THE MODERN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY AND EARLY ENGLISH DEPARTMENTS: GERMAN MODELS AND AMERICAN PRACTICE, 1870-1920

Öz

The English department first came into existence in the modern American university; its theoretical apparatus, research methodology and pedagogic practices were directly derived from nineteenth-century German philology. Whereas the postCivil War educational reformers who constructed the modern American academic system adapted the German university model to fit it to the social and cultural patterns of America, professors in early English departments simply borrowed German philology and method and, without substantially adding to it or altering it, used it over the next five or six decades as the basis intense research publication. This paper aims to show why American professors of English were so enamored of German philology and, more importantly, what kind of research it enabled them to produce. In addition, it will attempt to examine the consequences of the philological orientation of early English departments and to explain why, when the New Critics finally supplanted philologists and their literary historian descendants, philology almost completely disappeared from English departments

Anahtar Kelimeler

• American higher education, the modern American university, philology, German philology, American philology, nineteenth-century linguistics, transnationalism, English departments, English literature, English major

MODERN AMERİKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ VE İLK İNGİLİZCE BÖLÜMLERİ: ALMAN MODELLERİ VE AMERİKAN UYGULAMASI, 1870-1920

Öz

The English department first came into existence in the modern American university; its theoretical apparatus, research methodology and pedagogic practices were directly derived from nineteenth-century German philology. Whereas the post-Civil War educational reformers who constructed the modern American academic system adapted the German university model to fit it to the social and cultural patterns of America, professors in early English departments simply borrowed German philology and method and, without substantially adding to it or altering it, used it over the next five or six decades as the basis intense research publication. This paper aims to show why American professors of English were so enamored of German philology and, more importantly, what kind of research it enabled them to produce. In addition, it will attempt to examine the consequences of the philological orientation of early English departments and to explain why, when the New Critics finally supplanted philologists and their literary historian descendants, philology almost completely disappeared from English departments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Amerikan yükseköğretimi, modern Amerikan üniversitesi, filoloji, Alman filolojisi, Amerikan filolojisi, 19. yüzyıl dilbilimi, ulusötesicilik, İngiliz Dili bölümleri, İngiliz Edebiyatı, İngiliz Dili anadalı

Kaynakça

1. AMSTERDAMSKA, Olga (1987), Schools of Thought: The Development of Linguistics from Bopp to Saussure. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
2. APPLEBEE, Arthur N (1974), Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of English: A History. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
3. BLEDSTEIN, Burton J. (1976), The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America. NY: Norton.
4. BOECKH, August Wilhelm (1968), On Interpretation and Criticism [Encyclopaedie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften (1877; 2nd ed., 1886)]. Trans. John Paul Pritchard. Norman: U of Oklahoma P.
5. BOLTER, Jay (1980), “Friedrich August Wolf and the Scientific Study of Antiquity.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 21 (Spring 1980), 83-99.
6. BRANDT, H.C.G. (1884-85), “How Far Should Our Teaching and Text-books Have a Scientific Basis?” PMLA 1, 57-63.
7. BRIGHT, James W. (1903), “Concerning the Unwritten History of the Modern Language Association of America.” MLA Presidential Address, Johns Hopkins, December 1902. PMLA 18, appendix, xli-lxii.
8. COOK, Albert S. (1906), The Higher Study of Literature. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.

