JACQUES VAN GINNEKEN (1877-1945)

In Memoriam Jacques van Ginneken

(21 April 1877-20 October 1945)

J[ohannes] Wils

Jacques van Ginneken¹ was born in the little Brabant village of Oudenbosch as the son of a family of ample means, but in which— as is so often the case in this part of the country—studying at a University was not traditional. This gifted eldest son, however, was just the man to be the exception to this rule. And thus in 1889 young Jacques began his preparatory studies at the well-known college at Katwijk on the Rhine, and in 1903 he was enrolled as freshman for the Dutch section of the literary faculty of the University of Leyden.

The Professor to whom van Ginneken owed most during his Leyden period was undoubtedly C. C. Uhlenbeck. Strictly methodical and just as exacting towards himself as he was towards others, Uhlenbeck was one of the few scholars of his day who could survey independently the extensive field of Indo-Germanic studies, and who even had the courage to take a look in the world of languages far outside this field (Basque, Eskimo, American Indian languages). The most valuable thing, however, was that Uhlenbeck’s comparative analyses were always as profound as they were extensive. They were quite saturated with what would now be called ‘ general linguistics ‘.

In 1907 van Ginneken takes his degree on a thesis : Principes de linguistique psychologique. That now, after forty years, much in the method and still more in the material of this work has become antiquated goes without saying. Yet the Principes remain one of the freshest and liveliest books that van Ginneken ever wrote. The prin- cipal advance is that here linguistic facts were examined and dissected strictly causally. And behind the primary causes even deeper ones were seen. This meant a complete rupture with the analysis of the ‘ Neo-Grammatiker ‘, which had been purely pragmatic and more or less atomic.

A short time after taking his degree van Ginneken receives the request from W. Schmidt to collaborate with him in the Anthropos- undertaking, which aims at neither more nor less than a full description of all the cultures and languages of the earth. This was just the thing for van Ginneken with his great talent for organization and synthesis. And thus he immediately outlines an Enquête sur la typologie des langues (Anthropos II, 1907), which shows the influence of James Byrne and Steinthal-Misteli as much as that of the differential psychology which had arisen just then. Unfortunately the material he received in answer proved insufficient to build on. Van Ginneken's article on De huidige stand der genealogische taalwetenschap (The present state of genealogical linguistics) (1909) fits in with this plan. And finally he gives as an example of a synthesis between linguistics and cultural history as he saw it : Les classes nominales des langues bantoues (Anthropos VIII, IX, 1913), in which, following in the foot- steps of Dennett and Torrend, he thinks he sees the influence of all sorts of primitive African cosmogonies.

But also nearer home, for his own native language, van Ginneken wants to arrive at a fuller and better-founded description of linguistic facts than has been reached yet. For this purpose he draws up in 1910 : Een litterair-linguistisch Werkplan (A literary-linguistic working-scheme), intended to unite the efforts of all Dutch philologists. Owing to all sorts of circumstances also this plan fails. Far from being discouraged—the fact is characteristic—van Ginneken puts his hand to the plough himself. After a few years the first two volumes appear of his Handboek der Nederlandsche Taal (Handbook of the Dutch Language) (1913, 1914), which give not only a systematical review of the Dutch dialects, but also of the various group- and professional languages that can be distinguished in this linguistic territory.

In the same way the Leergang der Nederlandsche Taal (Course of instruction for the Dutch Language) was intended for the use in secondary schools. It began to appear in 1917, preceded by a some- what sensational pamphlet : Als ons Moedertaalonderwijs nog ooit gezond wil worden. Een hartig woord aan hen die belang stellen in de toekomst van het Nederlandsche volk (If the teaching of our native language is ever to become sound. A word of warning to those interested in the future of the Dutch people). The first volume of this ‘ Course of instruction a very profound and exhaustive treatise on the development of children’s language, which got the title De roman van een kleuter (The Novel of a tiny tot), was very dear to the author himself and remained so, also when he realized that psychologists of a later day would view the facts discussed in a way quite different from what had been possible to him.

Some critics have been inclined to distinguish two types in these early works of van Ginneken. Especially the Principes and the Hand- boek der Nederlandsche Taal were contrasted, the former as an example of a psychological, the latter as that of a sociological type of linguistic study. Actually there is much to be said in favour of this argument. However, there is no question of a contrast in the real sense of the word. According to van Ginneken there is a constant cooperation between psychological and sociological linguistic factors, which in certain cases even coalesce regularly.

