Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics
Indo-European (abbrev. IE; also Indo-Germanic)
Today the most widespread language group in the world. The following branches make up Indo-European: Indo-Iranian, Tocharian, Armenian, Anatolian, Albanian, Greek, Italic (and its modern offshoots, the Romance languages), Slavic, Baltic (the latter possibly form a genetic unity Balto-Slavic), Germanic, and Celtic. Two of these, Anatolian and Tocharian, are now extinct. Numerous older languages are attested merely in fragments or through other languages (e.g. in names, glosses), e.g. Venetic, Messapic, Phrygian, etc., and their affiliation to the above-listed branches is not always clearly determinable due to their fragmentary documentation. The relative position of the branches to one another is still unclear; it has been suggested that they were spoken as dialects of a proto-language, the exact area and time of existence of which, however, still remains under debate (the area north of the Black Sea around 3000 BC has been suggested, but other regions and times equally have been discussed, cf. Lehmann 1990). As yet, it has not been possible to identify the Indo-Europeans for certain with any archeologically attested culture. Many older stages of the language groups are documented, and these form the main subject of Indo-European studies.
Characteristics: strongly inflectional, utilizing both affixes and word-internal mutation (ablaut). Eight cases can be reconstructed, as well as a gender system (it is still under debate whether with two or three genders; see also below) and three numbers (singular, dual, plural). Agreement of the noun with the adjective and of the subject with the verb. Tense, mood, and aspect are generally expressed in the verb by inflectional means. There are still some problems concerning the reconstruction of the category of aspect (see also below). Some modern Indo-European offshoots, e.g. English, have developed into very different types of language.
History of research: it had long been recognized that some European languages exhibit similarities, and some branches, such as the Romance languages, were accepted as genetic units early on. But the actual beginning of the systematic investigation of Indo-European can be traced back to the discovery of the relation of Sanskrit and Persian (
Indo-Iranian) on the one hand and European languages on the other, by Jones in 1788. The nineteenth century witnessed the beginning of academic research, and in the process, the methodology of historical linguistics was developed, especially through attempts at describing systematic sound correspondences and the reconstruction of an Indo-European proto-language ( also comparative linguistics). The most influential works were those of Schlegel (1808), Rask (1814–1818), and Bopp (1816), which systematically demonstrate the relatedness of those branches of Indo-European known at that time (based primarily on the consideration of the inflectional systems), as well as the work of Grimm (1819–22), in which systematic sound laws between important individual languages (Sanskrit, Greek, Latin) were postulated. Schleicher (1861–2) was the first to undertake the reconstruction of specific forms of the proto-language; he also did pioneer work on Lithuanian (a Baltic language), which in many ways is especially conservative. The succeeding period was marked by differences between the Neogrammarians (K.Brugmann, B.Delbrück, H.Osthoff, A.Leskien, K.Verner, early F.de Saussure), on the one hand, who assumed sound changes occur without exceptions, i.e. to be inviolable sound laws, and attempted to explain apparent irregularities by analogy, and other scholars, such as H.Schuchardt, who contested this hypothesis. Tocharian was recognized as an Indo-European language in 1908; even though it was spoken far to the east, it shows some similarities to the western branches ( centum vs satem languages). At about the same time, it became clear that Hittite (an Anatolian language) was also related to the Indo-European languages. E.Sturtevant’s suggestion that Hittite occupies a position equal to the rest of the Indo-European languages (‘Indo-Hittite hypothesis’), remains controversial; the crucial point is at what stage the separation of Hittite (or rather of Anatolian) from the rest of the Indo-European languages took place, and whether it lost or never possessed certain features of the common protolanguage (e.g. a three-gender system or the verbal aspect distinction; see e.g., the contributions in Neu and Meid 1979); in this connection, a temporal stratification of Proto-Indo-European has been proposed by some scholars (see e.g., the contributions in Dunkel et al. 1994). Hittite also played an important role in the reconstruction of the Indo-European sound system ( laryngeal theory).
