{"title":"拉丁裔","authors":"Tim Denecker","doi":"10.1075/HL.00029.DEN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn the history of 20th-century Latin linguistics, the Catholic Dutch professors Joseph Schrijnen (1869–1938) and Christine Mohrmann (1903–1988) are known as the key figures of the ‘Nijmegen School’. They developed the disputable and indeed strongly debated hypothesis that the kind of Latin used by early Christians was a Sondersprache or langue spéciale (later Gruppensprache or langue de groupe) characterized by different types of ‘christianisms’. The aim of this article is to contribute to a critical historiography of the Nijmegen School by looking into the reception of its ideas among contemporary Latin linguists. In particular, it tries to reconstruct the evolving appraisals by Alfred Ernout (1879–1973) and Einar Löfstedt (1880–1955), on the basis of (a) the former’s reviews of studies published by the Nijmegen School (in contrast to reviews by other contemporary linguists), (b) studies published on neighbouring or overlapping subjects by Einar Löfstedt, and (c) a letter to Mohrmann from each of them, both of which are preserved in the archives of the Katholiek Documentatie Centrum in Nijmegen. In the case of Ernout, it is argued that he was probably always sceptical about the Sondersprache hypothesis, but that in his reviews of the 1930s this scepticism was mitigated to a ‘reticent’ attitude, possibly for reasons to do with the politics of science. In the case of Löfstedt, it is shown that he initially approved of the hypothesis and even integrated it into his own works, but that he gradually diverged from the Nijmegen School, partly on account of (Schrijnen and) Mohrmann’s polemical misrepresentation of his comments on gentes and pagani being semantic Umprägungen rather than Neuprägungen.","PeriodicalId":51928,"journal":{"name":"Historiographia Linguistica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Among Latinists\",\"authors\":\"Tim Denecker\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/HL.00029.DEN\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn the history of 20th-century Latin linguistics, the Catholic Dutch professors Joseph Schrijnen (1869–1938) and Christine Mohrmann (1903–1988) are known as the key figures of the ‘Nijmegen School’. They developed the disputable and indeed strongly debated hypothesis that the kind of Latin used by early Christians was a Sondersprache or langue spéciale (later Gruppensprache or langue de groupe) characterized by different types of ‘christianisms’. The aim of this article is to contribute to a critical historiography of the Nijmegen School by looking into the reception of its ideas among contemporary Latin linguists. In particular, it tries to reconstruct the evolving appraisals by Alfred Ernout (1879–1973) and Einar Löfstedt (1880–1955), on the basis of (a) the former’s reviews of studies published by the Nijmegen School (in contrast to reviews by other contemporary linguists), (b) studies published on neighbouring or overlapping subjects by Einar Löfstedt, and (c) a letter to Mohrmann from each of them, both of which are preserved in the archives of the Katholiek Documentatie Centrum in Nijmegen. In the case of Ernout, it is argued that he was probably always sceptical about the Sondersprache hypothesis, but that in his reviews of the 1930s this scepticism was mitigated to a ‘reticent’ attitude, possibly for reasons to do with the politics of science. In the case of Löfstedt, it is shown that he initially approved of the hypothesis and even integrated it into his own works, but that he gradually diverged from the Nijmegen School, partly on account of (Schrijnen and) Mohrmann’s polemical misrepresentation of his comments on gentes and pagani being semantic Umprägungen rather than Neuprägungen.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historiographia Linguistica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historiographia Linguistica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/HL.00029.DEN\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historiographia Linguistica","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/HL.00029.DEN","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在20世纪拉丁语言学史上,荷兰天主教教授Joseph Schrijnen(1869–1938)和Christine Mohrmann(1903–1988)被称为“奈梅亨学派”的关键人物。他们提出了一个有争议的、事实上也有强烈争议的假设,即早期基督徒使用的拉丁语是一种Sondersprache或languagee spéciale(后来的Gruppensprache或langue de groupe),其特征是不同类型的“基督主义”。本文的目的是通过考察奈梅亨学派思想在当代拉丁语言学家中的接受情况,为奈梅亨派的批判史学做出贡献。特别是,它试图重建Alfred Ernout(1879–1973)和Einar Löfstedt(1880–1955)不断发展的评价,其基础是(a)前者对奈梅亨学派发表的研究的评论(与其他当代语言学家的评论相反),以及(c)他们每人给Mohrmann的一封信,这两封信都保存在奈梅亨Katholiek文献中心的档案中。就Ernout而言,有人认为他可能一直对Sondersprache假说持怀疑态度,但在他对20世纪30年代的评论中,这种怀疑被缓和为“沉默”的态度,可能是因为科学政治的原因。在勒夫施泰特的案例中,可以看出,他最初赞同这一假设,甚至将其融入了自己的作品中,但他逐渐偏离了奈梅亨学派,部分原因是(Schrijnen和)Mohrmann在辩论中歪曲了他对士绅和异教徒的评论,认为他们是语义上的Umprägungen,而不是Neuprägungen。
In the history of 20th-century Latin linguistics, the Catholic Dutch professors Joseph Schrijnen (1869–1938) and Christine Mohrmann (1903–1988) are known as the key figures of the ‘Nijmegen School’. They developed the disputable and indeed strongly debated hypothesis that the kind of Latin used by early Christians was a Sondersprache or langue spéciale (later Gruppensprache or langue de groupe) characterized by different types of ‘christianisms’. The aim of this article is to contribute to a critical historiography of the Nijmegen School by looking into the reception of its ideas among contemporary Latin linguists. In particular, it tries to reconstruct the evolving appraisals by Alfred Ernout (1879–1973) and Einar Löfstedt (1880–1955), on the basis of (a) the former’s reviews of studies published by the Nijmegen School (in contrast to reviews by other contemporary linguists), (b) studies published on neighbouring or overlapping subjects by Einar Löfstedt, and (c) a letter to Mohrmann from each of them, both of which are preserved in the archives of the Katholiek Documentatie Centrum in Nijmegen. In the case of Ernout, it is argued that he was probably always sceptical about the Sondersprache hypothesis, but that in his reviews of the 1930s this scepticism was mitigated to a ‘reticent’ attitude, possibly for reasons to do with the politics of science. In the case of Löfstedt, it is shown that he initially approved of the hypothesis and even integrated it into his own works, but that he gradually diverged from the Nijmegen School, partly on account of (Schrijnen and) Mohrmann’s polemical misrepresentation of his comments on gentes and pagani being semantic Umprägungen rather than Neuprägungen.
期刊介绍:
Historiographia Linguistica (HL) serves the ever growing community of scholars interested in the history of the sciences concerned with language such as linguistics, philology, anthropology, sociology, pedagogy, psychology, neurology, and other disciplines. Central objectives of HL are the critical presentation of the origin and development of particular ideas, concepts, methods, schools of thought or trends, and the discussion of the methodological and philosophical foundations of a historiography of the language sciences, including its relationship with the history and philosophy of science. HL is published in 3 issues per year of about 450 pages altogether.