Cover not available
Part of
History of Linguistics 2021: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS 15), Milan, 28 August – 1 September
Edited by Savina Raynaud, Maria Paola Tenchini and Enrica Galazzi
[Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 133] 2024
► pp. 250–279

Chapter 17
The structuralist quest for general meanings

Mapping the history of monosemy in grammatical semantics

| Université de Liège
| University of Aarhus
This article reconstruct the history and development of the methodology known as “of general meanings”, widely adopted in 20th century structural linguistics and grammatical semantics starting from the Thirties onwards, tracking its roots in the framework of German Allgemeine Sprachlehre and discussing the debate that it engendered within the structural paradigm, where the notions of “general” vs. “fundamental meanings” (Gesamt- vs. Grundbedeutung) were defined and gained currency, often marking the competing approaches of Prague vs. Copenhagen schools. In so doing, the paper offers a detailed insight on the philosophical background of such a methodology, reconstructing its epistemological framework and its legacy, contributing in mapping the evolution of one of its most important corollary: monosemy.
Keywords: monosemy, grammatical semantics, general meanings, structural linguistics, system
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Kant, German romantic philology and the motivation of grammatical forms
  • 3.The structuralist turn
  • 4.Extending the count
  • 5.Perspectives and conclusions
  • Author queries
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (84)
References
Anderson, John M. 2006. Modern Grammars of Case. A Retrospective. Oxford Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bech, Gunnar. 1949. Das semantische System der deutschen Modalverba (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague IV), 3–45. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Benes, Tuska. 2008. In Babel’s Shadow: Language, Philology and the Nation in Nineteenth-Century Germany. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1935. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
. 1949. “Le système sublogique des prépositions en latin”. Recherches structurales (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, V): 177–184. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1956 [1966]. “La nature des pronoms”. Problèmes de linguistique générale, I, 251–257. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
. 1958 [1966]. “Catégories de pensée et catégories de langue”. Problèmes de linguistique générale, I, 63–74. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
. 1959 [1966]. “Les relations de temps dans le verbe français”. Problèmes de linguistique générale, I, 237–250. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bílý, Milan. 1989. “The Case of the Invariant Case Reconsidered”. Slovo: Journal of Slavic Languages and Literatures 37.5–33.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, Henrik. 1998. “Jakobson’s Concept of General Meaning”. Sketches of Slavic scholars, § 9. Indiana: Slavica Publisher.Google Scholar
Bjerrum, Anders. 1949. “Verbal Number in the Jutlandic Law” (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, IV), 156–176. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, Peter. 1985. Review of Textgrammatik der französischen Sprache by Harald Weinrich. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 95:1.82–95.Google Scholar
Bréal, Michel. 1868. Le idées latentes du langage. Leçon faite au Collège de France pour la réouverture du cours de grammaire comparée. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Brøndal, Viggo. 1928. Ordklasserne. Partes orationis. Studier over de sproglige Kategorier. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad.Google Scholar
. 1932. Morfologi og Syntax. København: Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri.Google Scholar
. 1940. Præpositionernes Theori. Indledning til en rationel Betydningslære. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Burkard, Thorsten. 2003. “Die lateinische Grammatik im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert. Von einer Wortarten- zu einer Satzgliedgrammatik. Ellipsentheorie, Kasuslehre, Satzglieder”. Germania Latina — Latinitas Teutonica. Politik, Wissenschaft, humanistische Kultur vom späten Mittelalter bis in unsere Zeit edited by Eckhard Keßer & Heinrich C. Kuhn, 781–830. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Cigana, Lorenzo. 2018. “La forma del mondo. L’analisi glossematica del contenuto tra linguistica e filosofia”. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 1.22–36.Google Scholar
. 2019. “The Formalisation of Grammatical Meanings in Copenhagen Structural Linguistics. Some Remarks”. History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences (online), [URL]
. 2022. Hjelmslev e la teoria delle correlazioni linguistiche. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Cigana, Lorenzo & Stéphane Polis. 2023. “Hjelmslev, a Forerunner of the Semantic Maps Method in Linguistic Typology?”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 55:1.93–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1988 [1992]. Einführung in die allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Couturier-Heinrich, Clémence. 2011. “Gottfried Hermann, un philologue kantien”. Revue germanique internationale 14.73–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cusimano, Christophe. 2012. La sémantique contemporaine. Du sème au thème. Paris: Pups.Google Scholar