In the first half of the twentieth century, research centered mainly on the phonology and morphology of the Indo-European languages. In more recent times, issues of the syntax of the proto-language have moved into the focus of attention again as well (e.g. Lehmann 1974; Hettrich 1988). But phonology and morphology remain important fields of research: a reconstruction of the plosive system that differs from the traditional system is discussed (see the suggestion of glottalized sounds by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1973 and Hopper 1973; see also Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984; for a bibliographical overview of this theory see Salmons 1993). According to this view, Old Indic would then be innovative and Germanic especially conservative ( Grimm’s law); however, this theory remains under debate. Also, the role of stress in morphology has been studied more thoroughly; one particular line of research was begun by Kuiper (1942) and terminologically developed by Hoffmann in his lectures (see Eichner 1973; see also, e.g., Narten 1968, Strunk 1985, Schindler 1975; for further bibliographical references see Szemerényi 1990:171). Questions relating to the verbal system, e.g. the development of the moods (e.g. Hoffmann, 1967; Rix 1986) and of the aspect distinction have been investigated, the latter also in connnection with the position of Hittite (see e.g. Cowgill 1974, Strunk 1984). For detailed overviews see Szemerényi 1985, Szemerényi 1990 and Lehmann 1990, all with extensive bibliographies.
Pioneer works, general works and overviews
Bader, F. (ed.) 1994. Langues indo-européennes. Paris.
Baldi, P. 1983. An Introduction to the Indo-European languages. Carbondale, IL.
Beekes, R.S.P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European linguistics. An introduction. Amsterdam.
Bopp, F. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Frankfurt-am-Main. (Repr. Hildesheim and New York, 1975.) (English: F.Bopp. 1845–1853. A Comparative grammar of the Sanscrit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German, and Sclavonic languages, (trans. E.B. Eastwick; repr. 1985, London.))
Gamkrelidze, T. and V.V.Ivanov. 1984. Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy. Tblisi. (Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. trans. J.Nichols, vol. I. Berlin and New York 1995.)
Giacolone, A. and P.Ramat. 1996. The Indo-European languages. London.
Grimm, J. 1819–37. Deutsche Grammatik, 4 parts. Göttingen (Facsimile printing of the 2nd edn of Berlin 1870/8. Hildesheim, 1967).
Lehmann, W.P. 1990. The current thrust of Indo-European Studies. General Linguistics 30. 1–52. (German extended version: Die gegenwärtige Richtung der indogermanistischen Forschung. Transl. by K.Wöbking. Budapest 1992).
——1993. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London.
Lockwood, W.B. 1972. A panorama of Indo-European languages. London.
Meillet, A. 1903. Introduction a l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Paris. (8th edn 1937, repr. 1964.)
Rask, R.K. 1818. Undersögelse om del gamle nordiske eller islandske sprogs oprindelse. Copenhagen. (A grammar of the Icelandic or Old Norse tongue, trans. G.W.Dasent. Amsterdam, 1976.)
Schlegel, F. 1808. Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier. Heidelberg. (Repr. Amsterdam, 1977.)
Schleicher, A. 1861–2. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar. (A compendium of the camparative grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin languages, trans. H.Bendall. London, 1874–7.)
Schmalstieg, W.R. 1980. Indo-European linguistics: a new synthesis. University Park. PA and London.
Szemerényi, O. 1990. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, 4th rev. edn. Darmstadt. (1st edn 1970.)
——1985. Recent developments in Indo-European linguistics. TPS 1–71.
Different research areas
Cowgill, W. 1974. More evidence for Indo-Hittite: the tense-aspect systems. In L.Heilmann, (ed.) Bologna. vol. 2, 557–70.
Dunkel, G.E. et al. (eds) 1994. Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IV. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Zürich 1992. Wiesbaden.
Eichner, H. 1973.
Die Etymologie von heth. mehur. MSS 31. 53–107.
Gamkrelidze, T. 1981. Language typology and language universals and their implications for the reconstruction of the Indo-European stop system. In Y.Arbeitman and A.R.Bomhard (eds), Essays in historical linguistics in honor of J.A.Kerns. Amsterdam. 571–609.
Gamkrelidze, T. and V.Ivanov. 1973. Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der geminindogermanischen Verschlüsse. Phonetica 27. 150–6.
Hettrich, H. 1988. Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin and New York.
Hoffmann, K. 1967. Der Injunktiv im Veda. Heidelberg.
Hopper, P. 1973. Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European. Glossa 7. 141–66.
Krahe, H. 1972. Grundzüge der vergleichenden Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, ed. W. Meid and H.Schmeja. Innsbruck.
