德國概念史是當代較多受到國際學界推崇和借鑑的少數德國人文科學方法之一，尤其是科塞雷克的概念史模式在國際上受到不少學者的關注。概念史的重要性在於其擺脫了二十世紀諸多著名學派和理論的束縛，依託不同的歷史材料來考析概念語義的知識結構及其變化軌跡。這一歷史語義研究的著名範式在國際化過程中，不僅在方法上顯示出其獨特魅力，啟發了不少概念史課題，也在不斷適應不同地域歷史文化的研究取向。將德國概念史放在其產生和發展的具體語境中進行考察，較為系統地探討其理論設想、具體實踐、發展變化以及圍繞概念史所發生的學術論爭，自然有助於更好地認識概念史方法的可能性和局限性。概念史與社會史的關係，最能體現這一研究方法的特色。而話語史和隱喻學與它頡頏爭衡的歷史，不僅讓人看到各種研究模式的學術旨趣和不同凡響之處，也更彰顯出概念史的知識和認識潛力。隨著概念史的逐漸國際化，方法爭論中的許多疑難問題也越來越顯示出其迫切性。

The German history of concepts or ＂Begriffsgeschichte＂ constitutes one of the few contributions owed to German research in the field of the humanities (Geisteswissenschaften) that noteworthy scholars highly regarded internationally. In many respects it is considered an exemplary achievement. It is especially the approach to the history of concepts developed by Koselleck that has received considerable attention of experts around the globe. This model owes its relevance to its development, in the course of which it freed itself from an indebtedness to the primary schools of thought and theories of the 20th century. It prefers instead to let the heterogeneity of the research material direct its concrete way of the proceeding and focuses on the exploration of the semantics of concepts that structure knowledge, but also on their migrations, that is to say the transfer of concepts. The internationalization of this well-known paradigm of historical semantics has not only revealed its remarkable attractiveness as a methodological approach, but it has also triggered a number of research projects dedicated to the history of concepts. It has shown itself capable of permanent adaptation to different research orientations and their distinct cultural and historical backgrounds. In order to attain a better understanding of the potential as well as the limitations that characterize the method particular to the history of concepts, it is useful to present German history of concepts in the concrete contexts of its origin and initial development, and to outline its theoretical concepts and concrete practices fairly systematically, while exploring its further development and the changes it underwent as well as the debates they triggered. Focusing on the relationship between social history and history of concepts can recognize the latter approach in the best way. Moreover, the history of its competition and controversy with discourse history and the history of metaphors that allow us, to recognize the scientific aims of these different approaches and their advantages, and elucidate the potential knowledge and epistemological potential of the history of concepts in this way only the better. It is in the wake of the internationalization of the history of concepts, however, that all of the problems discussed in the methodology-centered debates have increasingly revealed their urgency.