What exactly was van Ginneken’s opinion about the relation of the various linguistic factors he set forth in detail shortly after his appointment as Professor at Nymegen (1923) in his academical treatise : De oorzaken der taalveranderingen (The causes of linguistic changes) (¹1925 ; ³1930). It has become a typical van Ginneken- book, this treatise, full of spirit and of facts, proving clearly that the author at middle age had attained full balance and penetration in his thinking. Van Ginneken distinguishes no less than four groups of factors that enter into the linguistic process. There are psychological, sociological, stylistic factors and lastly also what he calls linguistic- political factors, i.e. the cases in which the government or a small group of leading figures intentionally propagate e.g. a certain lingua franca or a special linguistic style among the people. And each of these factors may occur in two forms : universal and common to all who use the language or differential and limited to a few groups. In the later editions of his treatise biological factors are added as a fifth group, which is placed as a substratum under the whole existing system and which likewise may be either universal or differential.

The usual opinion, as given by Meillet, is that only sociological factors have a differentiating and, consequently, a genuine language- forming power. The great difference is obvious. Only by taking into account all the ten possibilities enumerated can the general linguist deserve the great reputation he enjoys as such. The new theory is without any doubt very rich, but still the classification remains transparent. Van Ginneken had already for years subdivided his reviews in the column Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft of the Indo- germanisches Jahrbuch according to the distinctions discussed (1916- 27). That the latter must have a certain firm foundation is therefore undeniable, whatever one may think of it as regards the details.

In 1927 van Ginneken’s article appears on Die Erblichkeit der Lautgesetze (Indogermanische Forschungen, 45, 1929). Also Meyer-Lübke, Grammont and others had already thought of the influence of heredity on linguistic phenomena. However, we have to thank van Ginneken for the fact that he applies Mendel’s laws consequently to linguistic facts and is therefore the first to make the biological view discussible in the scientific sense of the word. Now the facts were there to base the discussion on. This last point he considered himself as his most valuable contribution to the linguistics of his day.

In 1929 Trubetzkoy and Jakobson proclaim their well-known Propositions at the first Congress of Linguists at the Hague. That these propositions complicated matters for all older linguists goes without saying. They had to try to make the new elements fit in with their views, by the side of the older ones. That this problem was an embarrassment especially to van Ginneken goes without saying. Still our author writes comparatively soon in the journal Onze Taaltuin (Vol. 2 and 3), which he had founded, a number of articles on phonology which clearly show his agreement. Still there are, on the other hand, so many greater and smaller deviations from the conventional method, that every expert feels immediately that he has to do here with only a half-hearted supporter. Thus van Ginneken always tries to study the phonetic system of a language as a whole. To him the analysis of the consonant system and the vowel-system separately seems incomplete and, from a phonological point of view, even inconsequent. Further he always tried to find out, besides the usual correlations, also the relations among the latter, to penetrate so much the deeper into the heart of the linguistic system.

As I mentioned before van Ginneken considered the biological view as his most personal contribution to the linguistics of his day. Everyone who knows how slowly and gradually this view grew in his mind will be able to understand this. Well, it can be said without exaggeration that in the same way the last fifteen years of his life were devoted to the problem of finding a reasonable balance between this personal view and the newly born science of phonology. It took van Ginneken all his great talent to conquer the arising difficulties. Hence all its characteristic traits, i.e. both the strong and the weak points can be traced best from this period.

First of all van Ginneken’s mind was typically synthetic. And thus the solution he ultimately proposes is not such that either the biological or the phonological view is accepted, but both simultaneously : in their unceasing interaction and supplementation. י Tout se tient י is the new motto. ‘ Indeed ! ‘ van Ginneken remarks, ‘ but only in the ideal case, as this is realized e.g. in the languages of great empires on which Indo-European comparison is mainly based or else in the quite integrated languages of international intercourse of modern Western Europe. Outside these, e.g. in the popular language which is more or less the speech of family-groups, or in the dialects, the isoglosses run criss-cross through one another in the most peculiar way. For in the still imperfectly equilibrated groups of this kind only the hereditary biological popular type is dominant in the pronunciation. And thus Mendel’s laws replace here the “ausnahmslose Lautgesetze “. Biology comprises” la parole the acute and con- crete linguistic act, but phonology pertains to “la langue”, the half- abstract and supra-individual linguistic state. And, as regards the “se tenir ’’, system is in language nothing but a dynamic and vital principle. It is nascent at least as much as it is. And never does the dominant complex show its strength more than when it slowly but surely asserts itself at the expense of other recessive traits ! ‘

In times of a methodical ‘ Aufbaukrise ‘ the history of science has known more of these two-sided, but mostly purely platonic, professions of friendship. Van Ginneken, however, in this case suits the act to the word. Here another trait of his mind becomes evident. He, born and bred in West-Brabant as he was, could not do without facts and facts again. With all its preference for dash and perspective his mind was also very pragmatic. And thus one sees him in the following years, also concretely, constantly trying to bridge over the gap between biology and phonology.