Kiparsky, P. 1973. The inflectional accent in IE. Lg 49. 794–849.
Kuiper, F.B.J. 1942. Notes on Vedic noun inflection. Amsterdam.
Lehmann, W.P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin, TX.
Narten, J. 1964. Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden.
——1968. Zum ‘proterodynamischen Wurzelpräsens’. In J.C.Heesterman et al. (eds), Pratidānam: Indian, Iranian and Indo-European studies presented to F.B.J.Kuiper on his sixtieth birthday. The Hague. 9–19.
Neu, E. and W.Meid (eds) 1979. Hethitisch und Indogermanisch: vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens. Innsbruck.
Rix, H. 1986. Zur Entstehung des urindogermanischen Modussystems. Innsbruck.
Salmons, J.C. 1993. The glottalic theory: survey and synthesis. Mclean, VA.
Schindler, J. 1975. L’apophonie des themes indo-europeénnes en -n/n. BSL 70. 1–10.
Strunk, K. 1984. Probleme der Sprachrekonstruktion und das Fehlen zweier Modi im Hethitischen. Incontri Linguistici 9. 135–52.
——1985. Flexionskategorien mit akrostatischem Akzent und die sigmatischen Aoriste. In B.Schlerath and V.Rittner (eds). Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin 1983. Wiesbaden. 490–514.
Vennemann, T. (ed.) 1989. The new sound of Indo-European: essays in phonological reconstruction. Berlin.
Grammars
Brugmann, K. and B.Delbrück. 1886–1900. Grundriβ der vergleichenden Grammatik der indo-germanischen Sprachen, 5 vols (in several parts). Strasburg. (English: K.Brugmann, 1888–95. Comparative grammar of the Indo-Germanic languages, trans. J.Wright, R.S.Conway, and W.H.D. Rouse, 5 vols. Strassburg. (Repr. 1972.)
Hirt, H. 1921–37. Indogermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg.
Indogermanische Grammatik. 3 vols: vol. I: W.Cowgill, Einleitung, M.Mayrhofer, Lautlehre, 1986; vol. II: J.Kuryłowicz, Akzent, Ablaut, 1968; vol. III: C.Watkins, Formenlehre, part 1: Geschichte der Verbalflexion, 1969. Heidelberg.
Krahe, H. 1943. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin. (3rd rev. ed. in 2 vols 1958 and 1959; 5th ed. Vol. I 1966).
Archeology, culture and history
Benveniste, E. 1969. Le Vocabulaire des institutions Indo-Européennes, 2 vols. Paris. (transl. as Indo-European language and society. Coral Gables, FL, 1973.)
Gimbutas, M. 1970. Proto-Indo-European culture: the Kurgan culture during the fifth, fourth, and third millennia BC. In G.Cardona et al. (eds), Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. Philadelphia, PA. 155–97.
Mallory, J.P. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans: language, archaeology and myth. London.
Polomé, E. (ed.) 1982. The Indo-Europeans in the fourth and third millennia. Ann Arbor, MI.
Polomé, E.C. and Winter, W. (eds) 1992. Reconstructing languages and cultures. Berlin and New York.
Renfrew, C. 1987. Archeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-Eruopean origins. London.
Scherer, A. (ed.) 1968. Urheimat der Indogermanen. Darmstadt.
Schlerath. B. 1973. Die Indogermanen. Innsbruck.
Thieme, P. 1953. Die Heimat der indogermanischen Gemeinsprache. Mainz.
Dictionaries
Buck, C.D. 1949. A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages. Chicago, IL.
Pokorny, J. 1948–59. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern. (3rd edn Tübingen, 1994.)
Watkins, C. (ed.) 1985. The American Heritage dictionary of Indo-European roots. Boston, MA.
Bibliography
‘Indogermanische Chronik’ (Bibliography of Indo-European studies), in Die Sprache, since vol. 13. 1967.
Journals
Etudes Indo-Européennes
Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris
Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
Indogermanische Forschungen (IF)
Die Sprache
Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung (now: Historische Sprachwissenschaft/Historical Linguistics)
The Journal of Indo-European Studies
This is the complete article, containing 1,860 words
(approx. 6 pages at 300 words per page).
View More Summaries on Indo-European languages