Danielsen, Niels. 1980. “The ‘Cases’, Hjelmslev, and the Cases”. Linguistic studies, 84–113. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. Willem. 1956. “Classification of the Uses of a Case illustrated on the Genitive in Latin”. Lingua 6.8–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutschbein, Max. 1935. “Bedeutung der Kasus im Indogermanischen”. In Atti del III Congresso internazionale dei linguisti (Roma, 19–26 settembre 1933) edited by Bruno Migliorini & Vittorio Pisani, 141–146. Firenze: Felice le Monnier.Google Scholar
Ebeling, Carl L. 1957. “On Case Theories”. Museum 62.129–145.Google Scholar
Falkowska, Marta. 2014. “Subjectivity and Objectivity in Language as Seen by Louis Hjelmslev and Ronald W. Langacker”. Cognitive Linguistics in the Making edited by Kinga Rudnicka-Szozda & Aleksander Szwedek, 41–51. Frankfurt am Main & Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. “The Case for Case”. Universals in Linguistic Theory edited by Emmon Bach & R. Thomas Harms, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fortis, Jean-Michel. 2018. “Anderson’s Case Grammar and the History of Localism”. In (eds.), Substance-based Grammar — The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson edited by Roger Böhm & Harry van der Hulst, 113–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2008. “Semantic Maps and the Typology of Colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages”. From Polysemy to Semantic Change edited by Martine Vanhove, 163–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fruyt, Michèle. 1992. “Les principes méthodologiques d’Emile Benveniste dans Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen”, in Linx 26.159–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guillaume, Gustave (1944c) [1973], Un déterminant de l’espèce de mot: l’incidence. Leçon du 13 janvier 1944, série A, in Guillaume, 1973, 201–205.Google Scholar
. 1919. Le problème de l’article et sa solution dans la langue française. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
. 1929. Temps et verbe. Théorie des aspects, des modes et des temps. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
. 1933. Immanence et transcendance dans la catégorie du verbe ; esquisse d’une théorie psychologique de l’aspect. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar
. 1937. “Thèmes de présent et système des temps français ; genèse corrélative du présent et des temps”. Journal de Psychologie 34.161–178 (Rep. in Langage et science du langage edited by A.-G. Nizet, 59–72. Québec & Paris: PUL, 1964.)Google Scholar
. 1939. “Esquisse d’une théorie psychologique de la déclinaison”. Acta Linguistica 1.167–178 (Rep. in Langage et science du langage edited by A.-G. Nizet, 99–107. Québec & Paris: PUL, 1964.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1942–43. “L’Architectonique du temps dans les langues classiques”. Acta Linguistica 3:2–3.69–118.Google Scholar
. 1944a–[1973]. Nature de l’acte du langage. Leçon du 27 avril 1944, série A, in Guillaume, 1973, 137–143.Google Scholar
. 1944b. “Particularisation et généralisation dans le système des articles français”. Le Français moderne 12.143–156.Google Scholar
. 1945a. “La question de l’article: d’une raison qui s’est opposée jusqu’ici à une coopération étroite et fructueuse des linguistes historiens et des linguistes théoriciens”. Le Français moderne 13.1–2.Google Scholar
. 1945b. “Logique constructive interne du système des articles français”. Le Français moderne 13.3–4.Google Scholar
. 1947 [1973]. Découverte du système: technique d’analyse appropriée. Leçon du 12 décembre 1947, série C, in Guillaume, 1973, 185–187.Google Scholar
. 1973. Principes de linguistique théorique de Gustave Guillaume. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval & Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
. 2000. Grundzüge einer theoretischen Linguistik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. “The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning”. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches To Language Structure, vol. II, edited by Michael Tomasello, 211–242. Mahwah, New Jersey & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hermann, Gottfried. 1799. Handbuch der Metrik. Leipzig: Fleischer.Google Scholar
. 1801. De emendanda ratione graecae grammaticae. Leipzig: Fleischer.Google Scholar
. 1803. De differentia prosae et poeticae orationis. Leipzig: Fleischer.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1935. La catégorie des cas. Étude de grammaire générale, I (Acta Jutlandica, 7, 1). Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
. 1937. La catégorie des cas. Étude de grammaire générale, II (Acta Jutlandica, 9, 2). Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
. 1939 (1970). “La structure morphologique”. Essais linguistiques (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague XII), 113–138. Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag.Google Scholar