The most principled attempt in this direction is the treatise on De ontwikkelingsgeschiedenis van de systemen der menschelijke spraak- klanken (A review of the development of the systems of human Speechsounds) (1932), in which the author wants to show how the human sound-systems, still based only biologically, may gradually, according to the laws of heredity and through cumulative polymerism, have developed into the firm and quite integrated phonological systems to which the Prague school refers by preference.

Of a more historical character are the Contribution à la grammaire comparée des langues du Caucase (1938) and La reconstruction typologique des langues archaïques de l’humanité (1939). In these two books van Ginneken tries to trace the origin of human sound- language. In his opinion the sound was originally no more than a synergetic accompanying phenomenon to the human gesture (this term taken in its widest sense). The language of signs is older than the sound-language. And only later, when social intercourse became more extensive, has the latter surpassed the former in importance. All types of articulation go back ultimately to the sucking-movement of the infant. First the various forms of clicks arise, from these the languages with domination of consonants, and still later the vowel- languages. The written language is not only of a higher order than the sound-language, but writing in certain archaic cultures has also preserved distinct traces of the original gestures.

And between these two extremities of the whole train of thoughts we find the important article on La biologie de la base d’articulation (Journal de Psychologie, 1933) and the book on Ras en Taal (Race and Language) (1935), which try to apply the same principles in more concrete form, the latter work especially to the history of Dutch dialects.

Very original are also the family-researches at Nijmegen, started by van Ginneken in 1942 in collaboration with the phonetician Dr. L. Kaiser and the anthropologist Dr. A. de Froe, both of Amsterdam, with the purpose of distinguishing with scientific exactitude the various bases of articulation in the family, for comparison with further hereditary points of resemblance. The results of these researches have not yet been published.

A brief mention may be allowed of two other points of van Ginneken’s activities, which are of less importance for the readers of this journal : First his opposition mainly on the ground of the phonological principle against the changes in Dutch spelling (1936), as they were introduced by the Minister of Education of the day, and of which he gave a theoretical justification in his book : Grondbeginselen van de schrijfwijze der nederlandsche taal (Principles of Dutch Spelling) (1931). And further his many studies on De Imitatione Christi, the original text of which, as he thought he could demonstrate, was based only on the diary (written in Dutch) of Geert Groote.

Van Ginneken’s ideas and their development have been given here only in a general outline. This is neither the time nor the place to determine their merits. Perhaps the time is not yet ripe for this task. That van Ginneken’s theories have aroused much opposition, in contrast e.g. with those of Trubetzkoy, is a fact, although not much about this has become generally known. But then, as it appears to me, it should be admitted that van Ginneken rather ‘ saw ‘ many of his last conclusions and summaries than proved them exactly and concretely. At bottom he was a ‘ seer ‘, as Uhlenbeck already said in his Leyden period. This is a third trait in van Ginneken’s work, which must not be forgotten by the side of the other two.

The acme in this scientific life is without doubt reached in the final period, when the biological and the phonological views gave each other at last their full form in van Ginneken’s mind. Ultimately there is no contradiction between the two points of view. Man is mind and body ; and language, both as form and as utterance, is just as much material as immaterial. And thus the young graduate could react to the materialism of the nineteenth century with the motto ψυχή νικαΐ, to change it later on, when abstraction in its turn threatened to occupy a too important place, equally firmly and hopefully, into : Certainly, in part, back to Schleicher! (1929).

In either case the movement is the same at bottom : striving after the great cause of truth as it is : one and undivided.

Source : Jfohannes] Wils, ’In Memoriam : Jacques van Ginneken (21 April 1877֊ 20 October 1945),’ Lingua 1.133-139 (1948). By permission of Lingua, and the author.

¹ A full bibliography of van Ginneken’s works up to 1937 is found in Mélanges-van Ginneken, which was offered him in that year by friends and pupils. A supplement will appear in the volume Verzamelde opstellen which is in preparation.