first comprehensive exposition of his theory of “distinctive features”. The Danish phonetician and general linguist Eli Fischer-Jørgensen (1911-2010) was an important discussion partner of Jakobson’s for some thirty years. You may follow their exchange of ideas in a correspondence which ranges from 1949 until Jakobson’s death in 1982 (Bank Jensen & D’Ottavi, 2020). Fischer-Jørgensen always acknowledged her debt to Jakobson’s work; but was there also some influence the other way around? Based on Koerner’s (1989) guideline for defining the term “influence” in the history of linguistics, it is discussed which importance Fischer-Jørgensen had for Jakobson in the decade 1952-62, beyond what can be seen directly from his quotations of her. It is argued: that Fischer-Jørgensen’s critical input had an effect on some specific issues in the Jakobsonian expositions of the “distinctive feature” theory; that her suggestions had some influence on his use of theoretical concepts; and finally that she was an important figure when he took over as a chairman of the International Congresses of Phonetic Sciences.

The paper deals with the Danish linguist Rasmus Rask (1787-1842) and his principal work "Investigation of the Origin of the Old Norse or Icelandic Language" (1818) which is gone through rather detailed. Subsequently is discussed the impact of Rask’s works on the History of linguistics. it is concluded that Rask has had a great impact on Jacob Grimm, and in general on the comparative and historical phonology, while in grammar he did not influence the first important Franz Bopp work (1816), but to a great extent the development of Bopp’s linguistic ideas. It is also described how Rask while treating the correspondences between the Latin and Italian vowel system not only forestalls Friedrich Diez, but also surpasses him; here too, Rask is a theoretical forerunner, but this analysis does not seem to have had an impact on Romance linguistics. Keywords: Rasmus Rask; Comparative linguistics; impact on the History of linguistics; Forerunner.

The great Danish linguist Rasmus Rask (1787-1832) published a short Italian grammar in 1827. His work is analytic and discursive. In my article I shall present and discuss Rask’s exposition of the Italian verbal system. I shall focus on two elements: 1) Rask’s use of a Danish terminology which has some similarities with Reichenbach’s system; 2) Rask’s allocation of condizionale as an indicative tense, in contrast to a long Italian grammatical tradition of having condizionale as an independent mood. I shall show that Rask’s consistent use of his tense terminology throws a critical light on the Reichenbach system and further argue that the study of Rask’s treatment of condizionale can give us a basis for some clarification and inspiration in the didactics of teaching the Italian language.

Based on a correspondence between Eugenio Coseriu (1921-2002) and Eli Fischer-Jørgensen (1911-2010), the article discusses the importance of Louis Hjelmslev (1899-1965) for the development of the theory of Coseriu. In a letter dated 1955, Fischer-Jørgensen agrees with Coseriu in his criticism of Hjelmslev’s neglect of substance in phonology, but she also makes some critical remarks on Coseriu’s account. Starting from Fischer-Jørgensen’s remarks, it will be shown that there is some ambiguity in Coseriu’s attitude towards Hjelmslev’s terms norm and usage. Moreover, it will be shown that there seems to be a slight change in Coseriu’s view on content substance. This way, the article aims to show that Fischer-Jørgensen played an important role as a critical mediator between Hjelmslev and Coseriu.

Based on a correspondence between Eugenio Coseriu (1921-2002) and Eli Fischer-Jørgensen (1911-2010), the article discusses the importance of Louis Hjelmslev (1899-1965) for the development of the theory of Coseriu. In a letter dated 1955, Fischer-Jørgensen agrees with Coseriu in his criticism of Hjelmslev’s neglect of substance in phonology, but she also makes some critical remarks on Coseriu’s account. Starting from Fischer-Jørgensen’s remarks, it will be shown that there is some ambiguity in Coseriu’s attitude towards Hjelmslev’s terms norm and usage. Moreover, it will be shown that there seems to be a slight change in Coseriu’s view on content substance. This way, the article aims to show that Fischer-Jørgensen played an important role as a critical mediator between Hjelmslev and Coseriu., Based on a correspondence between Eugenio Coseriu (1921-2002) and Eli Fischer-Jørgensen (1911-2010), the article discusses the importance of Louis Hjelmslev (1899-1965) for the development of the theory of Coseriu. In a letter dated 1955, Fischer-Jørgensen agrees with Coseriu in his criticism of Hjelmslev’s neglect of substance in phonology, but she also makes some critical remarks on Coseriu’s account. Starting from Fischer-Jørgensen’s remarks, it will be shown that there is some ambiguity in Coseriu’s attitude towards Hjelmslev’s terms norm and usage. Moreover, it will be shown that there seems to be a slight change in Coseriu’s view on content substance. This way, the article aims to show that Fischer-Jørgensen played an important role as a critical mediator between Hjelmslev and Coseriu.

Bogen indeholder syv bidrag om sproghistorikeren, litteraturhistorikeren, oversætteren og filologen Niels Matthias Petersen (1791-1862), som i 1845 blev den første professor i nordiske sprog ved Københavns Universitet. N.M. Petersens indsats er nævnt i fagbøgerne, men ukendt i den store offentlighed. Og alligevel bygger vi, hans efterfølgere inden for danskfaget, videre på mangfoldige af hans indsatser. Bogen viser hvordan. Det gælder: skandinavisme litteraturhistorie oversættelse af sagaer tekstudgivelse/editionsfilologi navneforskning grammatik sprogteori og sprogsyn

The focus in this article is a comparison between two linguists in the 19th century, the Italian A. Manzoni (1785-1873) and the Dane N.M. Petersen (1791-1862). They both understand language as a social issue and both use the school system as a means in their language policy. Nonetheless their conclusions differ in many ways. The article treats their language theories and language-planning proposals. It is concluded: a) that Manzoni and Petersen diverge in three dimensions. Manzoni has a synchronic approach, focuses on spoken language and argues for a centralized anti-Koine solution, i.e. modern Florentine as the Italian standard language, while Petersen has a historical, diachronic approach, focuses on written language and argues for a Koine, i.e. a Nordic common language, b) that the national premises for their language policies are very different, c) that the comparative perspective sheds new light on the language discussions in the two countries.