JOHANN SAMUEL FRIEDRICH BOUBRIGI SÜNTAKSILOENGUD TARTU ÜLIKOOLIS; pp. 62–121

Johann Samuel Friedrich Boubrig’s lectures on syntax at the University of Tartu The article gives a detailed overview of the lectures on Estonian syntax delivered by Johann Samuel Friedrich Boubrig, Estonian language lecturer at the University of Tartu, in the spring semester of 1829. The description of the content of the lectures is based on the manuscripts of the lectures and several other archive materials stored in the Estonian Cultural History Archives at the Estonian Literary Museum. The article also takes a look at the linguistic literature related to the lectures, particularly the syntax chapter in August Wilhelm Hupel’s Ehstnische Sprachlehre (1818), articles in the journal Beiträge zur genauern Kenntniß der ehstnischen Sprache, and other publications. At that time, the Estonian language was taught at the University of Tartu as a target language, not as a mother tongue, with German as the source language of teaching. Boubrig built up his lectures on syntax as comments to the syntax part in Hupel’s Ehstnische Sprachlehre; he corrects or supplements Hupel, presents additional examples and refers to contemporary linguistic literature. First, Boubrig attempts to formulate general regularities derived from the language and then to watch their manifestations in actual usage. He calls his method philosophical linguistic research and is critical of linguists who do not rely on the philosophy of language but formulate inflexible rules about many isolated phenomena in language. Boubrig disputes Hupel’s statement that Estonian syntax is similar to other European languages and says the syntax of Estonian, as one of the Finnic languages, differs greatly from the syntax of ancient and modern languages. Boubrig does not present parallels with other Finno-Ugric languages in his lectures, but he compares Estonian syntax with German, French and Latin. As these languages were familiar to students and enjoyed the status of highly cultured languages, we can regard these comparisons as an educational device with the wish to enhance the prestige of the Estonian language. There is a strong German-Estonian contrastive approach. Boubrig discusses in greater detail numerous features of Estonian that differ from German: use of numerals, negation, case syntax (particularly object cases), use of infinitives and participles, word order, etc. The Estonian examples that Boubrig presents in his lectures have often been recorded from word of mouth but also from religious or linguistic literature. The manner of presentation is descriptive and normative. Boubrig repeatedly emphasises the peculiarity of the Estonian language and the need for deeper study of it. His university lectures reflect the contemporary linguistic thought in Estonia: agile, searching, valuing the Estonian language, innovative and polemical.