Holt, Jens. 1946. Rationel semantik (pleremik). Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1935. Reaction to Deutschbein (1935). In Atti del III Congresso internazionale dei linguisti (Roma, 19–26 settembre 1933), edited by Bruno Migliorini & Vittore Pisani, 146. Firenze: Felice le Monnier.Google Scholar
. 1936 [1984]. “Contribution to the General Theory of Case: General Meanings of the Russian Cases”. Roman Jakobson, Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931–1981 edited by Linda R. Waugh & Morris Halle, 59–103. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (Translation of “Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutung der russischen Kasus”. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1936, 4.240–288).Google Scholar
Jansen, Hanne. 2001. “Brøndal og Langacker: Omkring ordklassers semantik”. Ny forskning i grammatik: Fællespublikation 8 Gilbjerghovedsymposiet 2000, 127–148. Syddansk: Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. Philosophy of Grammar. Allen & Unwin: London.Google Scholar
Kacnel’son, Solomon Davidovich. 1972. Tipologija jazyka i rečevoe myŝlenie. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S. 1985. “Iconicity and grammatical meaning”. Iconicity in Syntax edited by John Haiman, 249–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1949. “Le problème du classement des cas”. Bulletin de la société polonaise de linguistique 9.20–43.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald Wayne. 1985. “Observations and Speculations on Subjectivity”. Iconicity in Syntax edited by John Haiman, 109–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1967. “Le sexe des astres”. To honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 11 october 1966, 1163–1170. La Haye: Mouton.Google Scholar
Marty, Anton. 1910. Zur Sprachphilosophie. Die „logische“, „lokalistiche“ und andere Kasustheorien. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1903. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indoeuropéennes. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Monneret, Philippe. 2012. “D’une psychomécanique à une neurolinguistique”. Repenser la condition humaine. Gustave Guillaume et Jean Piaget edited by André Jacob. Paris, Riveneuve.Google Scholar
Picciarelli, Massimiliano. 1999. “Topologia, sistema sublogico e rappresentazione schematica nella teoria hjelmsleviana dei casi”. L. Hjelmslev, La categoria dei casi. Studio di grammatica generale, 31–56. Lecce: Argo.Google Scholar
Potebnja, Alexander A. 1888. Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatikě, I-II. Poluechtov.Google Scholar
Schmitt-Jensen, Jørgen. 1970. Subjonctif et hypotaxe en italien. Une esquisse de la syntaxe du subjonctif dans les propositions subordonnées en italien contemporain. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Schooneveld, van, C. H. 1983. “Contribution to the Systematic Comparison of Morphological and Lexical Semantic Structures in the Slavic Languages”. American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, Kievi, September 1983, I: Linguistics and Poetics, 579–615. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.Google Scholar
Schramm, Michael. 2010. “Hermann und Kant: Philologie als (Kantische) Wissenschaft”. Gottfried Hermann (1772–1848). Internationales Symposium in Leipzig 11.-13. Oktober 2007 edited by Kurt Sier & Eva Wöckener-Gade, 83–121. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Serbat, Guy. 1979. “L. Hjelmslev et la ‘Catégorie des cas’: contradictions et apories d’une pensée ‘totaliste’”. L’Information Grammaticale 1.11–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981. Cas et fonctions. Étude des principales doctrines casuelles du Moyen Âge à nos jours. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Sørensen, Hans Christian. 1949. “Contribution à la discussion sur la théorie des cas”. Recherches structurales (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague V), 123–133. Copenhague: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, Holger. 1949. “Le nombre grammatical”. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague IV, 47–59. Copenhague: Einar Munksgaard. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Ginneken, Jac[ques]. 1907. Principes de linguistique psychologique. Essais de synthèse, Amsterdam, Paris & Leipzig : Van der Vecht, Rivière & Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1949. “L’étude des systèmes de cas”. Recherches structurales (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, V), 112–122. Copenhague: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1924. Vorlesung über Syntax: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Basel: E. Birkhaüser.Google Scholar
Widoff, Andreas. 2021. “System, Norm and Meaning”. Eugenio Coseriu: Past, Present and Future edited by Klaas Willems & Cristinel Munteanu, 245–260. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. “On the feasibility of general meanings in prepositional semantics”, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 55:1.16–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas. 2022. “Norms, Language-specific Meanings and Schemas. A Coserian Perspective on Contemporary Concepts in Linguistics”. Energeia. Online Journal for linguistics, language philosophy and history of linguistics, VII.1–62 [[URL]]. DOI logo
Wüllner, Franz. 1827. Die Bedeutung der sprachlichen Casus und Modi. Ein Versuch. Münster: Coppenrath.Google Scholar