9. COOK, Albert S. (1898) “The Province of English Philology.” MLA Presidential Address, University of Pennsylvania, December 1897. PMLA 13, 185-204.
10. DOWLING, Linda (1986), Language and Decadence in the Victorian Fin de Siècle. Princeton: Princeton UP.
11. DWIGHT, Benjamin (1864), Modern Philology: Its Discoveries, History, and Influence. 3rd ed. NY: Charles Scribner.
12. DWIGHT, Timothy (1903), Memories of Yale Life and Men, 1845- 1897. NY: Dodd, Mead.
13. ELIOT, Charles William (1898), Educational Reform. NY: Century.
14. GARLAND, Landon C. (1891), “[Chancellor of Vanderbilt’s] Address of Welcome.” PMLA 6, 3-4.
15. GILMAN, Daniel Coit (1906), The Launching of a University and Other Papers: A Sheaf of Remembrances. NY: Dodd, Mead.
16. GRAFF, Gerald and Michael WARNER, eds. (1989), The Origins of Literary Studies in America: A Documentary Anthology. NY: Routledge.
17. GRIMM, Jakob (1984), On the Origin of Language [Über den Ursprang den Sprache, 1851]. Trans. Raymond Wiley. Leiden: E. Brill.
18. HART, James Morgan (1874), German Universities: A Narrative of Personal Experience. NY: Putnam’s.
19. HARPHAM, Geoffrey Galt (2009), “Roots, Races and the Return to Philology.” Representations, 106.1 (Spring), 34-62
20. HERBST, Jurgen (1965), The German Historical School in American Scholarship: A Study in the Transfer of Culture. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
21. HARRIS, Roy and Talbot J. TAYLOR (1997), Landmarks in Linguistic Thought 1: The Western Tradition from Socrates to Saussure. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
22. HERDER, Johann Gottfried (1966), Essay on the Origin of Language [Über den Ursprung der Sprache, 1770]. In On the Origin of Language: John- Jacques Rousseau, Essay on the Origin of Languages; Johann Gottfried Herder, Essay on the Origin of Language. Trans. John H. Moran and Alexander Gode. NY: Frederick Ungar.
23. HUBBARD, Frank Gaylord (1908), “The Undergraduate Curriculum in English Literature.” PMLA 23, 254-68.
24. HUNT, Theodore W. (1884-85), “The Place of English in the College Curriculum.” PMLA 1, 118-32.
25. JAMES, William (1911), “The Ph.D. Octopus.” In his Memories and Studies. London/NY: Longman, Green. 329-347.
26. JANKOWSKY, Kurt R. (1972), The Neogrammarians: A Re-evaluation of their Place in the Development of Linguistic Science. The Hague: Mouton.
27. MANLY, John (1912), Note in “Proceedings for 1911.” PMLA 27, xix.
28. MEAD, W.E. (1900), “The Graduate Study of Rhetoric.” PMLA 15, Appendix, xix-xxxii.
29. PAULSEN, Gerard (2013), “The Study of Language and Literature in the Traditional American College (1638-1870).” Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 11.2, 28-49.
30. PEDERSEN, Holger (1962), The Discovery of Language: Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century. Trans. John Webster Sparge. 1931; rpt. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
31. RUDOLPH, Frederick (1977), Curriculum: A History of the American Undergraduate Course Since 1636. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32. SAMPSON, Geoffrey, (1985). Schools of Linguistics: Competition and Evolution. London: Hutchinson.
33. SCHLEGEL, Frederich (1849), On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians [Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: Ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Altertumskunde, 1808]. In The Aesthetic and Miscellaneous Works of Frederick von Schlegel. Trans. E.J. Millington. London: Henry G. Bohn.
34. SHELDON, E.S. (1902), “Practical Philology” MLA Presidential Address, Harvard, December 1901. PMLA 17, 91-104.
35. SMITH, Alfonso (1899), “The Work of the Modern Language Association of America.” PMLA 14, 240-256.
36. THOMAS, Calvin (1897), “Literature and Personality.” MLA Presidential Address, Cleveland, December 1896. PMLA 12, 299-317.
37. THWING, Charles Franklin (1906), A History of Higher Education in America. NY: D. Appleton.
38. --------------------- (1928), The American and the German University: One Hundred Years of History. NY: Macmillan.
39. VEYSEY, Laurence R. (1965), The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
40. WHITE, Andrew D. (1905), Autobiography. Vol. 1. NY: Century.
41. --------------------- 1869-70, “[The Inaugural] Address of President White.” The Cornell University Register.