Contemporary philosophy is marked by especially diverse formulations of its questions. Completely different tendencies and traditions are active, which are distinguished as much by the content of the problems as by the methods of working on them. Thus the contemporary situation offers, along with a fullness of themes, a large number of modes of inquiry, a fact that makes it difficult to characterize our philosophical ‘epoch’ in a neat form. Not only different, but divergent directions of inquiry define its image.


Language Theory Language Science Speech Event Human Spirit Positive Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    More closely treated on pp. 86ff.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    By the term language sciences, we understand here, appropriately, all sciences that are thematically occupied with language (philosophy, grammar, history of language, etc.). The term linguistics got its closely circumscribed meaning with the comparative linguistics of the nineteenth century.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    That means concretely, for example, with Aristotle that we use names in place of things, since we cannot bring them as such into our conversations. De Sophisticis Elenchis. 165a ff.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    More closely treated in H. Steinthal, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen lund Römern mit besonderen Rüieksicht auf die Logik (1890), 2nd ed. , facsimile reprint.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. von Humboldt, Linguistic Variability and Intellectual Development, trans. George C. Buck and Frithjof A. Raven (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971, pp. 33ff.).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cf. K. Vossler, Grundzüge einer idealistischen Sprachphilosophie (1904);Google Scholar
  7. 6a.
    E. Cassirer, Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1924), Vol. 1;Google Scholar
  8. 6b.
    R. Honigswald, Philosophie und Sprache (1937).Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Details in H. Arens, Sprachwissenschaft. Der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (1968), 2nd ed.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin (New York; McGraw-Hill, 1966).Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    Good overviews are given by H. Glinz, “Ziele und Arbeitsweisen der modernen Sprachwissenschaft,” Archiv fur die Studien der Neueren Sprachen Bd. 115 ( 1964):161–181;Google Scholar
  12. 9a.
    and P. Hartmann, “Die Sprache als Linguistisches Problem,” in Die Deutsche Sprache im 20. Jahrhundert (1966):29–63. Cf. also his “Modellhildungen in der Sprachwissenschaft.” in Studium Generale 18(1965);364–379.Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    On this, cf. H. G. Gadamer, Truth and Method. Outlines of a Philosophical Hermeneutics (New York: Seabury Press, 1975).Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    K. Bühler, Sprachtheorie (1934), second edition in 1965 with an introductory essay by Friedrich Kainz. In this book one finds the axiomatization essay, with unimportant modifications and adaptation, as part 1 under the title The Principles of Linguistic Research...Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    This recognition on Bühler’s part is already found in his first work dealing with the theory of language: “Kritische Musterung der neueren Theorien des Satzes,” Indogermanisches Jahrbuch VI.Bd. (1920): 1–20. Compare further: “Die Krise der Psychologie,” Kant-Studien 31(1926):455–526. Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    G. Patzig, “Die Sprache, philosophisch befragt,” in Die Deutsche Sprache im 20 Jahrhundert, (1966):9–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations