Sociolinguistics Reader_10

part X

TOWARD
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Introduction

THOSE WHO STUDY LANGUAGE AND CULTURE can see their work as itself a

part of their subject-matter. From a long-range viewpoint, the rise of
special disciplines, such as linguistics and anthropology, can be seen as an
advance to a novel stage in the interrelations of language and culture. The
stage is one of increased explicit awareness of language as part of culture,
of appeal to more adequate criteria and evidence for conceptions of
language, and of work with practical consequences that partly shape it.
It was especially of the last development that Bloomfield wrote, "linguistic
science is a step in the self-realization of man" (1914, p. 325).

All societies have some conceptions and awareness of the nature
and uses of language. As specialists, our beliefs and attitudes are but
part of the spectrum in our own society. and not wholly independent
of the rest.

Seen comparatively, conceptions and awareness of language are a
significant, unfortunately neglected part of ethnography and cross-cultural
studies. Nonliterate peoples are not wholly unconscious of linguistic habits,
even of structural detail, as occasional reports of native terms for phonemic
tonal contrasts, the distinctive feature of nasality, and the like, attest. Hence
it becomes an empirical matter of some interest to determine the varying
degree of explicit awareness and the factors on which it depends. For that
matter, writing systems form part of the evidence, since their invention or
adaptation is prima facie indication of some sort of structural analysis.

Seen in a broadly evolutionary perspective, conceptions and awareness
of the nature and uses of language can be taken as having progressed. The
contents of a book such as this, when compared to what could have been
chosen even a generation ago, are indication of that fact. Yet in a given case,
advance appears as contingent upon the same sorts of factors that affect the
place of language in any society: existing knowledge, values, and beliefs;
existing resources of data, procedure, and equipment; the organization of
relevant activity in relation to the social structure of the whole; focuses of
cultural interest; types and particular cases of personality and motivation.
Advance in any particular line of study may be irregular, and relations
between lines of study may be out of phase.

667

668 INTRODUCTION

Historical perspective, then, gives the student of linguistics and
anthropology a long-range sense of his place in the advance of knowledge,
in sociocultural evolution, or history (whichever phrasing one prefers). At
the same time it induces a measure of humility in regard to his immediate
role, as he becomes aware of how his own context may appear when analyzed
in terms of particular factors and functions and of the dependence of
published work and statement on particular, contingent relations among
senders and audiences, sharers of a code, conformity to norms of message-
form, differential access to channels, and the like. It would be unfortunate
and ironic if those who adopted relativity as a working perspective on
the verbal behavior of others should lack it with regard to their own.

An additional advantage gained from the cultivation of historical
perspective is that it contributes to continuity and cumulativeness and to
economy of effort (a good many things turn out to be new bottles for old
wine). Moreover, the past of a discipline may play an ideological role in
current disputes, so that an objective understanding of it is needed for
balanced judgment. Some evaluations of Boas miss the mark by overlooking
the role of linguistic work within his anthropological career and thought.
The extremes of posthumous flurry over Whorf's ideas might have been
avoided, if the century and a half of interest in the problem (in connection
with Amerindian languages at that) had not been seemingly forgotten.

More generally, we sometimes forget that the kinds of work and
thought that we recognize as anthropological precede by several decades the
professional disciplines devoted to them. The experience of field work in an
exotic tongue; the publication of grammar, text, and dictionary to make
such a tongue known to scholarship; interest in languages as evidence of the
origins and characteristics of the peoples speaking them-all these have a
significant development antedating our present journals, organizations, and
culture heroes, and sometimes that development has helped shape subse-
quent work. Some of the earliest descriptive work is of first quality, and
good accounts of individual languages-are scattered through the centuries
since the sixteenth. Moreover, the notion of describing a language sui
generis has at least as long a history, and has either been transmitted or
independently invented throughout that time. The record shows not a past
which lacked the notion and a present which has gained it, but a recurrent
struggle for its proper recognition. One further example from a theoretical
line of development is particularly worth mention. A decade ago many
scholars would have written the history of the study of language in terms
of the successive triumphs of comparative linguistics in the nineteenth
century and descriptive or structural linguistics in the twentieth, both
conceived in a rather positivistic and particularistic spirit. Recent currents
of renewed interest in general linguistics and general grammar have seen a
revival of the reputations of Wilhelm von Humboldt and George de
Gabelentz. The work of these two men, at the beginning and end of the
nineteenth century, respectively, had almost been lost from sight, but they

DELL H. HYMES 669

cultivated an outlook, distirtet from the nineteenth century comparative
linguistics celebrated in the standard histories, which anticipated the basic
questions of structural linguistics today. Bloomfield (1914, p. 310) had
signalled von Humboldt's work as leading the way both to the special
philologies of the various language families of the world, and "the study of
the conditions and laws of language: its psychic and social character and its
historical development"; but subsequent American linguistics seemed to
forget von Humboldt until after the Second World War and the interests
awakened by discussions centered around Whorf.

The twin moral, of course, is that the latest work is not always or
exclusively the best and that triumphs and reputations are seldom fixed.
Both points need to be taken to heart in disciplines such as linguistics and
anthropology, whose scope and intersection and productive work have so
often been shaped by fashion, so that continuity and cumulativeness seem
as much the exception as the rule.

No history of linguistic anthropology exists, although one may emerge
as part of the growing professional interest in the history of anthropology
generally. Aspects of its history are indicated in the introductions to the
preceding parts. The two articles included in this part cc.ntribute to
historical perspective. both by their content and by the contrast their content
affords.

Malkiel's delineation of a tradition of linguistic work, important but
unfamiliar to most of us, not only has a special contrastive value, but
brings out a number of the considerations which must enter into the
historical study of any branch of scholarship. His paper serves as a model
for compact treatment. Moreover, although historical, the paper speaks
also to current interests. It calls attention to a major European tradition of
joint work in linguistics and ethnography, concerned with the study of
folk or peasant communities. These joint field investigations of dialects and
artifacts and the consequent analyses, such as in Worter-und-Sachen
studies, broach topical problems of increasing interest to linguistic
ethnographers working in other areas. Given this fact and the revival of the
study of European rural communities by American anthropologists, one
may expect the experience of the Romance field in these respects to gain
considerable general attention. (The significance of the Romance field for
questions of long-range historical process and methodology has, of course,
been long well known.)

The discussion of Kroeber's work in the study of language exemplifies
the genre in which most of the contributions to the history of linguistics
and anthropology by linguists and anthropologists themselves have been
made. Because of Kroeber's long productive career and the breadth of his
interests, such a discussion touches upon a large part of the development of
linguistic anthropology in this century.

Distinctive Traits of Romance 68
Lin9uistics

YAKO V MALKIEL

THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM traits of Romance linguistics may be deduced
from an inventory of its characteristic resources.
At the critical borderline between physical The chief advantage of this strategy is the
sciences, social sciences, and humanities, general reduction of subjectively colored choices to a
linguistics has become one of the rallying reasonable modicum. This platform does not
points for particularly ambitious mid-century force one to disregard the agency of other
scholars. Earlier systems of analysis are being powerful determining factors. At least three ,
appraised and mostly repudiated on the such additional ingredients seem worthy of
strength of their insufficient applicability to mention: the specific evolutionary stage that
the widest possible range of differently struc- the subdiscipline has reached, the matrix of the
tured languages. Under these conditions, is it national (or continental) culture that gave it
feasible and advisab'1e for workers in a neatly birth and initially sheltered it, and the impact of
bounded subfield of linguistics to strive for magnetic personalities among its leaders, past
limited autonomy, i.e., for their right to use a and present. The discussion of these super-
private scale of values, not incompatible with venient influences will be relegated to the
concluding section.
the broad principles and aims of the chosen
science, but neither necessarily identical with CHARACTERISTICS TRACEABLE
TO THE MATERIAL
such tastes and emotional preferences as have
in actual life become inextricably tangled with THE AVAILABLE RECORDS
those theoretical foundations ? Many will
hasten to deny this privilege without further The peculiar ambit and even the tone of
hearing, for disciplinary reasons that can Romance linguistics have to an astonishing
readily be anticipated, but the problem has too extent been predetermined by the abundant
material-either relatively well-preserved pet-
many ramifications to be summarily dismissed. rifacts or elements still in a state of flux and
Indeed, the chances are that the most effective accessible to direct scrutiny-which genera-
answer that can be provided will be neither a tions of competent workers have become
flat denial nor an exuberant affirmation, but an accustomed to handling. The bulk of these raw
unhurried tracing of the limits beyond which data, in its bare essentials, includes several
the autonomy of a part cannot be stretched standard languages, observable over periods of
without impairing the common weal. from four to ten centuries and known to have
Let Romance linguistics serve as a test case served as carriers of influential literatures; a
of a defensible share of "separatism," in a wide variety of not too sharply differentiated
climate of debate free from apology and clusters of dialects, a few of them lacking
inculpation. Once a strong case for a partial archival documentation, hence explorable
autonomy of one meaningfully delimited sub- through field work alone; scattered vestiges of
discipline has been established, spokesmen for ancestral lexical material in less closely related
media, e.g., stray Latin words fossilized in
any other comparable smaller unit may Numidian (Berber), Germanic, or Celtic
legitimately invoke this principle, adjusting its
implications to varying circumstances. 671

This paper contends that most distinctive

672 DISTINCTIVE TRAITS OF ROMANCE LINGUISTICS

dialects; plus-a priceless possession-the to periodic attempts at "purification" imposed
thoroughly documented parent language itself, from above. This strained situation nourished a
Latin. This language, used at widely' discrepant protracted osmosis between, on the one hand,
social levels, counted among its speakers many an artificially maintained Latin seemingly
who were in the process of gradual assimilation almost arrested in its development but in fact
to Graeco-Roman culture; it occupied a far- never quite immune to steady erosive infiltra-
flung expanse of territory fringed by ever tion, and, on the other, a constellation of local
fluctuating contours, an area subjugated in the dialects each almost free (but at no time entirely
course of four centuries of almost relentless so) to follow its own natural bent or drift. In
warfare. An inwardly corroded Roman empire short, early Romance in all its protean mani-
started falling apart at its seams in the third festations is the very image of shackled spon-
century; it is plausibly argued that as a result of taneity.
its piecemeal dismemberment in the following
two hundred years, colloquial Latin, except OVERLAPPING OF PHILOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS
possibly among the highly literate, began to
adopt several regionally colored forms in ever At this point a short terminological digression
quickening tempo. is in order. Whether one takes philology in its
narrow, archaeological sense (bibliography,
Scarcely any reliable records of the suspected paleography, textual criticism, epigraphy, nu-
varieties of spoken Latin have been directly mismatics, toponymy) or in its broader meaning
transmitted, with the probable exception of of cultural history moored to the meticulous
the early comedy (Plautus), phrased in an examination of records, there are many
idiom true to life, and of Petronius' sensitive temptations for moderns to establish valid
rendition of conversations held by a motley contrasts, as regards definition and charac-
crowd at Trimalchio's Banquet. However, an terization, between this "antiquarian" branch
impressive mass of circumstantial evidence of knowledge and a thoroughly refurbished
enables the experienced "restorer" to piece linguistics.
together a few of the fleeting or (as we some-
times know from retrospect) lasting features of The provinces of the two disciplines are not
that submerged Latinity. Between the gradual exactly coterminous, their respective degrees
extinction of a relatively unified, if finely of abstractness are incongruous, their appeals
graded, Latin and the emergence of the earliest, to imagination are unequal in intensity and in
awkwardly styled texts in the major vernaculars direction, their affinities to other lines oflearning
(ninth to twelfth century), there lies a critical could not, one is at intervals sharply reminded,
gap ranging, according to zone and language, be less germane. But granted this pervasive
from four to six hundred years, with Portuguese, divergence between the two climates of
Spanish (except in its archaic Mozarabic garb), research, it still remains true that a radical,
and Italian trailing conspicuously behind unhealable break between the two approaches
French and Provern;al. Texts (legal, histori- cannot be seriously advocated in a subfield
ographic, religious, didactic, and epistolary) as clearly predestined to yield a perfect testing
dating from this transitional period (the tag ground for experiments in diachronic research
"dim" rather than "dark" would most elo- as is the Romance domain.
quently characterize such a twilight age) were
often composed in some kind of semicon- In this privileged precinct ancient idiosyn-
ventional minimum Latin, affording occasional crasies of spelling (suggestive, if deftly in-
glimpses of the presumable actual speaking terpreted, of otherwise unobservable or elusive
habits of writers, copyists, and notaries. vocal habits) and present-day patterns of
dialect speech, lending themselves to advanced
Eventually the vernaculars were recognized as techniques of recording and analysis, are at
fitting media for at least some literary genres bottom mutually complementary and invite
and for charters; their coming of age was systematic comparison. One can, then, with a
exceedingly slow in entailing the recession of measure of justification set off philology from
medieval Latin as a favorite vehicle of writing, a historical linguistics in formal presentation
vehicle subject, not unlike many other immo- (much as in Ernout and Meillet's admirable
bilized and slightly rusty prestige languages, etymological dictionary the unexciting inventory
of recorded and readily inferrable Latin forms

YAKOV MALKIEL 673

has been neatly segregrated from the corpus of chronic," "historical," and "dynamic," though
hazardous reconstructions relating to a nebulous practically interchangeable in informal scholarly
past); but one cannot, in actual operations, discourse, deserve each to evolve a slightly
expect to enforce this disentanglement without distinctive connotation. Diachrony preeminently
grave damage to the chosen inquiry. implies unilinear reconstruction of earlier
stages by means of linguistic comparison alone,
THE CHANGING HIERARCHY OF APPROACHES a procedure reminiscent in its rigor of logical
and mathematical analyses. Historicism may
(ARRANGEMENT VS. SEQUENCE) well with equal force suggest a scholar's
indebtedness to all sources of historical
In theory most linguists are likely to admit the information (external and internal evidence
perfect equality of status between synchronic alike) and presuppose on his part a special
and diachronic studies. Yet in practice powerful virtuosity in tapping these disparate sources
currents of fashions in scholarly thinking have as well as a liberal endowment of judiciousness
tended to upset this equilibrium in favor of in weighing them against one another.
some kind of hierarchization. Fifty years ago, Dynamics, though inconclusive with regard
under the aegis of historicism refined by to the selection of sources, seems closer to
evolutionism, the dominant perspective in historicism, being chiefly attuned to the
language study was diachronic. Today's interplay of such forces as shape (or forcibly
heightened concern with exotic languages- keep intact) a closely cohesive mobile mass of
many of them lacking a knowable past-and a linguistic molecules.
general shift of focus in the direction of Granted that much, one may thus elaborate
behavioral sciences, reinforced in some tone- upon the preference which most Romance
setting milieus by an emotionally nurtured linguists display for the time perspective.
indifference to history, are jointly giving Theirs tends to be a truly historical approach
tremendous impetus to synchronic studies and with all the heavy implications of this qualifier
concomitantly tend to discourage large-scale rather than purely diachronic extrapolation;
undertakings along the time axis. Romance consequently the grasp of the dynamic formula
linguistics can only profit from increased presiding at each juncture over the combi-
sophistication in structural analysis, but its nation of forces and counterforces locked in a
stock of precious material is so distributed as ceaseless struggle is to them a goal worthy of
to have inescapably predetermined the greatest earnest endeavor.
potential services that its practitioners can hope To be sure, it is hazardous to introduce non-
to render to the advancement of knowledge. linguistic assumptions into the reconstruction of
These services lie unequivocally along the path most hypothetical parent languages, which the
of diachronic inquiries. To put it differently: analyst is rarely in a position to assign, on
the patterns of arrangement in Romance independent grounds, to specific primeval
languages and dialects seem less diversified, habitats and itineraries, still less to definite
hence conceivably less thought-provoking, than ethnic stocks; few who have played with this
those discovered in other not quite so prominent avenue of approach have entirely eschewed the
families. In contrast, the patterns of temporal risk of circular thinking. On the other hand,
sequences can here be recognized in all their the events surrounding the gestation of
complexity with such uniquely gratifying Romance languages were for a long time in the
precision as to lead one to expect from the limelight of ancient and medieval historiog-
Romance quarters particularly weighty con- raphy, hence merited rough dating and
tributions to this phase of general linguistic localization at the hands of articulate and
theory. literate contemporaries, including not a few
eyewitnesses. Also, archaeology and physical
SOME SPECIAL IMPLICATIONS OF HISTORICISM anthropology, furnishing their evidence under
so tightly controlled conditions, may act as
Just as some perceptive theorists make it a fairly trustworthy handmaidens to "linguistic
point to discriminate between the labels paleontology" (to use G. I. Ascoli's and W.
"general," "synchronic," "descriptive," "func- Meyer-Liibke's favorite term). For these reasons
tional," "structural," and "static" applied to
closely allied perspectives in linguistics, so the
three tags used in the opposite camp, "dia-

674 DISTINCTIVE TRAITS OF ROMANCE LINGUISTICS

numerous Romance linguists, to round out pattern, a characteristic distribution of sounds
their training, have striven to acquire additional in "expressive" words. Regrettably, this praise-
skills in ancillary disciplines and have cheerfully worthy sustained excellence on the lexical side
put these skills to good use in linguistic has sometimes been gratuitollsly achieved at
projection. the painful cost of relative indifference to
equally thought-arresting grammatical pat-
This proclivity toward an intricate argument, terning.
involving frequent and adroitly executed shifts
from one discipline to another, in turn explains VISUAL ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE
why most Romanists have tacitly avoided an
austerely isolationist theoretical platform. Their Like all linguists, Romance scholars recognize
policy, on the tactical and the strategic levels, a flexible pattern of auditory symbolism as the
has rather been interventionist (at times primeval origin and continued foundation of
excessively so for their own good), that is, all speech. Yet their special preoccupation with
geared to the exploration, by free imaginative the lexicon, in particular with semantic
blends of all devices legitimate in identification, extensions and restrictions, has furthermore
of the constant interaction between language sharpened their awareness of visual problems
and nonverbal culture. Hence a Romance in language. (Visual is here taken in the
linguist is more likely than not to deprecate any psychological or poetic sense of imagery, not in
rash equation between linguistics and straight the pragmatic sense of written records or of
grammar, while acknowledging a flair for any comparable artificial devices.)
formulating grammatical relationships as a
desirable part of one's professional equipment. At the present stage of scientific progress the
student of imagery finds himself at a disad-
LEXICAL EMPHASIS vantage, since he lacks apposite machinery or
even an unassailable rule of thumb that would
Heightened alertness to concrete detail, lend authority to his observations, whereas
viewed at close range in multidimensional the auditory base of speech invites a dual set of
projection, calls for sharpness of focus balanced precise descriptions: one on the articulatory
by narrowness of scope. Applied to linguistic and one on the acoustic level. But even im-
conditions and translated into the appropriate pressionistic work, with its unavoidable margin
terminology, this kind of curiosity ordinarily of subjectivity, may be rewarding as long as its
signifies keener concern with the loosely limitations (calling for further revision) are
split-up lexicon than with close-knit sound- expressly recognized and as it is superadded
systems or with fairly tight morphological to more rigorous dissections. Moreover, within
scaffolding. In fact, Romance linguistics has the fabric of our culture this pictorial approach,
lately perfected to an enviable degree lexicog- for all its imprecision or even, paradoxically, on
raphy (the art of cogently arraying lexical data account of it, has acquired a certain inherent
in reference works of varying size), lexicology charm which attracts into the fold of linguistics
(stage-by-stage analysis of bundles of lexical not a few artistically sensitive and imaginative
trajectories), and etymology (inquiry into the intellectuals who might feel discouraged by an
inceptive phases of lexical evolutions), pouring accumulation of unmitigated severity.
out lavishly documented monographs on Pictorial analysis can be of great usefulness for
individual words of rich associative potentiali- any investigation into the metaphoric extensions
ties, striking cultural implications, or unusual of a word's limited semantic ambit. Thus, in
areal configurations; on intricately ramified studying the names of the flail across language
word families; on neatly delineated semantic' and dialect borders, one needs a statement that
clusters (including anatomic designations, kin- would set this tool apart from others displaying
ship terms, and especially names of tools, comparably sharp and suggestive contours,
containers, vehicles, buildings, and textiles like the ax, the pickax, the shovel, the pitch
examinable in the graphic Worter-und-Sachen fork, the saw, and the comb. The typical
style). Other researches revolve around strings features of a European flail, reduced to its bare
of secondary formations tied together by essentials, include a long slender bar (handle)
powerful morphological bonds, e.g., sharing a at one end of which a stouter or shorter stick
prefix, a suffix, or an "interfix," a compositional (swingle), occasionally curved or rounded, is so

Y AKOV MALKIEL 675

attached as to swing freely. Normally it serves language. In their consciousness a given

to beat the grain out of the ear, but it may linguistic form and its neatly pinpointed locus

equally well qualify for separating beans from belong as intimately together as do the numer-

their pods, for handling flax, and for comparable ator and the denominator of any vulgar fraction.

subsidiary functions. There are many variables: Other teams of linguists may have displayed a

the connection between the two sticks shows more impressive degree of attention to such

several degrees of elaborateness, the material variables as oscillations on the social scale, the

out of which the sticks are carved is mostly, tempi of speech, the intonational curves, the

but not always, wood (for instance, in the controlling phrasal environment of words at

medieval military weapon called flail the issue; on the credit side of Romance scholarship

swingle was replaced by a metal ball or a piece one must place progressive alertness to locali-

set with spikes and the short handle was zation.

generally of metal). The irreducible elements This flair for static ordering of restricted or

that make up the pattern, then, are three: vast zones, in conjunction with a vivid grasp

(1) difference in length between the two bars, of the subtle interlocking of historical events,

ordinarily in favor of the handle; (2) irreversible has made Romance dialect geographers experts

distribution of functions between them; (3) in stratigraphy, centering their attention on

provision for free swinging, yet solid attach- patterns of successive layers, and, indirectly,

ment. This last-named condition explains such the staunchest advocates-and most enthusi-

figurative uses in English as (obs.) flail 'swinging astic practitioners-of the diffusionist doctrine

part, as a gate bar or the lever of a press'; outside the Boasian school. The major risk that

(anat., surg.)flailjoint 'joint showing abnormal one runs in putting these ideas into practice

mobility'; (coll.) to flail about (one's arms, etc.). lies in calculating on the scale of increasing

One may similarly go about defining with abstractness the precise degree beyond which

utmost economy the basic design of a comb, to any appeal to them may become more of a

appreciate its use, in numerous languages, as a liability than of an asset. The staking-out of

designation not only of certain toothed tools minor self-contained linguistic zones (Sprach-

and adornments for separating, cleaning, and landschaften) bounded by an approximate

keeping well-groomed human hair (primarily, consensus of isoglosses is an unimpeachable

the woman's hair), but also of a misce\\an1 ol procedure. 'Tb.e identification of recurrent

characteristically shaped instruments adopted specific areal patterns in the linguistic growth

in traditional crafts and trades no less than in of a major territory (say, the pervasive aloofness

modern industry for the processing of wool, of Gascony vis-a-vis the remainder of Gallo-

flax, oakum, etc., for weaving fabrics and mats, Romance or the coincidences, too frequent and

and for embroidering. Moreover, the local striking to be discounted as fortuitous, between

word for comb denotes a musical instrument Leonese and Aragonese on either flank of Old

(in classical Portuguese); parts of the human Castilian) also deserves unqualified endorse-

or animal body ('crest of a cock' in English; ment. But Bartoli's attempt to advance one

'pubes' in Latin and Ibero-Romance); the top step further by extracting, from the comparison

of a wave or a hill (in Germanic); an aggregation of some such concrete situations, a set of

of cells for honey (in English); several plants, generally valid norms for the reconstruction of

some of them expressly described as prickly hidden sequences of events on the sole basis of

(in Brazilian Portuguese), etc. resultant areal configurations ("Age-and-Area"

THE GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION AND THE DIFFU- Hypothesis") has failed to outgrow the stage
SIONIST DOCTRINE of a stimulating experiment.

The general propensity of Romance linguists LITERARY LANGUAGES AS OBJECTS OF STUDY
toward concreteness, plus their prominent
The earlier variety of anthropological linguis-
representation among the pioneer dialect tics, which crystallized at .a moment when
cartographers and fieldworkers have sensitized anthropologists were mainly engrossed by
most younger workers in their ranks to the primitive, exotic societies lacking any sustained
crucially important geographic factor in every tradition of literacy, militantly emphasized not
ensemble of causes-and-effects bearing on only the temporal priority of speech over script,

676 DISTINCTIVE TRAITS OF ROMANCE LINGUISTICS

but-less persuasively-also its supremacy in immune to inroads of convention, the distance
other respects, the chief argument being the separating unpremeditated utterances from
customary omission from most conventional polished written statements is here conspicu-
notations of such prosodic key features as pitch ously short.
and stress (also of juncture). In some quarters
this attitude of diffidence toward any kind of For another thing, in such complexly struc-
records coalesced with cultivated indifference tured and tradition-ridden societies as those of
toward the study of fine literature, possibly as· the northwestern and central Mediterranean
a recoil from the excessive subjectivism in it would be naive to reckon with the consistent
aesthetic appreciation or in tacit protest against preservation of parochial speech habits, trans-
the glaring disparity in recognition which our mitted from mouth to mouth, except in a few
society bestows on broadly literary as against almost hermetically isolated nooks. All over the
stringently linguistic pursuits. plains, in hilly terrain, along the coasts, and
especially down the valleys of navigable rivers
Romance linguists here stand apart almost en it is perfectly normal for trends of local and
bloc: they cherish treating the spoken and the regional drift to have been disturbed by the
written on a par, delight in tracing their interac- infiltration not only of patches of neighboring
tions (including the increasingly frequent dialect speech, but also of chunks of the
surrender of speech habits to the pressure of prestige language (which, in the last analysis,
spelling), and refuse to abjure their active merely represents the sublimation, through
interest in literary analysis, again along the deliberate sifting, of just another humble rural
axes of time and of arrangement. In fact, dialect); to this formula add, for the earlier
joint concern with spontaneous dialect speech periods, the ever-present unweakening grip of
and with stylized, sophisticated discourse, and Latin, especially in the ecclesiastic domain.
purposefully developed deftness in examining Symptomatic of this ceaseless bidirectional ooz-
their complicated interactions have become the ing is the presence, by the hundreds, of
hallmark of Romance scholarship at its most original dialect words in the most selective
satisfying. Such specialists as choose to con- standard languages: Tuscan, for example, is
centrate exclusively on the one or on the other replete with words drawn from Lombard and
unwittingly relegate their researches to some other northern dialects, Spanish and Galician-
fringe of our domain. Portuguese are, at least lexically, a classic
illustration of communicating vessels, and the
There are numerous reasons for this idiosyn- French vocabulary teems with patois words,
crasy. For one thing, the Romanist-unlike, despite early political centralization and aloof-
say, the Latinist-witnesses no gradual spread ness to rusticity. By way of compensation, as it
of a single, fairly homogeneous city dialect over were, rural and partially rural dialect speech
a widening expanse of territory, but rather has absorbed a vast amount of "semilearned"
protracted rivalry between clusters of cognate features, often not immediately recognizable in
dialects vying for the privilege of serving the their new disguises: combinations of sounds-
needs of a written standard, especially at the typically,jarring diphthongs or unfamilarmedial
opening period of the vernacular literatures and consonant clusters-garbled pretentious affixes,
with particular regard to the frequently con- half-understood sesquipedalian words, syntactic
flicting preferences of authors, revisers, and constructions clumsily imitative of classical
copyists. With the possible exception of the Latin, even accentual schemes and pitch
Old Proven9al troubadour lyric couched from contours. These linguistic tradingposts are
the outset in a fairly undifferentiated idiom (a ideal breedingplaces for folk etymology and
leveling of form that matches the exquisite hypercorrection.
conventionality of much of its content), the
early Romance texts from France proper, Two final considerations. First, no coolheaded
Italy, and Spain all show a high incidence of Romance linguist would deny the chronological
regional features, and those transmitted through priority and continued preeminence of the
devious routes often display a confusingly actual flow of speech, provided one makes due
erratic intermingling of such traits. Though allowance for the fact that the written language,
medieval and modern dialect literature, despite whether living or dead, may at any propitious
its spontaneous ring, uses a vehicle not entirely moment have acted as a powerful force (a

Y AKO V MALKIEL 677

stimulant or a barrier) in the shaping of that tion into Romance researches of a reasonable

speech and will in all likelihood continue to dosage of structuralistic thinking-bent on the

leave its impress on the colloquial medium at redefinition of basic concepts, relativistic, and

an accelerated rhythm. In not a few instances intent on subordinating the irrelevant to the

spelling has demonstrably deflected pronuncia- relevant-would act as a wholesome corrective

tion from its predictable course (a fact gratui- to any measure of lopsidedness and staleness

tously played down in some quarters), while the that might otherwise develop and would thus

luxuriant growth of hyperurbanism reveals in produce an effect at once remedial and rejuve-

what direction the pressure of social forces is nating. Under adverse conditions an overflow of

most effectively at work. In modern western primary data and a plethora of uncoordinated

societies average speakers, for scientifically valid studies bearing on them may constitute two

or indefensible reasons, are eager to attach to focuses of acute danger; the reintroduction of

their pronunciation a cachet of respectability, a compelling hierarchy would, at least tem-

i.e., of a certain conformity to recognized porarily, tend to restore the balance. Historical

spelling habits, and correspondingly to mould grammar, in particular, might profit from some

their grammar and vocabulary, as best they can, degree of tightening through integration of

by standards officially encouraged or enforced. myriads of disconnected details not into a

If linguists are sincere in confining themselves congeries of gross facts, but, after meticulous

to the role of detached observers and analysts distillation, into elegantly designed chain

rather than of active participants, they should reactions, such as have been proposed by

refrain scrupulously from either abetting or economy-minded phonologists. The scrupu-

obstructing this controversial trend. lous, but excessively detailed dialect studies

Second, the fully grown literary language, bearing the hallmark of Romance workmanship

whatever trickling or torrential sources and may profit from streamlining through dimin-

tributaries may have fed it, tends to fall into ishing resistance to the phonemic principle,

a system, or subsystem, of its own, laying itself refined through increased attention to contrasts

open to analytical inspection no less than does in the chain and in the system. Yet in those

any representative corpus of elicited utterances. domains in which Romance materials happen

In some respects (nonobligatory features of to flow most copiously, e.g., the lexicon, one

lexicon and clausal architecture) this stylized hesitates to apply structuralistic thinking except

language may display a greater abundance of cautiously and, lest it cause more harm than

resources or more delicately graded patterning, good, without detriment to other viewpoints.

bordering on the ornamental. As an intricate Effects of analogy (associative interference),

but ordered whole (if one discounts the rare which, until after one learns how to handle

occurrences of intentional obfuscation), it with assurance raw statistical data, do not

invites individuating study at the same levels- seem to fall into comparably clear-cut pat-

sounds, forms, constructions-as any adequate terns, excite the Romance scholar not one

speech specimen and is available in various whit less than does the establishment of sche-

sizes, ranging from a single passage, stylistically mas, while familiarity with geographic shifts

uniform or split, via an extant text, fragmentary doubles his awareness of temporarily unstable,

or complete, to the collected works of a given oscillating systems. As a result of these caution-

author, to a genre, or to the cross-section or ing experiences, he is not quite at ease in an

even the sum total of writings attributable to a environment where stringency and trenchancy

certain period. of static classification alone are judged matters

of overruling importance. It is not the essence
ROMANCE SCHOLARSHIP AND THE STRUCTURAL of functional thinking traceable to Saussure that
APPROACH
seems difficult to reconcile with the finest

Do these deeply rooted, in part immutable, traditions of Romance research, but, on the

traits of Romance linguistics create a barrier one hand, strident demands for a new orthodoxy

to the establishment of fruitful liaison with pressed by certain reformers, which clash with

structuralism ? Divorced from surrounding the ideal of elasticity and with the standards of

circumstances, the two approaches are not tolerance cherished by most Romanists, and,

mutually exclusive; on the contrary, the injec- on the other, the well-founded realization that

678 DISTINCTIVE TRAITS OF ROMANCE LINGUISTICS

structuraiism at its most daring and successful sion. In broad outline, Meyer-Lubke essayed
has come to full fruition in descriptive inquiries this tour de force for proto-French as early as
into exotic languages, with whose unique con- 1908; a quarter of a century later, E. Richter
formation it seems impossible to cope intelli- embroidered on his master stroke. The elabo-
gently in other terms, whereas in the Romance ration of such relative chronologies may be
domain, given the peculiar slant of its data, extended to inflection, derivation, syntax, etc.,
structuralism at best is apt to play a powerful and seems perfectly compatible with research
supporting role. The full implications of this in diachronic phonology. Other scholars have
briefly sketched suspicion would require a endeavored to segregate certain sound shifts as
thorough discussion of the seldom admitted particularly illustrative of a unique nonlinguistic
correlation and mutual conditioning between sequence of events, so as to weave them into
favored method and the material at hand. the fabric of specific demographic processes and
cultural developments. This Menendez Pidal
MODERN ALTERNATIVES TO FORMAL ANALYSIS strove to accomplish for the period of the
early reconquista (eighth to eleventh century) in
It has been occasionally suggested that the the bulk of his masterly treatise Origenes del
inescapable alternative to standard structural- espafiol (1926); W. von Wartburg matched his
istic practice is utter chaos, a haphazard array effort for the prehistory of French, Proven9al,
of colorful odds and ends, a bric-a-brac shop. and Italian, in a proliferation of books and
This description of the choices facing a beginner monographs issuing from his famous program-
might be partially correct if it did not operate matic article (1936) on the fragmentation of
with a straw man. The conventional type of Late Latin. The theoretical justification for this
Romance linguist-a scholar versed in philol- preferential treatment of assorted features, to
ogy, old-style historical grammar, a conserv- the neglect of others, rebellious to the favored
ative variety of dialect geography, and an pattern, a· treatment without explicit vindication
etymology heavily mortgaged with conjectures of the criteria of selection, remains to be pro-
-may have shied away from steeper altitudes vided.
of abstract reasoning and stopped short in his
phonological pursuits at the precise unambitious A third cogent marshaling of disjointed
point where they served to localize a text, to
circumscribe a dialect, or to identify a word- facts, eminently characteristic of the historical
origin; measured by modern demands, his method, would be to arrange them roughly in
semantics and esthetics may appear homespun. the order of decreasing transparency. Thus, an
Yet a program of studies conducive to this etymologist grappling with thousands of equa-
meaningful blend of diverse interests and tions of unequal complexity may procede from
techniques, with a perceptibly heavier emphasis relatively simple cases involving no (or just a
on the unassuming establishment of sober facts, few easily eliminable) unknowns to progres-
or approximations to facts, than on pretentious sively intricate tangles, ending up with a residue
experiments with untried explicative or classi- of issues inextricably confused or wholly
ficatory methods, has distinct virtues of its recalcitrant. (He may at least toy with this
own, and future generations may some day grading at the operational stage, if not in the
declare our hasty retreat from this program to definitive product which, like most dictionaries,
have had deleterious consequences. should be alphabetical to satisfy the layman's
need for maximum speed in casual consul-
Richer in potential repercussions is the fact tation.) This rational arrangement presupposes,
that Romance scholars (and others in their on the worker's part, the ability to denude each
company) have tried out significant patterns situation of its frills, reducing it to an algebraic
of ordering fairly removed from the prime formula, and a concurrent willingness to
concerns of organized structuralism. The most deemphasize, without ruling them out entirely,
exacting and promising among such experi- the ingredients of intuition and of chance that
mental groupings has been the attempt to have undeniably presided over some etymo-
present sound shifts of a particular language not logical discoveries.
in a routine enumeration based on articulatory
conditions (or, worse, on the alphabetical order), Finally, to reconcile the various causes of
but in their presumable chronological succes-
linguistic change so far adduced (phonological
drift, which may run afoul of inertia or of

YAKOV MALKIEL 679

morphological obstacles; a state of bilingualism of the old normative grammarians, foreign

created by ethnic sub-, ad-, and superstrata, by language teachers, and missionaries.)

intermarriages, by economic inducements, by
religious habits, or by intellectual aspirations; CYCLES OF EMPHASIS

diffusion; social upheavals; unconscious inter- Even if one restricts his observation to the

nal economy revolving around minimum effort, probings of indisputably solid science, certain

evenness of distribution, and a desirable degree recurrent cyclesof emphasis become discernible.

of clarity; "expressivism," sensuous delight Thus rough grammatical sketches, diachronical-

in certain well-developed features; deliberate ly slanted, became available for most Romance

search for reputed betterment), one may languages under the Neo-grammarians and

attempt to excogitate some system of possible their immediate followers in an atmosphere of

alliances, concomitancies, mergers, or mutual austere isolationism and unquestioning dog-

hindrances and exclusions between these dis- matism not very different from the atmosphere

crete forces. prevailing until all too recently among all too

These are just a few possibilities that can, at many straight descriptivists. After the richest

first glance, be successfully tried out within a yield of this method had become exhausted,

limited subfield; a broader frame would invite the pendulum began swinging in the opposite

other, more tempting experiments, such as the direction, when the talented generation of

audacious survey of well-established categories Gauchat, Jaberg, and Jud, sated with schema-

across language families, a type of monograph tization which at best had merely accounted for

launched by Humboldt, or the discovery, a privileged portion of the total stock of data,

delimitation, and labeling of new categories, started exploring with great alacrity those

either static (witness E. Benveniste's newly attractive problems of erratic growth that had

identified "delocutive verbs") or dynamic slipped through the wide meshes of the

(such as E. Schwyzer's overstated "hyper- Neo-grammarians.

characterization" or B. Migliorini's neatly This new trend, at least among the level-

delimited "synonymic radiation"). headed, did not entail the abandonment of

CHARACTERISTICS TRACEABLE TO THE phonetic correspondences (though their magic
STAGE OF THE DISCIPLINE glitter had become tarnished) or the neglect
of the edifice of historical grammar built on this

TRANSITION FROM LEARNING TO SCIENCE foundation. But it implied diversion of the

The absolute age of a semiautonomous focus of attention toward other goals: word

discipline and the stage that it has currently biographies replete with cultural content,

reached in its development are matters of welters of dialectal cross-currents, fireworks

great moment in any inventory of its salient set in motion by homonymic clashes, and lexical

features. There is no denying that Romance masquerades unleashed by folk etymology

linguistics has irreversibly outgrown its ad- became the staple food of the most imaginative

olescence. As a fully developed discipline, Romanists. Among the sound changes examined

conscious of its topical independence and later at rare intervals, most were of an abnormal

also of its methodological originality, it is at nature; they included either broad, tendential,

least 130 years old. Even certain ingredients of recurrent transformations (metathesis, haplol-

markedly older Renaissance scholarship can ogy, assimilation, dissimilation, echoing of

hardly be brushed aside as prescientific, inas- nasal resonance; in short, Ascoli's "accidenti

much as traditional linguistic "learning" and generali"), reaching athwart such basic shifts

modern linguistic "science" have failed to as are sharply limited, by definition, in space

drift apart from each other with anything like and time; or they were confined to the language

the same speed as, say, alchemy and chemistry. of the educated and the gifted and spiced by

(Even some of the etymological lore of Antiquity some manner of cultural piquancy, i.e., again

and the Middle Ages, if adroitly winnowed by cutting across the major drift. The new watch-

discriminating minds, continues to be grist to word was the reconstruction of the unique set

our mills, and for the external history of of circumstances, not a few of them extraneous

pronunciation we still rely heavily, if with to linguistics proper, that govern the trajectory

reluctance, on the quaintly phrased statements of each separate word.

680 DISTINCTIVE TRAITS OF ROMANCE LINGUISTICS

This vigorous reaction to schematization, aside such painstaking operations, for instance, as
from filling in countless factual gaps, tended to must be brought to bear on the hard core of
place linguistic research in another academic refractory etymologies demand a program of
(and marginally even artistic) context; it made research at the opposite pole of isolationism,
itself felt not in Romance quarters alone, but presupposing close integration with kindred
nowhere did its impact produce a more powerful disciplines, if attainable without loss of identity.
jolt. Still later, abstractionism became again the Granted that this cyclic argument has any
irresistible fashion in general linguistics, geared merit, then a tolerant (though by no means lax)
by definition to ceaseless search for constants, attitude of relativism, which for decades has
even universals, and, in the New World, been the stock-in-trade of any enlightened
concerned primarily with skeletal sketches of anthropologist and linguist analyzing the raw
unexplored indigenous languages. At this point data of a culture not his own, however aberrant,
the smaller pendulum in the restricted Romance should at long last be extended to the serene
field was temporarily delayed, failing to swing appraisal of heterodox linguistic doctrines.
back into its initial position; the retardative
force was, of course, the special commitment DEGREE OF SPECIALIZATION
of this team of workers to the ideals of con-
creteness, plasticity, and individualism. The age of a subdiscipline carries with it one
peculiarity which some may deem an asset and
An inherent affinity between the Neo-gram- others, a liability: the tendency, on the part of
matical and the (American-style) descriptive each successive generation, to examine under
approach explains the curious paradox that to a more powerful microscope a commensurately
the Romance scholar, steeped exclusively in smaller sliver of material. The reason for this
the tradition of his subdiscipline, sorpe elements temptation is obvious. As a rule, the pioneers
of the most advanced speech analyiis (e.g., the have no qualms about surveying, as best they
schematization, the evasion or postponement of can, a vast slice of territory, at the risk of a high
references to meaning, the emphatic divorce quota of errors. Their successors, on the
from other cultural analyses) may smack of average more scrupulous but less daring, set
reaction, insofar as they remind him of pre- about to eradicate these flaws by allowing them-
mature generalizations in Neo-grammatical selves more leisure to examine a smaller piece
practice, i.e., of errors which he was cautioned from all possible angles. An ambitious genera-
to avoid or trained to correct. Conversely the tion of workers will always succeed in weeding
shortsighted avant-garde descriptivist is not out a crop of inaccuracies, oversimplifications,
unlikely to deride the present-day Romanist and plain slips in the research of their immediate
for being behind the times in clinging so predecessors by concentrating on more narrow-
tenaciously to minute concrete details. By the ly staked out assignments.
same token, half a century from now students
of exotic languages (by then, let us hope, no But such victories may turn Pyrrhic through
longer in critical need of provisional sketches) the concurrent loss of perspective and of
may very well, in their predictable anxiety to evenly spread competence in the broader field.
cover each "skeleton" with flesh and skin, fall By cutting up a language into countless sub-
back, perhaps unknowingly, on many assump- dialects and analyzing each to the limit of
tions and techniques that now hold sway in the one's patience one merely succeeds in scratching
Romance camp. a surface with ever greater effectiveness. Some
of the truly important problems plaguing a
Couched in more general terms: aside from historically-minded linguist do not even acquire
its pivotal theoretical postulate the unvarnished shape except through reference to closely and
Neo-grammatical position (or some of its even distantly related languages. And yet,
modern derivatives) need not be regarded as pathetically, wide-ranging comparatism has
something absolutely right or wrong, but rather been on the decline. The full magnitude of this
as a method which at fairly early stages of a danger of excessive shrinkage has begun to
typical inquiry is apt to yield optimal results. dawn upon us, but no infallible means has yet
Beyond that stage, once the requisite sound been devised for underpinning the entire
correspondences have been set up, the useful- discipline without disrupting the flow of useful
ness of the method diminishes rapidly, since small-scale operations.

YAKOV MALKIEL 681

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND ANALYSIS OF OPINIONS THE MATRIX OF NATIONAL CULTURES

Another peculiarity-which again may con- The remaining determinants need not detain
titute an advantage or a drawback-flowing us long. A particular national culture fostering
rom the respectable age of Romance linguistics a line of inquiry on a grandiose scale inevitably
s the overgrowth of earlier pronouncements on leaves its impress on nomenclature, tone of
many crucial issues. In extreme cases (for phrasing, and even slant of analysis. During its
nstance, to etymologize certain words that critical growing years Romance linguistics was
have exercised or merely titillated the imagi- preponderantly under the tutelage of Central
nation of generations of conjecturers, such as European scholarship, entrenched far beyond
Fr. aller), up to twenty or even thirty the boundaries of the German-speaking coun-
rreconcilably different hypotheses have been tries proper. This style of learning displays a
dvanced over the years. Points of syntax peculiar cleavage of accumulated knowledge-
prominently represented in practical language especially at the standard-setting level of the
eaching, such as the use of the subjunctive Academies-into a "physical" and a "spiritual"
n French, have been mercilessly labored, for realm, the latter roughly coincident with the
he most part by unqualified analysts. Humanities (minus their concern with pedagogy
To what extent should a modern scholar, and the arts), to the virtual exclusion, especially
before or after frontally attacking a chosen at the outset, of some such stretch of middle-
problem, attempt to disentangle this compli- ground as is suggested by the social sciences.
ated skein of previous opinions? No entirely Without hesitation linguistics, initially embed-
atisfactory answer to this ever-present question ded in philology, was assigned to the domain of
as been offered in the past or seems to be the flourishing Geisteswissenschaften and so
orthcoming. Some escapists from bibliography, tailored and weighted as to fit its surroundings
nfatuated with the idea of a clean slate, with a minimum of rough edges.
ltogether disregard the toiling of their prede-
essors. Other scholars apologetically relegate For a while this classic design was indiscrimi-
he digest of earlier researches to some kind of nately imitated in other countries, from St.
upplement or annotated bibliography (which a Petersburg to Chicago and Santiago de Chile,
ast-minute decision may then prompt them to even though the academic edifice of some was
mit). Still others, in an effort to draw a line quite differently designed, until it became clear
omewhere, confine their curiosity to a limited that an immediate transfer of isolated pursuits
pan of time, starting from, say, the threshold of knowledge from one citadel of learning to
f the twentieth century or from the publication another, reflecting divergent tastes and dissimi-
date of some revolutionary book. A minority lar aims, was impracticable, at least in fluid
may decide on the selective coverage of a long disciplines lending themselves to multiple
period, using as the prime criteria of choice classification. This discovery came as a shock
he originality, accessibility, temporary in- and has ever since provoked considerable and,
luence, or continued relevance of pertinent all told, unnecessary irritation, inasmucli~'as a
tatements. A very few are likely to aim at few workers hypersensitive to differences in
xhaustiveness, and among these an occasional national taste and regional traditions have
virtuoso may present the expected meandrous magnified out of all reasonable proportion the
ccount with such zest and incisiveness as to importance of clashing integuments, oblivious
fford fresh insights into turning-points in the of the incomparably more significant common
history of linguistic science. From case to case, pith. The smoothest way of producing within
considerations of expediency and economy may a locally underdeveloped subfield a style of
dictate the most opportune course of action. research that harmonizes with the broader
Generally speaking, a subfield like Romance is trends of a self-conscious national culture,
not a suitable maneuvering terrain for scholars instead of violently impinging on them (and
emotionally reluctant to examine with patience, grating on some participants' nerves), is to
ympathy, and humility the gropings of their channel unobtrusively as much talent as pos-
elders. sible in that neglected direction. The prompt
acquisition of apposite styling will then pre-
sumably take care of itself.

682 DISTINCTIVE TRAITS OF ROMANCE LINGUISTICS

Outside Central Europe there crystallized some loyalties, some exaggerated fascination for the
minor styles, in part ephemeral and hardly unknown, or some morbid revulsion against the
qualifying for exportation. In his memorable known mistaken for the stale and banal. Many
essay on "The Spaniards in History," Menen- hope that the almost complete divorce of
dez Pidal, musing on Spain's destiny, remarked advanced linguistic investigation not only from
that his country was apparently foredoomed to Latin and French, less thoroughly explored
regale the world with the late, exquisitely than the voice of rationalized indifference avers,
mellow fruits of cultural attitudes and endeavors but also from Spanish and Portuguese, which
elsewhere long extinct. It certainly is true that boast enormous stretches of uncharted territory,
the recipe for this century's Spanish linguistics, will not harden into an unremovable charac-
a few drops of which spilled over into Latin teristic of progressive British and American
America, represents a blend of studies in scholarship, otherwise so elastic and versatile.
folklore, literature (down to Gongorism),
straight history, and linguistics proper that THE IMPACT OF POWERFUL
calls to mind the Germany of Jakob and Wil- PERSONALITIES
helm Grimm, propelled by philological curios-
ity. Peculiar to romantic Germany and to As the final component, whether or not one
neo-romantic Spain alike is further the close inclines to consider it an imponderable, it is
and, on the whole, gratifying liaison between fitting to mention the impact of magnetic
current creative literature and organized re- personalities. Diez, Schuchardt, Ascoli, Cuervo,
search in philology and linguistics, a spon- Meyer-Lubke, Leite de Vaswncelos, Gillieron,
taneous harmony comparable to that which Menendez Pidal, Bally, Jaberg, and Jud are
exists between deep undercurrents of modern some of the luminaries in the ranks of Romance
Am~rican civilization and the fine flowering of linguists who have each opened up new
-professional anthropological inquiries. vistas, set or raised standards, and for decades
left the stamp of their private and public
The Italian scene is quite different. The performance on a wealth of significant output.
character of linguistics has there been cosmo- On the debit side of the ledger let us readily
politan and polygot, its ambit encompassing admit that among these splendid thinkers,
with undiminished intensity Latin and Greek, writers, and teachers only very few have culti-
but rarely extending beyond the ancient and vated in more than casual fashion either lan-
modern Near East, in accord with Italy's guages not included in, or bordering upon,
severely limited commitments to, and invest- the Romance domain (Ascoli) or linguistic
ments in, overseas territories (aside from immi- theory for its own sake (Bally); the incompa-
gration). Two facts give extra touches of rable Schuchardt, dynamically curious along
authenticity to that country's native school of both lines, represents the great exception. In
Romance linguistics. First, knowledge of Latin this single respect of"deplorable self-sufficiency
(as a member of the Indo-European family), the logbook of Romanists has lately been in
of the "Mediterranean substratum," and of the less than satisfactory shape, particularly if one
wistfully contrasts the glorious elasticity and
neo-Latin, i.e., Romance, languages is typically ability for forceful synthesis of a Jespersen, a
imparted by the same chair of glottologia, a Troubetzkoy, or a Sapir; here alone they may
state of affairs maintaining a vital cross-connec- do well to chart their future course with a
tion severed or curtailed elsewhere. Second, livelier spark of imagination.
dialectology, long fostered by political con-
ditions and to no appreciable extent thwarted THE CONTRIBUTION OF ROMANCE
by the late unification, until very recently here SCHOLARSHIP TO LINGUISTICS
enjoyed almost the same prestige as the study
of the literary language. The distinctive features of Romance linguistics
as here projected from four vantage points
The inclusion of a given language in a nation's are by no means immutable. Very opportunely
collegiate curriculum may act as a stimulant they contain, caught in an attractive balance,
or as a deterrent to its liberal utilization in both variables and near-invariables, thus offer-
ing the dual guarantee of flexibility and conti-
advanced linguistic inquiry. The former pos- nuity. Easily the most precious gifts that
sibility undoubtedly points to a healthy
climate; the alternative, to some conflict of

Y AKOV MALKIEL 683

Romance scholarship has so far tendered to The recognition that one major subdiscipline
general linguistics include an almost oversubtle may, under favorable conditions, quite legiti-
approach to dialect geography, a firm grasp of mately develop certain unmistakable charac-
the osmosis between literary languages and the teristics of its own carries with it the significant
corresponding gamuts of vernaculars, and a
vast reservoir of practice in etymology, with a implication that linguistic research at its most
record of meticulous, zestfully conducted engaging and rewarding need not, indeed
monographic researches not yet welded into a should not, be conceived as monolithic. There
~ingle thoroughly integrated doctrine. At this must, of course, exist a hard core of agreement
critical point Romance linguistics happens to on essentials of purpose, assumptions, and
represent a highly atypical subdiscipline. But is techniques; it may be useful, in times of stress,
typicality a measure of inherent value ?And may to set limits to the margin of tolerable individual
not a closer rapprochement with general departures from the common standard. But the
linguistics be smoothly achieved through leeway left to individual taste and initiative and
mutual concessions ? Thus far Romance lin- to the preferences of well-defined groups must
guists have handled with astonishing assurance be more than minimal and should take into
slivers of concrete, unique, historically control- account such factors as peculiarities of material,
lable material, at the crossroads of language and stage of research, academic traditions, and
nonverbal culture and at the opposite pole from personal leanings. A community of linguists at
that of sweeping schematization. No general its best calls to mind a fine symphony orchestra
theory of language nor, indeed, any history of in which, enviably enough, each instrument and
linguistic science is complete that fails to treat each group of instruments retains a perceptible
understandingly such a privileged store of measure of individuality while contributing
experiences and experiments.
its share to the tonal effect of the whole.

REFERENCE NOTE

The supporting bibliography supplied by Professor Malkiel is presented here
intact, despite an occasional duplication of an item in the general bibliography,
because of occasional additional information and, especially, because of the
importance and interest of each entry as part of the whole.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

This highly selective reading list includes all items mentioned or alluded to
in the article; moreover, a few titles selected on the basis of distinction, typicality,
and self-explanatory usefulness to anthropologists. Thus, Kahane-Tietze and Vidos
exemplify techniques of charting diffusion over sea lanes, while Gamillscheg com-
bines the study of settlement, toponymy, and loan words; Tappolet focuses on
kinship terms, Zauner on anatomical terms, Ma<;as on zoonymy; Hasselrot (in his
monograph on the apricot), Herculano de Carvalho, Kruger, Livingston, and
. Wagner illustrate so many facets of the fruitful Worter-und-Sachen approach;
Gillieron and Orr emphasize the chain reactions of homonymic clashes; Rohlfs
blends folklore with dialectology. Of the available textbooks only Tagliavini's, the
latest, has been included; of methodological guides, as many as four, Meyer-Liibke's,
Millardet's, Jaberg's, and Wartburg's; to these one may add the surveys by
Iordan and Orr, Kuhn, and Quadri. In some instances, "Collected Papers" by a
leading scholar were deemed most helpful (Migliorini, Rohlfs, Schuchardt); in
others, influential or representative miscellanies of papers in honor of a scholar
(Gauchat, Jud, Wartburg); both genres frequently contain helpful bibliographies.

684 DISTINCTIVE TRAITS OF ROMANCE LINGUISTICS

Translations, primarily from German, are listed for the benefit of those readers
more familiar with English, French, or Spanish (Iordan, Meyer-Lubke, Vossler,
Wartburg). Other aids, especially for those largely dependent on their command of
English, include references to extended book reviews, review articles, and elabora-
tions published in American journals (Bartoli, Herculano de Carvalho, Kuhn,
Ma~as, etc.).

AEBISCHER, PAUL

1948. Estudios de toponimia y lexicografia romdnica. Barcelona: Escuela de
Filologfa.

ALONSO, AMADO

1951. Estudios linguisticos; temas espaiioles. (Biblioteca romanica hispanica; 2.
Estudios y ensayos, Vol. II.) Madrid: Gredos. (New printing, 1954.)

1953. Estudios linguisticos; temas hispano-americanos. (Biblioteca hispanica
romanica; 2. Estudios y ensayos, Vol. XII.) Madrid: Gredos.

ASCOL!, GRAZIADIO !SAIA

1873. Saggi ladini. Archivio glottologico italiano, 1: 1-556 and folding map.

BALLY, CHARLES

1913. Le Langage et la vie. Geneva: Atar. (Reprinted, Paris: Payot, 1926; rev.
2nd ed. [Romanica Helvetica, Series Linguistica, Vol. I], Zurich: Niehans,
1935; 3rd ed. [Societe de publications romanes et fran~aises, Vol.
XXXIV], Geneva: Droz, 1952; translated by A. Alonso, El lenguaje y la
vida, Buenos Aires: Losada, 1941.)

1932. Linguistique generate et linguistique franraise. Paris: Leroux. (rev. 2nd
ed., Bern: Francke, 1944; 3rd ed., 1950.)

BARTOLI, MATTEO

1925. Introduzione a/la neolinguistica; principi, scopi, metodi. (Biblioteca del
"Archivum Romanicum," Series II, Vol. XV.) Geneva: Olschki.

1945. Saggi di linguistica spaziale. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.

BENVENISTE, EMILE

1958. Les verbes delocutifs. Studia philologica et litteraria in honorem L.
Spitzer. Bern: Francke. Pp. 57-63.

BUBEN, VLADIMIR

1935. Influence de l'orthographe sur la prononczalzon du franrais moderne.
(Spisy filosoficke fakulty University Komenskeho v Bratislave, Vol.
XIX.) Bratislava.

CUERVO, RUFINO JOSE

1867. Apuntaciones criticas sobre el lenguaje bogotano. Bogota: Guarin. (2nd ed.,
1876; 3rd ed., 1881; rev. 4th ed., Chartres: Durand, 1885; 5th ed.,
Paris: Roger & Chernoviz, 1907 [title lengthened: . . . con frecuente
referencia al de los paises de Hispano-America]; 6th ed., Paris, 1914;
9th ed., Bogota: Instituto Caro y Cuervo, 1955.)

1950. Disquisiciones sobre filologia espaiiola. Edited by R. Torres Quintero.
(Publicaciones del Instituto Caro y Cuervo, Vol. IV.) Bogota.

DIEZ, FRIEDRICH

1853. Etymologisches Worterbuch der romanischen Sprachen. Bonn: Marcus.
(3rd ed., 2 vols., 1869-1870.)

Y AKOV MALK/EJ, 685

DURAFFOUR, ANTONIN

1941. Lexique patois-franfais du par/er de Vau."C-en-Bugey (Ain) (1919-1940).
Grenoble: Institut de phonetique.

GAMILLSCHEG, ERNST

1934-1936. Romania Germanica; Sprach- und Siedlungsgeschichte der Germanen
auf dem Boden des alten Romerreichs. (Grundriss der germanischen
Philologie, edited by H. Paul, Vol. XI: 1-3.) Berlin and Leipzig: de
Gruyter.

GARCIA DE DIEGO, VICENTE

1923. Contribucidn al diccionario hispdnico etimoldgico (Revista de Filologia
Espanola, Suppl. IL) Madrid.

GAUCHAT, LOUIS

1926. Festschrift Louis Gauchat. Aarau: Sauerlander.

GILLIERON, JULES

1912. Etudes de geographie linguistique d'apres !'Atlas Linguistique de la France.
(With Mario Roques.) Paris: Champion. [On homonymics see also Lg.,
1952, 28: 299-338; Hispanic Review, 21: 20-36, 120-134 (1953).

1918. Genealogie des mots qui designent l'abeille, d'apres !'Atlas Linguistique de
la France. (Bibliotheque de !'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Vol. CCXXV.)
Paris: Champion.

HASSELROT, BENGT

1957. Etudes sur la formation diminutive dans les langues romanes. (Uppsala
Universitets Arsskrift, Fasc. XL) Uppsala.

1940-1941. L'Abricot; essai de monographie onomasiologique et semantique.
Studia Neophilologica, 13: 45-79, 226-252.

HERCULANO DE CARVALHO, JOSE GONyALO C.

1953. Coisas e palavras: Alguns problemas etnograficos e linguisticos relacio-
nados com os primitivos sistemas de debulha na Penfnsula Iberica.
Biblos, 29: 1-365 and 11 folding maps. [Reviewed, Lg., 1957, 33: 54-76.]

IORDAN, IORGU

1937. An Introduction to Romance Linguistics, Its Schools and Scholars. Revised,
translated, and in parts recast by John Orr. London: Methuen.

JABERG, KARL

1936. Aspects geographiques du langage. Conferences faites au College de France
(Decembre 1933). (Societe de publications romanes et fran~aises, Vol.
XVIII.) Paris: Droz.

1957-1958. The Birthmark in Folk Belief, Language, Literature, and Fashion.
Romance Philology, 10: 307-342.

JUD, JAKOB

1914. Probleme der altromanischen Wortgeographie. Zeitschrift fiir romanische
Philologie, 38 (1): 1-75 and five folding maps.

1943. Sache, Ort und Wort. Jakob Jud zum sechzigsten Geburtstag 12. Januar
1942. (Romanica Helvetica, Vol. XX.) Geneva: Droz.

KAHANE, HENRY, RENEE KAHANE, ANDREAS TIETZE

1958. The Lingua Franca in the Levant; Turkish Nautical Terms of Italian and
Greek Origin. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

686 DISTINCTIVE TRAITS OF ROMANCE LINGUISTICS

KRUGER, FRITZ

1925. Die Gegenstandskultur Sanabrias und seiner Nachbargebiete; ein Beitrag
zur spanischen und portugiesischen Volkskunde. (Hamburgische Universi-
tat; Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde, Vol. XX.)
Hamburg: Friederichsen.

KUHN, ALWIN

1951. Romanische Philologie. Vol. I, Die romanischen Sprachen. (Wissenschaft-
liche Forschungsberichte, Geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe, Vol. VIII.)
Bern: Francke. [Reviewed, Lg., 1952, 28: 509-525.]

1947-1948. Sechzig Jahre Sprachgeographie in der Romania. Romanistisches
Jahrbuch, 1: 25-63.

LEITE DE VASCONCELOS, JOSE

1928. Antroponimia portuguesa; tratado comparativo da origem, significarao,
classificariio e vida do conjunto dos nomes proprios, sobrenomes e apelidos,
usados por nos desde a idade-media ate hoje. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional.

LERCH, EUGEN

1925-1934. Historische franzosische Syntax. Leipzig: Reisland. 3 vols.

LIVINGSTON, CHARLES H.

1957. Skein-winding Reels. Studies in Word History and Etymology. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press. [Reviewed, Romance Philology, 1958-1959,
12: 262-282.]

MA~AS, DELMIRA

1950-1951. Os animais na linguagem portuguesa. (Publica<;oes do Centro de
Estudos Filol6gicos, Vol. II.) Lisbon. [Reviewed, Hispanic Review,
1956, 24: 115-143, 207-231.]

MARTINET, ANDRE

1955. Economie des changements phonetiques; traite de phonologie diachronique.
Bibliotheca romanica. Ser. I, Manualia et commentationes, Vol. X.)
Bern: Francke. [Reviewed, Romance Philology, 1956-1957, JO: 350-362;
1961-1962, 15: 139-153.]

MENENDEZ PIDAL, RAMON

1926. Origenes del espafiol; estado linguistico de la Peninsula lberica hasta el
siglo XI. (Revista de Filologia Espanola, Suppl. XI.) Madrid: Hernando.
(2nd ed., 1929; 3rd rev. ed., 1950 [=Obras, Vol. VIII].)

MEYER-LUBKE, WILHELM

1901. Einfiihrung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Heidelberg,
Winter. (rev. 2nd ed., 1909; rev. 3rd ed., 1921; translated by A. Castro:
lntroduccidn a la lingiiistica romdnica, con notas y adiciones, Madrid: Centro
de Estudios Hist6ricos, 1926.

1908-1921. Historische Grammatik der franzosischen Sprache. (Sammlung
romanischer Elementar- und Handbiicher. Ser. I, Grammatiken, Vol.
I.) Heidelberg: Winter. 2 parts. (5th ed. of Part I, 1934.)

MIGLIORINI, BRUNO

1927. Dal nome proprio al nome comune; studi semantici sul mutamento dei nomi
propri di persona in nomi comuni negl'idiomi romanzi. (Biblioteca del-
l' "Archivum Romanicum," Ser. I, Vol. XIII.) Geneva: Olschki.

1957. Saggi linguistici. Florence: Le Monnier.

YAKOV MALKIEL 687

MILLARDET, GEORGES

1923. Linguistique et dialectologie romanes; problemes et methodes. (Societe
des Langues Romanes, Publications Speciales, Vol. XXVIII.) Mont-
pellier.

ORR, JOHN

1953. Words and Sounds in English and French. (Modern Language Studies.)
Oxford: Blackwell.

QUADRI, BRUNO

1952. Aufgaben und Methoden der onomasiologischen Forschung; eine entwick-
lungsgeschichtliche Darstellung. (Romanica Helvetica, Vol. XXXVII.)
Bern: Francke.

RHEINFELDER, HANS

1933. Kultsprache und Profansprache in den romanischen Landern; sprachge-
schichtliche Studien, besonders zum Wortschatz des Franzosischen und des
Italienischen. (Biblioteca dell' "Archivum Romanicum," Ser. II, Vol.
XVIII.) Geneva: Olschki.

RICHTER, ELISE

1934. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Romanismen; chronologische Phonetik des
Franziisischen bis zum Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts. (Zeitschrift fiir romanische
Philologie, Suppl. LXXXII.) Halle: Niemeyer. [Cf. E. Gamillscheg,
Zeitschrift fiir franzosische Sprache und Literatur, 1937-1938, 61: 89-106.]

ROHLFS, GERHARD

1952. An den Quellen der romanischen Sprachen; vermischte Beitrage zur
romanischen Sprachgeschichte und Volkskunde. Halle: Niemeyer.

RONJAT, JULES (t 1925)
1930-1937. Grammaire historique des parters provenraux modernes. Montpellier:
Societe des Langues Romanes. 3 vols.

SALVIONI, CARLO

[Scattered monographs, articles, and notes; for complete list see Robert
A. Hall, Jr., Bibliography of Italian Linguistics, Baltimore: Linguistic
Society of America, 1941, pp. 486-488.]

SCHUCHARDT, HUGv

1922. Hugo Schuchardt Brevier; ein Vademekum der allgemeinen Sprach-
wissenschaft, als Festgabe zum 80. Geburtstag des Meisters zusammen-
gestellt. Edited by L. Spitzer. Halle: Niemeyer. (rev. 2nd ed., 1928.)

SCHWYZER, EDUARD

1941. Sprachliche Hypercharakterisierung. Abhandlungen der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Phil.- hist. Klasse, No. 9.) Berlin. [For a
different interpretation, see my article, Diachronic Hypercharacterization
in Romance, Archivum Linguisticum, 1957, 9: 79-113; 1958, 10: 1-36.]

TAGLIAVINI, CARLO

1952. Le origini delle lingue neolatine. (rev. 2nd ed.) Bologna: Patron. [Reviewed,
Robert A. Hall, Jr., Romance Philology, 1953-1954, 7: 193-197.] (Rev.
and en!. 3rd ed., 1959.)

688 DISTINCTIVE TRAITS OF ROMANCE LINGUISTICS

TAPPOLET, ERNST

1895. Die romanischen Verwandtscha:ftsnamen, mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung
der franzosischen und italienischen Mundarten; ein Beitrag zur ver-
gleichenden Lexikologie. Strassburg.

ULLMANN, STEPHEN

1952. Precis de semantique franraise. (Bibliotheca Romanica. Ser. I, Manualia
et Commentationes, Vol. IX.) Bern: Francke.

VIDOS, B. E.

1939. Storia de/le parole marinaresche italiane passate in francese; contributo
storico-linguistico all'espansione della lingua nautica italiana. (Biblioteca
dell' "Archivum Romanicum," Ser. II, Vol. XXIV.) Florence: Olschki.

VOSSLER, KARL

1921. Frankreichs Kultur im Spiegel seiner Sprachentwicklung; Geschichte der

franzosischen Schrzftsprache von den Anfangen bis zur klassischen Neuzeit.

(Sammlung romanischer Elementar- und Handbiicher, Ser. IV, Vol. I.)

Heidelberg: Winter. (Translated by A. deJsuilolaringdin,esLaangnuoes et culture de
la France; ·histoire du franr;ais litteraire jours, Paris:

Payot, 1953.)

WAGNER, MAX LEOPOLD

1921. Das landliche Leben Sardiniens im Spiegel der Sprache; kulturhistorisch-
sprachliche Untersuchungen. (Worter- und- Sachen; Kulturhistorische
Zeitschrift fur Sprach- und- Sachforschung, Suppl. IV.) Heidelberg:
Winter.

WARTBURG, WALTHER VON

1936. Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachraume. Zeitschrift fur
Romanische Philologie, 56: 1-48, with 7 maps. (Elaborated in book form
with the same title, Bern, 1950.)

1943. Einfiihrung in Problematik und Methodik der Sprachwissenschaft. Halle:
Niemeyer. (Translated by P. Maillard, Problemes et methodes de la
linguistique, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1946; translated by
D. Alonso and E. Lorenzo, Problemas y metodos de la lingiiistica, Madrid:
lnstituto Miguel de Cervantes, 1951.)

1958. Etymologica. Walther von Wartburg zum siebzfgsten Geburtstag, 18. Mai
1958. Ttibingen: Niemeyer.

WEIGAND, GUSTAV

1909. Linguistischer Atlas des dacorumanischen Sprachgebietes. Leipzig: Barth.

ZAUNER, ADOLF

1903. Die romanischen Namen der Korperteile. Romanische Forschungen, 14:
339-530. [Cf. H. R. Kahane, Designations of the Cheek in the Italian
Dialects, Lg., 1941, 17: 212-222.]

Alfred Louis Kroeber 69

DELL H. HYMES

ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER's contributions to its beginning and end. Somewhat more than
half come in the first two decades in California,
knowledge, sustained over some sixty-four a dozen or so are distributed among the next
three decades, and then, beginning with 1952,
years, are remarkable not merely in number, but there are about half again as many in his last
ten years.
for scope and quality. He was probably the The roots of Kroeber's linguistic interests go
greatest general anthropologist that American deep. His first remembered purely intellectual
pleasure, as a boy of ten, was the demonstration
anthropology has known. His contributions to of pattern of the classes of English strong verbs.
As to his professional work, he observed:
linguistics, archaeology, ethnography, and eth- "I came from humanistic literature, entered
nology could each have earned him an enviable anthropology by the gate of linguistics" (Nature
reputation as a major figure, and he made of Culture 173). When Kroeber began graduate
study at Columbia, Boas had announced courses
noteworthy contributions to biological anthro- in statistical theory and American Indian
languages. The two courses were to remain
pology and folklore as well. He was a prolific fundamental to Boas' program for forty years,
fieldworker, a master systematizer, an independ- and the two subjects, sometimes in conjunction,
were to be lifelong interests of his great student.
dent and provocative theorist and critic. Some- Indeed, the course in American Indian lan-
guages seems to have been Kroeber's first
thing of his scope is reflected in the monographs graduate course, and he frequently mentioned
and books he has occasionally listed as major the experience, speaking of Swanton as having
publications: The Arapaho (1902), The Yokuts "cut his teeth first on Chinook like so many of
Language of South Central California (1907), us,"2 elsewhere describing himself3 as "an
Zuni Kin and Clan (1916), Peoples of the anthropologist who found his way into his
Philippines (1919, 1928), Anthropology (1923, profession by being shown how to analyze
1948), Handbook of the Indians of California Boas' Chinook Texts into grammar," and
(1925), Cultural and Natural Areas of Native describing with pleasure
North America (1939), Peruvian Archaeology
(1944), Configurations of Culture Growth (1944), Boas' first linguistic class, which met Tuesday
The Nature of Culture (1952), Style and evenings at his home around the cleared family
Civilization (1957).1 dining table, [and] consisted of an archaeologist
from the Museum, a teaching assistant of English,
Kroeber delighted in quantative estimate as a
and an adventurous nondescript who soon after rolled
heuristic device: of eight paragraphs of preface
to The Nature of Culture three set forth frac- himself out of anthropology as suddenly as he had
rolled in, and who required some quarts of beer in a
tions that characterize the papers collected
therein; and so it is worth noting that his can from the nearest saloon to overcome the tension
publications ultimately will total 460 or more, of a two hours' session with Chinook or Eskimo.4
and that of this number, some 70, slightly less
than a sixth, are wholly or in important part 689

contributions to linguistics. (This does not
count reviews or comments in published

records of conferences.) It is appropriate, too,

to put the figures in temporal perspective:
the linguistic contributions are not evenly

spaced throughout his career, but cluster at

690 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

The effect on the teaching assistant of English, of culture, and for the sake of its contribution to
Kroeber, is implicit in his praise of Boas for other, sometimes general problems; and there
instituting the first productive teaching of Amer- was of course much in language that lent itself
ican Indian linguistics by to his way of working.

setting his students to discover the structure of a These qualities of Kroeber's anthropology
could perhaps be inferred from the body of his
language by analysis of texts. This equivalent of linguistic work alone, for it is a microcosm of the
laboratory method introduced the student to an whole. It has, indeed, a certain unity. Problems
attitude of independent research. It also served of the earliest years reappear in the writings
as specific training for new field investigation, which of the last decade, appropriately recast; and
several of the themes that run through his
was subsequently provided whenever possible. linguistic work are often enough combined in
This method naturally proved to be intensely one publication, so that any point of entry to
stimulating to capable students. 5 his work is likely to lead, chronologically and
bibliographically, into much of the rest. To a
That the study of language should have played considerable degree, tout se tient. Much of the
an important part at the outset of Kroeber's
career is not surprising: in the school of Boas work has been forgotten, yet it is worth while to
it almost could not have been otherwise. survey it with some care, not only in tribute to
With Kroeber the linguistic interest was to a great scholar, but also because some of the
prove abiding and individual. Partly this was problems still wait to be carried beyond the
becaµse of a personal attraction to linguistic point to which Kroeber brought them, and
data, but it was also because of Kroeber's because the significance of the man and work
conception of anthropology. He sets forth this as an example for the future relations between
conception and his commitment to it in the linguistics and anthropology lies so much in
sections of introduction written for The Nature the details seen as part of the whole.
of Culture and in the appendix to the report of
his week-long symposium in the summer of The matrix is the early period in California.
1960 on "Anthropological horizons" (the There the first two decades of the century saw
report is to be published by the Wenner-Gren the bulk of Kroeber's linguistic field work, and
Foundation). In The Nature of Culture Kroeber the appearance of his characteristic interests
presents his anthropology almost as a matter and mode of interpretation.
of personal style, involving both a way of A pattern of combined ethnographic and
working and a perspective. To sketch its
character, one can perhaps best say that it linguistic investigation had begun with Kroe-
joined a capacity for a broad view with love of ber's first major field work, among the Arapaho.
concrete data; desire to discover patterns His dissertation related their decorative art to a
intrinsic to data with belief that patterns must theoretical controversy, but he also obtained
be understood in context; a giving of primacy material for a valuable monograph on Arapho
to cultural data and cultural frames of reference dialects, UCP-AAE, 1916, 12:71-138. This
with continuous effort to extend cultural pattern continued in his almost single-handed
patterns and contexts to the limits of their labors in California in the first part of the
relevance in space and time; that much of his century. The tribes of California were many,
work had its roots in a natural-history approach diverse, and little known. With the support of
to the materials of the humanities; that his Mrs. Hearst, Kroeber undertook an "ethnologi-
preference was for characterization rather than cal and archaeological survey" of the state
dissection; for ordering rather than manipulat- (ethnology included linguistics). He was joined
ing data; for theory sweated out of empirical in the linguistic work by Goddard (Athabaskan),
studies rather than proclaimed in advance. and, for varying periods, by Dixon (Maidu,
There was almost no side of culture but Wintu, Shasta, Achomawi), Sapir (Yana),
subtended his angle of vision; to change the Waterman (Yurok), Barrett (Pomo, Miwok),
metaphor, there was little in cultural phenom-
ena that could not come as grist to his mill. For Radin (Wappo), and others, but the sustained
such an approach there was a natural place for bulk of the work was his, culminating, ethno-
the study of language in its own right as part
graphically, in the monumental Handbook
(completed in 1918, but not published until
1925).

DELL H. HYMES 691

Much of the work was in response to the precision. He himself had moderate phonetic
obvious need to fill gaps in knowledge before gifts, and he worked when what to expect in
too late. Already some of the languages and the native languages of western America was
dialects were extinct, and for them philology of still uncertain. The identification of segmental
a sort with early materials was all that could be sounds was being sweated out mostly by men
done,6 if that. Since the description of disap- without much phonetic training,I2 and Kroeber
pearing languages has often not seemed an welcomed application to Amerindian languages
obvious need at all, despite being the only of
contribution to the future of linguistics that
future linguistics cannot make for itself, principles and methods of phonetic research estab-
Kroeber's extensive service in this task deserves
full praise. Sometimes his reports mention lished by European scholars . . . largely through
absence of other knowledge of a dialect as a
reason for publishing imperfect data obtained the entrance into this field [Amerindian] of several
in the course of an ethnographic field trip.7
Opportunities for obtaining linguistic data that students trained in the study of Indo-European
would remedy a lack were seized. 8 Sometimes philology. 13
native speakers were brought to Berkeley to
be worked with or trained to write their own Kroeber's empirical work was never data-
language. 9 As much as could be done was gathering for its own sake. There was always in
done, given the opportunity. Voegelin tells the mind an immediate question or a larger frame
story of Kroeber waiting for a train, noticing of reference, and his phonetic studies show
an Indian, and promptly taking a vocabulary this. They were undertaken to provide orienta-
in the time available. Kroeber's descriptive tion and grounding for further descriptive
experience during this period embraced Ara- work, to answer questions current at the time
paho, Zuni, Marshallese, and, of the languages about the phonetic characteristics of American
of California and the adjacent west, Atsugewi, languages, and also because phonetic data were
Bannock, Chumash, Costanoan, Diegueno, cultural data whose distribution and historical
Esselen, Karok, Luiseno, Miwok, Mohave, interpretation were of interest in themselves.
Pomo, Salinan, Shoshonean, Ute, Washo, One of the questions of the day concerned the
Wiyot, Yokuts, Yuki, Yurok; altogether some so-called "intermediates," consonants variously
33 languages. perceived as voiced and voiceless by field-
workers. As part of the phonetic instability
Throughout Kroeber's work with language as considered characteristic of "primitive" lan-
with other phenomena, there runs a remark- guage, the matter had been analyzed by Boas
able capacity to observe and to seize oppor- in a brilliant paper.14 In the case of "intermedi-
tunities for doing so. At Zuni in 1915 he en- ates," Kroeber suspected a specific phonetic
countered what was observable to all, surface cause in the sounds themselves, voiceless onset
finds of archaeological materials, but it was of otherwise voiced stops (UCP-AAE, 1911,
Kroeber who first ordered the stylistic varia- 10:8); and when a German trading schooner
tions of surface finds into a series, and thus with a crew of Marshall Islanders docked at
invented a method of chronology. This by- San Francisco in April 1911, he seized the
product of his Zuni work was matched by opportunity. His earlier recordings of Caroline
another, apparently the only observations on Islands dialects had showed such inconsistency
the speech development of an American Indian in writing surd and sonant as to make him
child ever published. He had occasion to hear suspect that "intermediates," widespread in
the daily speech of the youngest son of the western America, might be found in Polynesia
family with whom he lived, and recorded the too. About 409 tracings revealed surds in final
changes over a two-month interval; the record position, sonants intervocallically, and initial
is still worth noting, for its details and general "intermediates" that began surd and invariably
summary.Io became voiced approaching the following vowel.
Kroeber goes on to summarize the study as a
A little-known series of phonetic studies shows whole in characteristic fashion, placing the
Kroeber's attentiveness to empirical detail,11 phenomena as a type in a broader geographical
and his eagerness to make use of aids to and genetic context.I6

The California linguistic field work had indeed
an overall problem orientation from its begin-

692 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

ning. Against the background of the number were traced typologically in space rather than
and distribution of linguistic stocks in the rest genetically in time, the correlative principle of
of North America, California stood out as a explanation was diffusion, convergence through
great exception. Nearly half the stocks (accord- areal contiguity.
ing to the Powell classification) in the country
were represented in the one state (22 out of 52). The first result of the field work inspired
Explaining this extreme diveristy was seen as by the notion of typological resemblances
"the fundamental problem of California lin- was the first areal classification of a set of New
guistics" (AA, 1903, 5 :2). When similarity in World languages according to grammatical
grammatical structure was glimpsed between type. The four chief diagnostic features
a number of languages whose vocabularies (pronominal incorporation, syntactical [pure-
seemed unrelated, there seemed an obvious relational] cases, material [mixed-relational]
bearing on the problem of diversity. cases, morphophonemics [Sapir's typological
feature of technique, here contrasting agglutina-
An attempt was therefore made by the writers tive vs. fusional combination]) would not today
seem sufficient, even with the additional minor
[Dixon and Kroeber] to secure, through field inves- features, such as marking of number and
reduplication, that were noted; but a classifica-
tigation, information concerning the grammatical tion according to these features was one that
the data could support, and the results made
structure of all Californian languages. This task was sense: the California languages fell into three
broad types correlated with geographical
rendered necessary by the fact that with one or two location, cultural groupings seemed more or
less to coincide, and comparison with languages
exceptions the grammar of these languages was outside California showed the types to be
indeed distinctive. Interpretation of the typol-
wholly unknown. 16 ogy was carefully restrained, and its applica-
tion to languages outside California on which it
The background of the problem orientation had not been based was not assumed. Moreover,
was a natural-history approach to the data of it was a remarkably original step in the study of
ethnology. Languages, like cultures, were units New World languages, one that has never
to be ordered, their connections traced and adequately been followed up.
explained, and in this period of American Kroeber collaborated with Dixon in another
anthropology the value of linguistics for or- pioneering typological survey, one of California
dering the ethnological data was at a peak. numeral systems. A major point was to note
With historical documents lacking, archaeolog- correlations between features and to show the
ical time perspective not yet available, and no inadequacy of some existing conceptions:
uniform way of determining political or cultural decimal and quinary-vigesimal could not be
units amidst the mass of data, the qualitative set up as absolute types for whole systems,
units of linguistic classification were seized since the character of a system might change
upon by many, and became a primary frame- at 10, and indeed, the California material
work for description and interpretation. Sub- showed more cases of shift at 10 (from
sequent work has modified the role of genetic quinary to decimal or from decimal to
classification to that of one line of evidence to vigesimal) than of continuity (quinary becoming
be integrated with others, but its value remains vigesimal or decimal remaining decimal).
a main source of anthropology's vested interest The great diversity of radicals below IO
in linguistics. within even the most closely related lan-
When Kroeber began his California work, the guages was shown, the contrast with the uni-
Powell classification was so well established formity within Indo-European made, and the
and so rightly valued that the temper of the moral for comparative method drawn:
times was not inclined toward more than
incidental tinkering with it.17 Also, Kroeber Altogether it would appear that numerals occupy a
was well aware of the necessity of lexical
correspondences for proof of genetic con- very different place in California languages from their
nection,18 and the California vocabularies did
not manifest connections not already considered philological position in lndo-European and other
by Powell. With the data and analyses available,
the apparent resemblances among languages great linguistic families of the old world, and that
were in structural outlines and subsystems, and
these were the lines pursued in·search of further-
ordering. Since the connections that appeared

DELL H. HYMES 693 ·

on the whole they cannot be given the importance until that of the nineteen-fifties for rapid
in comparison and in questions of determination of unfolding of new connections and disruption
genetic relationship that they occupy in these lan- of established perspectives. Kroeber has himself
guages.19 recorded the excitement of the period.25
Swanton showed Natchez to be Muskogean,
The California diversity was explained in and compared Athabascan, Haida, and Tlingit;
terms of the use of arithmetical operations and Kroeber linked Miwok and Costanoan again
compounding in the numerals below 10, and (Powell having separated them) and with Dixon
the systems related to the corresponding joined Maidu, Wintu, and Yokuts with them to
counting practices. This study has stood almost form Penutian; by a quick series of steps, aided
alone in the Americanist literature since its by Harrington and Sapir, Hokan came into
publication more than a half-century ago.20 being, comprising first Karok, Chimariko,
Shasta, Pomo, Yana, Esselen, (with Chumash
The thrust of the first of the two papers and Salinan separate as "Iskoman," then joined
(Native Languages of California) is such as to in to Hokan through Sapir's comparisons and
define what are to all intents and purposes Harrington's affirmation of the unity of Chu-
grammatically based linguistic areas, and the mash and Yuman), and incorporating Seri and
principle of areal relationship is clearly stated Tequistlatecan through Kroeber's work, and
in both.21 Washo through that of Harrington and Sapir.
Yurok and Wiyot were joined in Ritwan by
The phonetic studies of this period show the Dixon and Kroeber, and then connected with
same interest in tracing types of phenomena in Algonquian by Sapir. In addition, Sapir
the contexts of geographical distribution and demonstrated the unity of Uto-Aztekan to the
genetic affiliation. The Marshallese paper satisfaction of all and of Na-Dene to the
concludes with the summary: satisfaction of some, and traced Penutian
northward into Oregon and Canada. In passing,
In all essentials, these phonetic traits are duplicated Kroeber had also forecast the linking of Salishan,
in the Pima-Papago language of Arizona, and several Wakashan, and Chemakuan. No wonder that
individual features recur in a number of American in the midst of this period Kroeber asserted:
languages; but as regards the allied tongues of "We may accordingly be confident that the
Malayo-Polynesian stock, the Marshall dialect seems language map of North America will be
to be phonetically greatly specialized.22 thoroughly recolored in a few years."26 One
could not then foresee that the breaking of the
With the California phonetic studies, the Powell log-jam was to release a tide of discovery
Marshallese study raises the prospect of a and controversy that shows no sign yet of
typological and areal survey of phonetic traits; subsiding. But the genetic connections discov-
but like the German trading ship that supplied ered by Kroeber and Dixon have stood the test
Kroeber's informants, the prospect was soon of subsequent work, and today the necessarily
lost from sight. (The ship sank 24 hours after slow establishment in detail of comparative
sailing; the crew was saved, and Kroeber's Hokan, Penutian, and Ritwan is one of the
informants had deserted before the vessel left healthiest parts of Amerindian linguistics.
San Francisco.) For many years, Kroeber's
California paper 23 remained the only detailed Of particular interest is the way in which the
survey for any part of the New World. Areal two men came to perceive the relationships.
groupings and "the fundamental problem Structural similarities had suggested connec-
whether the linguistic families of America tions such as that of Miwok and Costanoan, and
possess any underlying or general features of Yurok and Wiyot, but, adhering to the Powell
peculiar to themselves as a class" (UCP-AAE, framework, they wrote of all lexical connections
1911, 10:2) remained untackled. among recognized families as due to diffusion.
Attempting to interpret the accumulating lexical
The typological interest informed many of evidence, they made a mass comparison of the
Kroeber's reports on individual languages at this equivalents in 67 dialects (of the 21 California
time, and his study of Washo was expressly to stocks) for a list of 225 meanings appropriately
determine its place and areal connections as a "basic" for the area. The considerable number
type.24 But about 1910 the focus of linguistic
interpretation shifted to genetic relationships,
as a decade began that was not to be paralleled

694 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

of resemblances that appeared made no sense taining linguistic material; treatment of lin-
on any hypothesis of diffusion.
guistic topics in general books (Anthropology,
Finally, in a mood rather of baffied impotence, an Handbook, Cultural and Natural areas, Configu-
rations); subgroupings of known language
interpretation of the cases of most abundant resem- families (with development of statistical tech-
blance as due to genetic relationship was applied. At niques); and a scattering, topically and chrono-
logically, of papers. Most of the topics are not
once difficulties yielded, and arrangement emerged confined to the period, and indeed, except for
instrumental phonetics and child language,
from the chaos." which seem wholly part of the first period, it is
hard to find one of Kroeber's linguistic interests
The method (involving a table of inter- that does not persist throughout his career.
relationships) anticipated the statistical analyses Mode of historical interpretation becomes vital
of cultural and linguistic similarities that were again in the last period, so it seems best to
to be one of Kroeber's main interests in the consider it there, while considering now the
nineteen-thirties and later, and it has been range of other topics not yet discussed.
credited by Swadesh as an independent earlier
invention of lexicostatistics.28 Perhaps the Ethnology led Kroeber into dialectology
most important legacy of the work is in its almost at the start. An early paper treats the
tactic of careful progress, its attitude of scru- degree of dialect differentiation within Califor-
pulous boldness. Too narrow a concern with nia languages.29 Kroeber noted conflicting
purity of method was rejected as sterile, but assumptions about the nature of the unusual
essential methodological safeguards were ob- Californian diversity, as projected at the dialect
served. There was no clinging to conventional level, and made an empirical test. The paper
classifications, but new findings were built up also takes up the relations between dialects
step by step, and not projected beyond the and political, social, and cultural units, showing
accessible horizon. how the relation differs as between such groups
as the Maidu and Yokuts. As elsewhere, he
The 1919 monograph culminates the first states that collection of uniform materials by a
period of Kroeber's linguistic work, and marks single investigator is needed to resolve prob-
its end. On the theoretical plane the period is lems. Much dialect material was obtained
outlined by the shift in the dominant mode of adventitiously, but he twice made special field
interpreting historical connections, genetic trips, one for the Moquelumnan (Miwok) study
retention replacing convergence through dif-
fusion. The 1919 monograph is the chief just noted, another for systematic coverage of
product of this shift; following it, there is a the many Yokuts languages and dialects. The
sharp drop in linguistic publication for three Yokuts material was first dealt with in part of
decades, and also little or no conceptual his major linguistic monograph, The Yokuts
change with regard to historical interpretation. Language (1907), and the full data, promised
Indeed, insofar as periods of Kroeber's lin- there, form part of a monograph completed late
guistic work can be defined, it is jointly by in the summer of 1960. Dialect work involved
amount of activity (great or small) and state of interest in the historical information gleaned
historical perspective (stable or in develop- from place names, as shown in the Moquelum-
ment). In the first and last periods there is both nan paper and throughout the Handbook. In
extensive activity and development in historical addition one paper is devoted solely to topony-
perspective; in the middle period, as stated, my, California Place Names of Indian Origin.30
there is little of either. His textbook chapter on
language, mostly concerned with historical As a concomitant of ethnography, Kroeber
perspective, hardly changes from the first noted social variation in speech. Information is
edition to the last (1923-1948). That is a scattered through the Handbook, and that for
tribute to its soundness (it is still worth reading), the Yurok is collected in a special article.31
but also a symbol of Kroeber's lack of involve-
ment in the main linguistic developments of Such study was never intensive on Kroeber's
the period. part, and the early ethnographic work that is
most important for linguistics today is that on
From about 1920 to 1950, Kroeber's linguistic kinship. In Classificatory Systems of Relation-
publications consist of a few reviews of linguistic ships,32 he defined eight principles (or cate-
books; some ethnological monographs con-

DELL H. HY MES 695

gories) as basic to the classification of kin by to maintain the public relevance of scientific

relationship terms, and in so doing, showed the work. Although never a reformer or political

way for the semantic (componential) analysis of activist, Kroeber more than once expressed

kinship that has only now come into its own.33 such concern. It is reported from his student

In this paper Kroeber showed himself not days, 40 and it enters as an argument against

only a brilliant analyst, finding principles that the esoteric consequences of Powell's principles

could order a mass of data, but also a polemical of priority in the nomenclature of linguistic

theorist. Here and in subsequent writings on families,41 in the note struck in the introduction

kinship, he insisted (as against Rivers, Radcliffe- to his monumental Handbook, in his praise of

Brown, and their followers) on the linguistic Sapir's book as uniquely a successful populariz-

dimension of kinship. For Kroeber this meant ation,42 in the organization of his classic

that kinship systems could not be explained textbook, whose first eighty-six pages, preceding

entirely by fit to social institutions and practices, the chapter on language, concern the lack of

but must also be understood as systems of objective evidence for belief in racial inferiority,
classificatory logic with a partly independent particularly, as regards the Negro.43

history of their own. That kin terms are lin- Kroeber's substantial interest in the phenom-

guistic facts was taken as warrant for this view,34 ena and science of biology impinged upon his

and as showing historical linguistics to be interest in language. In the first years of the

essential to kinship study. Belief in the latter century he was mainly concerned, like most

point led him to make a trial reconstruction of American anthropologists, to separate the

Athapaskan kin terms and later to urge Hoijer biological from the cultural realm, but, this

to undertake a more nearly definitive study. accomplished, Kroeber took up, unlike most

The conclusion of his Athpaskan paper puts anthropologists, problems of comparison and

the historical matter clearly: continuity. In the first edition of his textbook

Since kinship systems are, first of all, systems of he defined anthropology as concerned with the
classificatory logic expressed in words which are interplay of biological and cultural factors, 44
parts of languages, the analysis and comparison of
such systems without reference to their linguistic and gave special attention to the emergence of
history, so far as this may be available, is an arbitrary
language in the course of human evolution and
its comparison to animal communication.45

limitation on understanding. 35 The latter interest shows in his response to

the theoretical implications of von Frisch's
The point is especially pertinent, for the best work.46 Most important are his articles Sub-

effort so far to reconstruct the evolution of human Cultural Beginnings and On Human

kinship terms on a purely sociological base Nature.47 With renewal of interest in such

seems to have gone wrong in two cases where it questions, Kroeber has been singled out as a

has been linguistically checked.36 pioneer.48

Like other American anthropologists, Kroeber It is not certain when Kroeber first became

was concerned from the first to destroy miscon- interested in systems of communication other

ceptions about the "primitive" languages he than speech. The development of writing and

studied. Part of his early work in typology (and the alphabet was long a subject of special

of his praise of Sapir's Language)37 was directed interest, both in its own right and as an example

against overgeneralizations and prejudices cur- of processes of cultural change and growth.

rent among scholars (and still remarkably alive, (Language phenomena always appealed to

even among linguists).118 For the Popular Kroeber in this regard.) The alphabet has a

Science Monthly (then an intellectual rather than prominent place in both editions of his textbook,

mechanical journal), Kroeber wrote a special and the spread of writing systems provides

article exploding notions of Amerindian lan- several case histories for his concept of stimulus

guages as rapidly changing, barbarous in sound, diffusion.49 Linguistic phenomena indeed pro-

and the like, and many of the points were vide most of the examples in this article, for

incorporated into his textbook.39 Here he several other cases deal with the development

showed his persistent concern not only for of grammatical traditions (in Japan, in China,

objectivity in science, but also for its communi- and in Greece vis-a-vis India), and the diffusion

cation to the general society, as part of a desire of patterns of quantitative meter and rime. His

696 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

interest in sign language appears first in a statistics, especially as stimulated by the
review, later in a discussion of the theoretical research of Josephine Miles.55 She tells of his
import of the first results from research on sign delight at discovering the possibility of tracing
language that he helped sponsor.so long-range temporal patterns in use of words
through the concordances of the major English
Kroeber's interest in literature came early and poets; a study in which he found such a pattern
continued throughout his life. His first publica- for the frequencies of death, dead, die, dying is
tion was a short story, and one activity of his now published,56
last years was to experiment with translating
Heine into English, Housman into German. He As to the history of linguistics, Kroeber of
was a conscious stylist in all his writing. Of course contributed partly as a participant
poetry, he once said, "I soon learned that I had observer. Passages in his writings on predeces-
nothing to say-in verse," but he returned to sors and contemporaries such as Brinton Powell,
creative prose in "Earth-maker," a fictional Boas, Swanton, and Sapir are indispensable
(Mohave) biography written for Elsie Clews to the historian of American linguistics; and
Parson's collection of such, American Indian his personal correspondence with Sapir should
Life (1922), and he included it in his collected be edited (as he himself wished) for the material
essays, as an experiment that was not repeated, of scientific relevance. His participation engaged
to be sure, but yet one with perhaps untried him eventually in full-scale discussion of the
possibilities.51 His field work resulted in publica- authorship of the Powell classification, after
tion of many myths and tales from American allusions throughout his career to the role of
Indians, of which the most significant for the ornithologist Henshaw.57 He contributed an
comparative literature (and linguistics in historical sketch to the final report of the
relation to it) are probably the later Mohave Committee on Research in Native American
pieces.52 In the second Mohave work he states Languages,58 and has helped place the discovery
his conception of stylistic analysis, a critical of Indo-European relationships in the context
comment on the linguistic inadequacy of most of general sience.59 His chief contribution to
of what has passed for stylistic study of Amerin- the history of linguistics is his treatment of it
dian materials: as part of the general problem of the clustering
of peaks in human achievement.60 Most of the
Of course, in any strict sense of the word, style is chapter, dealing with single lines of national
choice of language and can therefore be fully conveyed philology, is successful, forming one of the best
only in the original idiom. Even considered trans- starting points for the student of history of
lation from a text in the original by one who knows linguistics. The end of the chapter, dealing with
the language well will successfully seize only part of the recent period under the two main headings
the style. . . . However, the majority of American of "linguistics" and "comparative philology"
Indian narrative material has been recorded in suffers from closeness to our own time; the lists
English or some other European language. And even of great scholars seem partly arbitrary and
the smaller fraction written and published in text in incomplete. But if the general method were
the original idiom has practically never been subject applied to lines of scholarship defined more pre-
to genuinely stylistic word-by-word analysis.... The cisely and consistently, the results would be
one outstanding exception is the description of quite valuable.
Yokuts linguistic style by Stanley Newman....
Occasional other references to "style" in Indian Two characteristic interests were statistics and
narrative or song usually boil down essentially to style, as ways of ordering and grasping signifi-
matters of form or content ... and not with lin- cance in phenomena. The I 9I 9 monograph
guistically selective form, which, it seems to me, is with Dixon sorted counts of cognates in tables.
what literary style above all means.63 In the 1930's Kroeber's ethnology and linguis-
tics took a decidedly statistical turn as he
It is unfortunate that such comment should be collaborated with H. E. Driver and later S.
necessary, but Radin's Winnebago work is Klimek on the ethnological side, and with C. D.
almost the sole exception, half a century after Chretien on the linguistic side. The general
Boas had insisted that stylistic study had to be mode of approach was the same, seeking statisti-
undertaken with linguistic tools. Kroeber's cal techniques for grouping historically related
other late publications reflect his interest in data, whether California Indian ethnological
long-range perspective,54 sometimes linked with

DELL H. HYMES 697

traits or Inda-European dialect features. The Indeed, Kroeber's work stands as an example
statistics in the middle period was part of its of how the clash between the two cultures
most solid single line of linguistic work, of science and the humanities, of which Sir
subgroupings within known language families. 61 Charles Snow has written, can be resolved
And statistics played a large part in his later in the pursuit of linguistics and anthropology,
linguistic activity, as he encouraged its use by the two disciplines which have both humanistic
others,62 and employed it in critical and con- and scientific roots. Unlike narrow partisans of
structive work himself.63 science, Kroeber never rejected significant data
on the grounds of maintaining the purity of
The word and concept of style came increas- certain methods; unlike narrow partisans of the
ingly to the fore as Kroeber's work unfolded. It humanities, he never rejected useful methods on
played a great part in his contributions to the grounds of maintaining the purity of certain
archaeology, entered into his treatment of other data. He often commented on the importance of
cultural problems(e.g., the stage of development linguistics as an example for anthropology and
of New World civilizations at time of conquest the study of culture, as providing a model and
in Cultural and Natural Areas [1939]), and hope for the scientific treatment of humanistic
reached its fullest statement in his Messenger materials,66 sometimes with regard to historical,
lectures at Cornell (1956). Much of the atten- sometimes descriptive work. It is notable
tion is to art; his doctoral dissertation had been that the "Index of principal topical cross-
on Arapaho decorative art, and a concern for references" to his book, The Nature of Culture,
art history found expression throughout his life. contains as its only linguistic item: "Language
But the stylistic interest goes deeply into his as an example for culture." The citations are
linguistic work as well, and language figures in mostly to the argument that the study of lan-
his major application of the concept of style to guage exemplifies the study of cultural phenom-
civilizations. In the central chapter among the ena in purely cultural terms, and their under-
published lectures, Kroeber concluded: standing through pattern and historical context.
As the dean of American anthropology,
I have faith that a greatly enlarged understanding of Kroeber became involved in its discussions of
civilizations as macrophenomena is attainable, and linguistic questions at conferences and in
that it will include comprehension of the part played various volumes. Two such questions were the
in their constitution by style.64 general relation of language to culture, and the
special relation proposed by Wharf. Kroeber
And in reaching that conclusion, he stated: was senior author of the chief American
treatment of the concept of culture, wherein
That the members of our civilization and of others literally hundreds of authors are cited; but
are very little aware of total style need not discourage strangely, the section on the general relation
us much. Every human language has such a patterned of culture to language does not mention Kroe-
style-we call it its grammar---of which the speakers ber's own statements.67 His view is manifest,
are unaware while speaking, but which can be however, in his textbook and many other
discovered by analysis and can be formulated. The writings: though often distinct in practice,
coherence of a grammar is never total or ideal, but language is part of culture, sometimes an
is always considerable; it certainly much exceeds a especially significant part. In his textbook chap-
catalogue of random items. Cultures are larger, more ter on language emerge his views on the un-
varied and complicated sets of phenomena than conscious nature of cultural patterns, the role
languages, as well as more substantive and less of the individual in history, and the sane
autonomous. But the two are interrelated-in fact, attitude toward cultural relativism (1923, 125-
language is obviously a part of culture, and probably 33). And the concluding review of the Culture
its precondition. So the structure of cultures, like monograph has an important .section that
that of languages, also seems potentially describable begins: "The clearest case is furnished by
in terms of an over-all patterning.•• linguistics.' '68
On the hypothesis associated with Wharf,
For the most part, style is a humanistic Kroeber took always a cautious view, as shown
concept, statistics a scientific tool, but for in his direct comments at the Wenner-Gren
Kroeber there was no clash between the two.
Statistics sometimes served in the description
of style, and both were means to the main
end of discovering the order in phenomena.

698 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

conference of 1952, and at the special conference the pattern of each in its own terms, to discover
in Chicago in 1953.69 His last comments were. the degree of fit, rather than to take one as
deten;ninant of the other. Again, the concept
As soon as we learn how to approach the problem of style and historical context enter: kin terms,
with varying depth of focus . . . it will probably as unconscious systems of classificatory thought,
prove both "true" and "false" at different levels.... are "styles of logic in a limited field of universal
I do not believe t~~t at the present time the Whorfian occurrence. 73
problem can be-so'lved by tests or experiments any
more than by analysis: both evidence and arguments The several conferences and volumes during
simply do not meet counterevidence or argument the early part of the nineteen-fifties involved
... a new basic approach will be needed for a perti- Kroeber in fresh currents of anthropological
nent answer to this intriguing and important discussion about language, and therein is the
problem. 70 prelude or turning point for his increased
linguistic activity. In the first half of the decade
Whorf's proposed language-culture correlations his published linguistic work consisted mostly of
called to Kroeber's mind such attempts at comments and discussions for such occasions,
supersummative patterns as those of Spengler, although he had begun to work again on early
and his book on style and civilization suggests field data. (In 1951 he obtained a grant to aid
that his own new basic approach to the problem completion of linguistic and ethnologic re-
would have been to trace linguistic and cultural searches on California Indians.) The second
patterns historically, looking for congruences five years of the decade saw a spurt of linguistic
but not determinisms. The gist of his thought publication. Some of it was the bringing out
seems to have been to regard language as an of California materials.74 Most striking were the
example of culture, and for the study of culture, papers on new results and approaches in
but not as its matrix. Certainly his bent was lexicostatistics and typology. 75
toward the working out of linguistic patterns
in their own terms with larger correlations or Kroeber was responding to, and helping to
summations to follow. This is especially clear encourage, an· emerging trend. What he per-
in his treatment of two problems. One is ceived is best summarized in his own words:
parallel: reviewing an attempt at cultural and "Linguistics has begun the return to (1)
psychological interpretation of music, he wrote: typology and classification, (2) semantics."76
The interest in semantics, or meaning, was
The author appears to have had a feeling that a a serious one; in his own contribution to
song could best be studied in relation ·to its place in the question of the differential stability
the culture. Ultimately, this feeling is correct. But in of semantic classes of stems, he praised
its first aspect a song presents a musical problem and lexicostatistics for helping bring meaning back
must be brought into relation with other musical into linguistics more definitely,77 and in a
material. It is probably only after the music and the discussion of relations between linguistics and
religion of the Sioux have been separately worked anthropology, singled out meaning for con-
out with some care that endeavors to determine sideration as "one kind of content, one body
the relation between the two can be seriously fruit-
ful. ... In other words, a piece of music associated of phenomena, which language and culture
with a certain cultural activity is first of all music, indubitably share.78 But fresh ideas on classi-
secondly a piece of culture, and only lastly and in- fication and historical interpretation were what
directly an expression of personal emotion. 71
engaged him most, and the changing content
The parallel (mutatis mutandis) to G. L. of his engagement illuminates his life's work.
Trager's formulation of the Whorfian problem What began as a continued concern with
is almost exact.72 And Kroeber dealt just this statistical methods of subgrouping and achiev-
way with the cognitive aspect of kinship, which ing time depth within a genetic perspective led
is perhaps the language-and-culture problem into a new typological perspective (with in-
par excellence of American anthropology. He creased weight given to diffusion). This was a
insisted on the cognitive import of kin terms as development that had come full circle, for the
part of language, but also on their degree of California work had begun with typological and
autonomy of other parts of culture, such that diffusional interpretation.
the problem was always, having worked out The narrative sequence is somewhat mislead-

ing, however, and to understand fully Kroeber's

DELL H. HYMES 699

historical work (his chief linguistic love) and to Boas in the Introduction to his Handbook of
appreciate its value as a legacy, one must realize American Indian Languages) to highlight relativ-
that each of the three main modes of historical ity and explode biased generalizations; 82 and
interpretation for linguistic resemblances, ge- one of his last statements cautioned against
netic, areal, typological, had for him deep and premature statement of universals, and against
lasting roots, the typological in his love of stretching recognition of their importance into
extrication of pattern, the areal in his ethnology, a tacit claim that they are of sole or even primary
the genetic in his regard for its ordering concern. 83 Yet he made no fetish of diversity
power.79 All had a part to play in his concern or exceptions; inadequate general concepts and
for understanding through classification and terms had to be attacked, so that more adequate
context. The key to the shifts in priority of ones could replace them. Indeed, he maintained
attention is that Kroeber, never a partisan of that the goal of an individual description was
one mode of interpretation against another, to place the language in the context of general
worked and recommended according to his linguistics. The attitude is clear in early
sense of the weight of evidence as to the most critiques of typological terminology. He rejected
productive direction of effort at a given time. biased use of a general term such as "incorpo-
He was quick to sense diminishing returns; at ration":
the same time he seldom abandoned an interest,
but kept it at hand (or let it lie fallow). It is thoroughly misleading to designate the same
process respectively "composition" and "incorpo-
This capacity for a mixed strategy is one en- ration" according as one has in mind his own or
during significance of his historical work, and other forms of speech. Some day philologists will
there are other values for us now in his use of approach their profession not with the assumption
each mode of interpretation. In typological that language must differ in kind or in being relatively
work he had a skill for concise characterization better or worse, but with the assumption that ex-
of a language that is worth emulating, and he actly the same fundamental processes run through
demonstrated an approach still waiting further them all, and with the realization that it is only by
development in Amerindian linguistics, when starting from the conception of their essential unity
he aligned Yokuts and Yuki, point-for-point, of type and method that their interesting and impor-
putting differences of structure into relief and tant diversities can be understood. 84
also showing a commonalty of type within the
wider North American context. 80 His last But he likewise rejected ad hoc machinery to
ethnological monograph applied the same fit each case, and in doing so went beyond Boas
approach, and, although he had known Yurok (or beyond Boas as commonly interpreted and
culture for half a century, he found that the followed) to a position just beginning to be
controlled comparison gave him a deeper occupied by the advance guard of American
insight into it. He hoped the approach would linguistics at the present time. In a discussion
be developed by others, so organizing in a new of the structure of the Algonkin verb, Kroeber
way the accumulated rich data on North maintained that to describe each language sui
generis was not enough, that the repudiation of
American cultures, a hope that was part of his frameworks misleadingly extended from other
general concern in his last writings for the languages was only a first step. If traditional
extension of taxonomy, in culture and language, lndo-European categories did not fit Algonkin,
as the indispensable task. 81 And in relating it would be meaningless to invent a novel set
typology to diversity, Kroeber maintained a for Algonkin alone:
balance between extremes that it would be well
to emulate. In much of the present century The determination of what they [Indo-European
there has been a tide toward uniqueness and and Algonkin] have in common, involving as it does
incomparability; now there is a swelling the recognition of that in which they are different,
of emphasis on the essential sameness of is an essential purpose of the study of both: for
languages. Kroeber consistently related his whether our interest lies in the problem of the nature
descriptions of individual languages to the or that of the origin of human speech, a classification
concepts and terms of the general linguistics is involved. In its widest ultimate aspect philology is
of the time, and where the facts required, concerned not with Algonkin as such nor with lndo-
participated vigorously in the trend (set by European as such but with all languages. Only when
speech in general, its scope and its methods, are

700 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

better understood will both Algonkin and lndo- within Southern Paiute, Northern Paiute and
European, or for that matter any particular group Mono, Yokuts, Wintu). 88 Nor was the diffu-
sional aspect of areal resemblances lost from
of languages be more truly understandable. The real sight. He pointed up the problem of grammatical
aim of the study of any American tongue, as well as diffusion as the final topic of his presidential
the aim of any deeper research in lndo-European address, 89 He was sensible of Boas' contention
against Sapir that grammar might be signifi-
philology, must therefore be the more precise and cantly diffused, but took it as a methodological
counter-argument for which Boas had never
fundamental determination of their relations to all developed sufficient evidence. He saw the
other languages: and this necessitates concepts and problem as an empirical one that warranted
terms which are applicable in common. It is impos- systematic investigation to decide among the
alternative interpretations of Ray's work (that
sible to characterize the wolf in terms of his skeleton, IE was exceptional as a group, that Melanesian
the elephant of his embryology, the whale of his was exceptional, or that Ray's analysis was
wrong). Thus it is no surprise that in his last
habits, and then to construct a classification which article in Language he responded to increasing
will help to reveal the inherent nature, the develop- evidence from his Berkeley colleagues of the
ment, or the origin of the animal kingdom. 85 importance of diffusion with reappraisal of
Boas as possibly right.
The point of view of the concluding metaphor It must be noted here that Kroeber's role with
is of a piece with that of his last article in regard to genetic and areal interpretation in
Language. The typological perspective was Amerindian linguistics has been largely ignored
there, if largely latent, through the intervening or misinterpreted. The usual picture is one of
period. Similarly the areal perspective persisted, Boas holding out almost in isolation for the
in the broad sense of tying linguistic phenomena importance of diffusion and areal interpretation
to the map and inferring significance from against Sapir and others hell-bent for long-
their geographical relationships. As a matter of range genetic connections, later being consoled
principle, Kroeber insisted on language as one by news of the areal perspective of many
criterion in the areal classification of cultures, European scholars. 90 Because Kroeber helped
as against primarily ecological approaches. 86 discover new genetic relationships beyond
And areal perspective led him to an original those of Powell, accepted many of Sapir's
contribution to lexicostatistic theory. 87 Salishan results, and criticized Boas' refusal to consider
had been recognized as a family very early, new evidence or value historical reconstruc-
Hokan late and with dispute, yet glottochro- tion, 91 it has been overlooked that he stood as
nology showed similar time depths for both. a third party to the dispute. Not only was his
Pointing out the contiguity of most Salishan approach pragmatic rather than partisan, but
languages, the isolation of most Hokan lan- the principle of areal relationships in language
guages, Kroeber argued that the percentages was stated clearly in his work far earlier than
of retention could be the same, but the sources the writings of the Prague school on Sprach-
of the replacement different. For a Salishan biinde, and earlier, so far as I can ascertain,
language most innovations would be shared with than in any writing of Boas. 92 And, unlike
other Salishan languages, most borrowings Boas, who acted mainly as a methodological
Salishan in origin, keeping relationship ap- critic, Kroeber helped make substantive con-
parent; while for a Hokan language, most tributions to areal interpretation in language.
borrowings would be non-Hokan, innovations Indeed, the kind of work that he did with
unique, obscuring relationship. Geographical Dixon in the first decade of the century still
distribution thus explained the disparity be- largely waits to be taken up again; the mapping
tween the traditional classification and impres- of Amerindian linguistic traits is almost all still
sion of internal diversity, based on inspection to be done.
of vocabulary lists, and the new glottochrono- In genetic classification, Kroeber's middle view
logic time depths. A later article made use of is a healthy legacy, as has been noted; he was
another connection between time perspective open to new findings, yet distinguished careful-
and areal distribution, using the principle that
"close uniformity of speech throughout wide
areas must be due to recency of spread" to
interpret a number of North American cases
(Algonkin, Teton within Dakota, Navaho
within Apachean, Chemehuevi and Kawaiisu

DELL H. HYMES 701

ly between the proven and the prophetic, 93 and trained by himself; Kroeber seemed always
sought to work within the range where con- somewhat shy of the technical core of "phi-
solidation and integration with other lines of lology" or linguistics, as containing methods
historical evidence were possible. whose rigor he admired but with which he did
In reappraising Boas' views on diffusion more not feel wholly conversant, or free, certainly
sympathetically, Kroeber implied that. the new not to the point of modifying them (his use of
genetic results of Haas and others led only to statistics is the one exception). He referred to
anarchy, not in time to an ordered, if novel, himself as "something of a philologist ( = lin-
overall picture. He withdrew the implication, 94 guist)" in his review of Sapir's Language, and
but the heart of his view would seem still to be at most claimed no hesitancy with regard to a
in the passage beginning: content he thoroughly knew, that of California
Indian language (Handbook, vi). In this
The exit from this confounding of the long estab- hesitancy to claim the mantle of full-fledged
lished order seems to be more comparison and more linguist, he was but honest. His training in
taxonomy, and let the genetic and the influencing linguistic analysis came from a self-taught
chips lie where they fall .... When genetic similarity pioneer well before the codification of descrip-
is strong enough to be certain, its findings should of tive methods, and his student contact with the
course continue to be accepted. But when the comparative method was not, like Sapir's,
similarity dilutes into mere possibilities which are first-hand. Whether his bilingualism in German
so scant and scattering that they might be due to and English helped or hurt, he had no special
remnants of original unity, or to contact influences phonetic gift, and told stories on himself in this
or borrowings, or to both sets of causes, some broader regard; nor was extensive phonetic training
strategy of attack is indicated. 95 adequate to the western Amerindian languages
available to him at the time. Moreover, his
Kroeber's developing views, as presented in the task in his years of field work was never solely
conclusion of this article, need some clarifica- linguistics, for had it been, he undoubtedly
tion. The conclusion, for example, seems would have set himself to master and develop
directed primarily to persuasion of those whose descriptive linguistic methods, rather than use
main interest is genetic connection, by suggest- those at hand; but he was responsible for a
ing that other taxonomic methods may probe broad range of data, and his personal sweep of
historical connections even further into the interest reinforced this commitment. Here
past, whereas the earlier portions of §8 (15-18) again is the lesson that something of a double
are general, implying a systematic taxonomy standard must be invoked in judging the
in both language and culture that would apply linguistic contributions made by field workers
at all time levels, remote and near. But it is a in the course of other duties, the value of the
tribute to the man that his latest work has the information being set against the imperfections
vigor of growth. What beside Greenberg's of the record or the lack of excitement in the
typological indices he would have accepted into method.
a program for "achieving a sound linguistic tax- Kroeber's massive contributions of data and
onomy of breadth and depth ... by operating interpretation show how greatly he felt the
with mechanisms that transcend the concept fascination of linguistics, despite his hesitancy.
of genetic unity" (21), we cannot now know. If any serious criticism can be fairly made of his
Clearly, however, the core of the program is California career, it is that he did not see to the
that with which he began: to extract all possible technical training of others during so much
historical significance from linguistic phenom- of the period in which he dominated the Berke-
ena, operating within known genetic relation- ley department. In later years he insisted that
ships, transcending them with typology, al- no anthropology department could claim to be
ways interpreting in reference to the place of first-rate without an active linguistic specialist,
things in time and space, always seeking the but not so in practice during his middle years. 96
largest accessible context in time. In the first years of the Berkeley department,
linguistics was a major part of the instruction
Kroeber's lasting contribution is almost wholly offered, reflecting concern with Amerindian
through his own substantive work and example, languages and Goddard's interest in instru-
not, as with Boas and Sapir, also through an
impact on descriptive method and on students

702 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

mental phonetics. After Goddard left in 1909, massive and effective ethnographic salvage
no other linguist was hired, except for Sapir's program, that of the Culture Element Surveys.
presence as Lecturer in the summer of 1915. It would be jejune to note all this, were it not
Native speakers were given encouragement and that students are part of a scholar's record, and
training, and many students did incidental that the record here involves Kroeber's role in
linguistic work, but the only specialists were American linguistics. When the study of
language in future years shows the fruit of
J. Alden Mason (Univeristy Fellow in 1910 seeds sown by him, it will be through the work
of men, trained by others, who have responded
1911, Research Fellow in 1916-1917), L. S. to his insights and perspective. So far as this
Freeland at the turn of the 1920's, and C. F. will be due to the dip in linguistic activity of
Voegelin in the early 1930's. The Hearst his middle years, it is compensated by his
memorial volume (1923) and Kroeber's fest- encouragement of younger men in his last
schrift (1936) contain but a sprinkling of years, and his attraction of them by his own
linguistic contributions, a sharp contrast to the youthful freshness of mind, for which there
quantity and, in some measure, the quality of are countless anecdotes and illustrations. And if
the special number of Language (1956). In the with him a whole historical period has passed, 97
first years there were few or no graduate stu- much of its value he consciously transmitted
dents, but the influx of the middle years coin- in his person. He knew well how much a value
cided with a period in which anthropology was must change to remain the same.
one of the few settings in which linguistics
could be carried on at the university (philology The dip in linguistic activity must be seen in
was under a cloud there for some time after the proportion. The middle period was scant only
First World Far). The influx unfortunately relative to the standards of productivity of
coincided also with the dip in Kroeber's own someone like Kroeber-not like an artist's
linguistic activity. period of silence, but like a period with few
portraits from a painter who had turned most
In the first half-century of work with Amer- of his attention to murals. Like Boas, Kroeber
indian languages at the University of California, ranged so widely and individually that any
then, after the extensive activity in the first. two conventional framework is too narrow, and to
decades by Kroeber, supplemented by that of estimate him within one is an error. Perhaps he
will not suffer like Boas, who has often been
Dixon, Goddard, Sapir, and Harrington, there judged anachronistically by social anthropolo-
came decades that saw field work by Harrington gists who forget that his major chosen fields
of the BAE, by a Boas student (Reichard on were physical anthropology, folklore, and
Wiyot), Sapir students (Li on Mattole, Newman linguistics. Yet to evaluate Kroeber one must
on Yokuts), Sapir himself (a summer with bring to mind so many contr.ibutions in method,
Hupa), and other friends and associates of the theory, and data in so many lines of work that
department (especially Paul Radin, Jaime de the imagination can hardly hold them all
Angulo and his wife Nancy Freeland, and Hans together, although the character and greatness
Uldall); but, except for Freeland and Voegelin, of the man lie in the whole. He was in his own
none were the University's own products. A
right a cultural world of values, pattern, and
fresh, sustained impetus to the increasingly distinctive style, a world that teaches that value
critical rescue work, and to the training .of and meaning may sometimes emerge more from
linguists to do it, had to wait until the formation the whole of a dedicated career than from any
of the Survey of California Indian Languages one striking event. This is perhaps the core of
by Mary Haas and Murray Emeneau early in his significance for the future relations of
the 1950's. In the intervening period Kroeber linguistics and anthropology. Kroeber's work
and his department concentrated on ethnology embodies the view that linguistic research
and culture history. Kroeber still listed himself is intrinsic to (and a responsibility of)
anthropology. His work carries implicit def-
as actively instructing in Indian languages initions of linguistic anthropology as, simply
(ACLS Bull., 1939, 29:119), but it was the and broadly, study of language within an
Committee on Research in American Native anthropological context, and of the linguistic

Languages, sparked by Boas, that supported
and fought for the urgently needed descriptive
work in California and elsewhere, whereas
Kroeber conceived and carried through a

DELL H. HYMES 703

anthropologist as one who uses linguistic 2. The work of John R. Swanton, in Essays in
Historical anthropology of North America, Smith-
techniques and data to answer anthropological sonian Miscellaneous Collections, 100:2 (1940); a
questions. Sometimes these questions are graduate student at Harvard, Swanton had come to
straightforwardly descriptive ("What is that Columbia to learn linguistics, and wrote his disser-
language like ?"), or classificatory ("Where does tation, one of Harvard's first in anthropology, on the
that language belong?"), sometimes more morphology of the Chinook verb.
complex; but language being part of culture,
language data are cultural data, and there is no 3. Foreword, in D. H. Hymes (Ed.), Language in
necessary chasm between the study of the two. Culture and Society: A Reader in Anthropology and
Linguistics.

Almost any general anthropological question 4. Franz Boas, The Man, AA, 45(3):7 (1943).

can be asked of language, some can be best 5. An Outline of the History of American Indian
Linguistics, ACLS Bulletin, 29:119 (1939).
asked of language, and some cannot be answered 6. E.g., in The Chumash and Costanoan Languages,
without the aid of language. The implicit UCP-AAE, 9(2):237-271 (1910).
definition of linguistic anthropology, the "figure 7. Thus, "Since there is practically no Nisenan
in the carpet" of Kroeber's linguistic work, linguistic material accessible beyond old word lists,
accounts for the diversity of his studies, varying the vocabulary obtained is given in full"-The
across phonetic detail, grammatical typology, Valley Nisenan, UCP-AAE, 24:289 (1929); "There
semantic components, speech development of was no intention of presenting the imperfect lexical

children, statistical subgrouping, and more. All material thus obtained, until it was realized that no

were germane to anthropological questions. vocabulary of Washo has ever been published, and

Kroeber is the best example to set against the that the determination of the language by Powell as
attitude of some anthropologists that linguistics constituting an independent family, however correct
is something apart, reserved for those with a it may be, has never been rendered verifiable by the
miraculous ear or the mind of a mathematical general availability of the information used for the
genius. He respected the rigor of linguistics, determination"-The Washo Language of East
but he also practiced it wherever he could, and Central California and Nevada, UCP-AAE, 4:308
showed that the main thing is a sense of (1907), and Notes on the Ute Language, AA, 10:74
problem. The need in anthropology is not so
(1908).
8. E.g.; "Consequently an occasion for obtaining

much to give anthropologists a training in information as to these two languages, presented

linguistic techniques, although that is important, by the visit to San Francisco . . . of a number of

practically and intellectually. The great need is Shoshoni and Bannock was made use of"-The
for anthropologists to have a sense of anthro- Bannock and Shoshoni Languages, AA, 11 :266
(1909).
pological problems in the data of linguistics.
Where this sense exists, the rest can follow. 9. E.g., Juan Dolores (a Papago) and Gilbert
Natchez (a Paiute); see UCP-AAE, 20 (1923).

1. A full bibliography of Kroeber's writings 10. The Speech of a Zuni Child, AA, 18:529-539
appears in the American Anthropologist (Gibson and
Rome, 1961). Atthe request of the Editor of Language (1916).
I have not tried to duplicate part of that bibliography,
but cite particular writings as they are discussed. 11. Phonetic Constituents of the Native Languages
The abbreviations used include AA: American of California, UCP-AAE, 10:1-12 (1911); Phonetic
Anthropologist; SJA: Southwestern Journal of Elements of the Mohave Language, UCP-AAE,
Anthropology; UCP-AAE: Uni<versity of California 10:45-96 (1911); Phonetics of the Micronesian
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology; Language of the Marshall Islands, AA, 13:380-393
UCP-AR: University of California Publications, (1911); Phonetic Elements of the Diegueno Language,
Anthropological Records; and, as short titles for some UCP-AAE, 17:177-188 (1914); cf. also, Visible
of the books cited above, Handbook, Cultural and Speech, Scientific American, 112:471 (1915).
Natural Areas, Configurations.
12. A good example is found in the history of
Although in the other articles in this book, footnotes gradual recognition of the members of the voiceless
lateral order; the matter is mentioned by Kroeber
have been incorporated into the text, as a practical (UCP-AAE, 10:11 [1911]) and is salient in Boas'
work on the Northwest Coast.

necessity the nearly 100 notes of Hymes' original 13. He had particularly in mind his first colleague

article have been retained as such. Also the style of at Berkeley, Pliny Earle Goddard, who, fresh from

the original publication has been retained in some a degree in philology with Benjamin Ide Wheeler,

respects. The first four notes have been omitted and combined Athabaskan field work and laboratory

the remainder renumbered accordingly. phonetics, using equipment modelled on that current

704 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

in French research. Goddard's study of Hupa territorial continuity of characteristics obtains.
(UCP-AAE, 5:1-20 [1907]) was probably the first
instrumental phonetics done with an American While diversity and irregularity seem the chief
Indian language, and Kroeber, wishing to extend the features of the maps, yet the areas in which similar
use of such methods with American languages,
numeral methods occur are not randomly scattered,
chose Mohave because of familiarity with it through but with few exceptions are geographically contin-
earlier fieldwork (UCP-AAE, 10:45-46 [1911]).
uous. This makes it clear that, with but little
14. On Alternating Sounds, AA, 2:47-53 (1889), borrowing of specific words distinct families have
reprinted in Frederica de Laguna (Ed.), Selected
Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1888-1920 considerably influenced each other as regards their
(New York: Harper& Row, 1960), partly at Kroeber's processes of numeral formation"-AA, 9:671 (1907).
recommendation. Boas used psychophysical data to
explain the supposed alternation of pronunciation 22. AA, 13:319 (1911). (The passage was quoted
as due to alternating apperception of a fixed sound in n. 19 above.)

partly resembling each of two different sounds in 23. UCP-AAE, /0(1):1-12(1911).
the observer's speech. The paper, although falling
short of a phonemic conception, is a remarkable 24. Introduction, UCP-AAE, 4:252-253 (1907).
anticipation of modern work on phonic interference.
25. UCP-AAE, 11:287-289 (1915) are pages of
15. AA, 13:393 (1911): in all essentials the Marshal- special value for understanding this period; see
Iese phonetic traits "are duplicated in the Pima- also SMC, 100:7 (1940).

Papago language of Arizona, and several individual 26. UCP-AAE, 11:288 (1915). Kroeber's contri-
features recur in a number of American languages; butions to this work are found in The Chumash and
but as regards the allied tongues of Malayo-Polyne- Costanoan Languages, UCP-AAE, 9:237-271 (1910),
on Miwok and Costanoan; The Languages of the
sian stock, the Marshall dialect seems to be phoneti- Coast of California North of San-Francisco, UCP-
cally greatly specialized." AAE, 9:273-435 (1911), on presumption of Yurok-
Wiyot connection; Relationship of the Indian
16. Native Languages of California, AA, 5:2 (1903). Languages of California, AA, 14:691 (1912; with
Dixon); The Relationship of the Indian languages
17. The convenience of the first exhaustive and of California, Science, 37:225 (1911); New Linguistic
entirely definite classification was so great that it Families in California, AA, 15:647-655 (1913: with
was soon looked upon as fundamental, and the Dixon); Chantal, Seri, and Yuman, Science, 40:448
(1914); Serian, Tequistlatccan, and Hokan, UCP-
incentive to tamper with it was lost"-Kroeber, AAE, 11:279-290 (1915); and the principal state-
UCP-AAE, 11:288 (1915); cf. UCP-AAE, 16:49 ment, Linguistic Families of California, UCP-AAE,
(1919). 16:47-118 (1919; with Dixon).

18. The Determination of Linguistic Relationship, 27. UCP-AAE, 16:50 (1919).
Anthropos, 8:389-401 (1913), and statements in other
writings of the period, e.g., UCP-AAE, 9:415 28. Lg., 32:17-18 (1956).
(1911).
29. The dialectic divisions of the Moquelumnan
19. The Numeral Systems of California, AA, family in relation to the internal differentiation of
9:690 (1907). other linguistic families of California, AA, 8:652-663
(1906).
20. Its only successor as a systematic study was
inspired by two former students of Kroeber; see 30. UCP-AAE, 12:31-69 (1916).
V. D. Hymes, Athapaskan Numeral Systems, !JAL,
21 :26-45 (1955). 31. Yurok Speech Usages, in Stanley A. Diamond
(Ed.), Culture in 'History: Essays in Honor of Paul
21. "A principle that appears prominent in the Radin (New York: Columbia University Press,
facts that have been presented is that of territorial 1960), pp. 993-999.

continuity of characteristics. A feature is rarely 32. JRAI, 39:77-84 (1909).
found in only one language. When it does occur in 33. See the papers by Lounsbury and Goodenough
several stocks, as is usually the case, these are not in the issue of Language, 32(1) (1956), dedicated to
scattered at random and more or less detached from Kroeber. Kroeber's other important discussions of
the problem are in his California Kinship Systems,
each other, but generally form a continuous or UCP-AAE, 12:339-396 (1916); Kinship and History,
nearly continuous area, however irregular its outline AA, 38:338-341 (1936); Yurok and Neighboring
Kin Term Systems, UCP-AAE, 35:15-22 (1934);
may be. This principle applies as well to types of Athabascan Kin Term Systems, AA, 39:602-608
languages as to single characteristics"-AA, 5:21 (1937). The 1909, 1934, 1936, and 1937 papers are
(1903); "The accompanying maps showing the reprinted in The Nature of Culture (the 1937 paper
geographical distribution by linguistic families of only in part), with introductory comment (172-173).
the various methods of numeral formation, sum
up the material collected and the generalizations 34. " . , . the patterns have had each a history of
its own as a pattern, just as the languages in which
stated. They are in no need of a commentary beyond

a notice of the extent to which the principle of

DELL H. HYMES 705

they occur have had each a history of its own"- Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,

Nature of Culture, p. 200. 38:753-757 (1952).

35. AA, 39:608 (1937); The Nature of Culture, 47. Quarterly Review of Biology, 3:325-342 (1928);

p. 209. SJA, 11:195-294 (1955).

36. The sociological reconstructions are in G. P. 48. The Evolution of Man's Capacity for Culture,

Murdock, Social Structure (New York: Macmillan, Edited by J. N. Spuhler (Detroit, 1959), is inscribed

1949); the linguistic checks are H. Hoijer, Athapaskan as bringing up to date Kroeber's 1928 paper, and

Kinship Systems, AA, 58:309-333 (1956), which give within the volume, Hockett's chapter on animal

bifurcate collateral terms in the first ascending gener- communication vis-a-vis language is dedicated to

ation as against the generation type of terminology him.

proposed by a follower of Murdock (see discussion 49. AA, 42:1-20 (1940).

in D. H. Hymes and H. E. Driver, On Reconstructing 50. Review of W. Tomkins, Indian Sign Language,
Proto-Athapaskan Kinship Terms, AA, 59:151-155 in AA, 29:127 (1927); Sign Language Inquiry,
[1957]), and G. H. Matthews, Proto-Siouan Kin IJAL, 24:1-9 (1958).
Terms, AA, 61:252-278 (1959), which gives an
Omaha system where Murdock inferred a Crow. 51. ·The Nature of Culture, pp. 263 ff.

37. The Dial, 72(3):314-317 (March, 1922). 52. Seven Mohave Myths, UCP-AR, 11 :1-70
(1948); A Mohave Historical Epic, UCP-AR, 11 :76-
38. E.g., W. J. Entwistle, Pre-grammar? Archivum 171 (1951).

Linguisticum, 1:117-125 (1949), and Proceedings 53. A Mohave Historical Epic, UCP-AR, 11:133
VIJ!h International Congress of Linguists (London, (1951).
1956), pp. 96, 392, 411; see pp. 394-396 of the latter
for a statement in refutation by Bernard Bloch. 54. The Novel in Asia and Europe, UCP in Semitic
and Oriental Studies, 11 :233-241 (1951).
39. The Languages of the American Indian, Popular
Science Monthly, 78:500-515 (1911); Anthropology 55. Parts of Speech in Periods of English Poetry,
(1923), pp. 112-119. PMLA, 73:309-314 (1958), a discussion of Miss
40. Essays, xvii. Miles's work.
41. AA, 7:579-593 (1905).
42. "The technique of modern philology has 56. Theodora and A. L. Kroeber, Shropshire
something superb about it. It is as austere as anything Revisited, KASP, 25:1-18 (1961).
in the world. The work of an accepted leader like
57. Kroeber, Systematic Nomenclature in Etimol-
Brugmann is of an order unsurpassed in any branch ogy, AA, 7:580 (1905); Some Relations of Linguistics
of learning. But it cannot be popularized . , . [Here is and Ethnology, Lg., 17:288 (1940); Concluding
where Sapir's book is new] ... It is unique in its Review, in Sol Tax et al. (Eds.), An Appraisal of
field, and is likely to become and long remain stand- Anthropology Today (Chicago: University of Chicago
ard"-The Dial, 72(3):314, 317 (1922). Press, 1953), p. 369; Powell and Henshaw: An
Episode in the History of Ethnolinguistics, AL,
43. This in 1923. Kroeber's distaste for antiquari- 2(4):1-5 (1960). The full-scale discussion in the last
anism and insistence on public relevance appear paper was prompted by W. C. Sturtevant, Authorship
most strongly here: "obviously the heterogeneous of the Powell Linguistic Classification, IJAL, 25:196-
leavings of several sciences will never weld into an 199(1959). The basis of the matter is a visit to Kroeber
by Henshaw early in the century. In date and content
organized and useful body of knowledge.... As a Kroeber's own 1905 paper (cited above) corroborates
co-laborer on the edifice of fuller understanding, his memory of the event 55 years later.
anthropology must find more of a task than filling
with rubble the temporarily vacant spaces in the 58. An Outline of the History of American Indian
masonry that the sciences are rearing"-Anthropol- Linguistics, ACLS Bulletin, 29:116-120 (1939).
ogy, p. 2.
59. Evolution, History, and Culture, in Sol Tax
44. "Here, then, is a specific task and place in the (Ed.), Evolution after Darwin (Chicago: University
sun for anthropology: the interpretation of these of Chicago Press, 1960), vol. 2, pp. 1-16;
phenomena into which both organic and social causes the section is "An Exception: Philology," pp 8-9.
enter. The untangling and determination and recon-
60. Philology, Configurations of Culture Growth

ciling of these two sets of forces are anthropology's (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California

own. They constitute, whatever else it may undertake, Press, 1944), chap. 4, pp. 215-238.

the focus of its attention and an ultimate goal."- 61. Relationships of the Australian Languages,

Anthropology, pp. 3-4. Proc. Royal Sec. New S. Wales, 57:101-117 (1923);

45, Sections on The Biological and Historical Nature Uta-Aztecan Languages of Mexico, Ibero-Americana,
of Language, Problems of the Relation of Language 8 (1934); Quantitative Classification of Inda-European
Languages, Lg., 13:83-103 (with Chretien); of Mayan
and Culture, Period of the Origin of Language, languages, in Cultural and Natural Areas (1939),
Anthropology, pp. 106-110. pp. 112-114; The Statistical Technique and Hittite,

46. Sign and Symbol in Bee Communication,

706 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

Lg., 15:69-71 (1939; with Chretien); Classification (1958); Northern Yokuts, AL, 1(8):1-19 (1959);
of the Yuman languages, UCPL, 1:21-40 (1943). The Sparkman Grammar of Luiseno, (UCPL 16;
1960; with George Grace); Yurok Speech Usages
62. E.g., "[there are] two new developments to (see n. 35); and two Yokuts monographs now in
chronicle, both of interest to cultural anthropologists press. Kroebcr also resumed work on Yuki, and one
in their results, and both using quantitative expres- note reached print: Possible Athapaskan Influences
sion" (referring to Iexicostatistics and Greenberg's on Yuki, !JAL, 25:59 (1959).
typological indices)-History of Anthropological
Thought, in W. L. Thomas (Ed.), Current Anthropol- 75. Linguistic Time Depth Results So Far and
ogy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), Their Meaning, !JAL, 21:91-104 (1955); Romance
pp. 296-297. History and Glottochronology, Lg., 34:454-457
(1958); Reflections and Tests on Athabascan Glotto-
63. In lexicostatistics: Linguistic Time Depth
Results So Far and Their Meaning, !JAL, 21 :91-104 chronology, Ethnographic Interpretations 8, UCP-
(1955) ; Romance History and G lottochronology, AAE, 47:241-258 (1959); Statistics, Indo-European,
Lg., 34:454-457 (1958); Reflections and Tests on and Taxonomy, Lg., 36:1-21 (1960); Typological
Athabascan Glottochronology, UCP-AAE, 47:241- Indices I: Ranking of Languages, !JAL, 26:171-177
258 (1959); Semantic Contribution of Lexicostatis-
tics, !JAL, 27:1-8 (1961). On Greenberg's quantita- (1959); Semantic Contribution of Lexicostatistics,
tive typology, besides encouragement in Critical !JAL, 27:1-8 (1961).
Summary and Comment, in R. E. Spencer (Ed.),
Method and Perspective in Anthropology: Papers in 76. Addendum, Report on Anthropological Horizons
Honor of Wilson D. Wallis (Minneapolis: University (preliminary version) 70 (Wenner-Gren Foundation
of Minnesota Press, 1954), pp. 273-299, and in for Anthropological Research, 1960).
Lg., 36:20-21 (1960), the first paper of an intended
series, Typological Indices I: Ranking of Languages, 77. !JAL, 27:8 (1961).
!JAL, 26:171-177 (1960). 78. Foreword, Language in Culture and Society:
A Reader in Anthropology and Linguistics.
64. Style and Civilizations, p. 107.
65. Ibid., p. 106. 79. E.g., "The situation is one of those not infre-
66. E.g., "Linguistics is a genuine natural science quently arising in which the philologist, and only
dealing with intangible phenomena. That it grew out he, can come to the ethnologist's or historian's
of culture-bound contexts augurs well for the study rescue. A do.zen randomly preserved facts from the
of culture"-concluding review, in Sol Tax et al. history of civilization of a nation are almost certain
(Eds.), An Appraisal of Anthropology Today (Chicago: to be so disconnected as to allow only of the most
University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 368. general or doubtful inferences; the same number of
words, if only they and their meanings are carefully
67. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn, Culture: A written down, may, if there are more fully cognate
Critical Review of Concepts and Definition, Papers tongues, suffice to determine with reasonable assur-
of the Peabody Musueum of American Archaeology and
Ethnology(Harvard University),47(1):ll5-124 (1952). ance the provenience and the main outlines of the
national existence of a lost people. The student of
68. Culture, p. I 88. history who permits the difference of material and
69. Concluding Review, in Sol Tax et al. (Eds.), An technique of the sister science philology to lead him
Appraisal of Anthropology Today (Chicago: University into the lax convenience of disregarding it as some-
of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 370 (the Whorf corre- thing alien and useless, withdraws his hand from one
lations are not proved); comments passim- in H. of the most productive tools within his reach-on
Hoijer (Ed.), Language in Culture (Chicago: Univer- occasion his only serviceable instrument"-Hand-
sity of Chicago Press, 1954), such as that the Whorf book, p. 281; Kroeber considered the Handbook a
insights are very interesting but hard to prove (pp. history.
231-232) and need certain kinds of testing (p. 274).
80. The Yokuts and Yuki Languages, Boas Anni-
70. Prepared comments on Clyde Kluckhohn, versary Volume (New York: 1906), pp. 64-79: The
Notes on Some Anthropological Aspects of Commu- conclusion states in part: "the degree to which their
nication, Wenner-Gren Foundation Symposium, 7 similarities are fundamental is quickly and convinc-
(1960). I am much indebted to the director of the ingly apparent when they are even superficially
Foundation, Paul Fejos, for copies of the paper and compared with such languages as Iroquois, Algon-
the comments. quin, Shoshonean, Eskimo, Nahuatl, Wakashan,
Chinook, Salish, or Siouan" (p. 78),
71. Review of Frances Densmore, Teton Sioux
Music, AA, 20:446-450 (1918). 81. E.g., "I feel that the study of both culture and
language is in crying need, in its own right, of far
72. G. L. Trager, The Systematization of the Sapir- more sytematic classification of their multifarious
Whorf Hypothesis, AL, 1(1):31-38 (1959). phenomena. Perhaps we have had a surplus of bright
ideas and a shortage of consistent ordering and
73. AA, 38:340 (1936). comparison of our data"-Lg., 36:17 (1960); "The
74. An Atsugewi Word List, !JAL, 24:203-204 situation is made more difficult by the fact that

DELL H. HYMES 707

anthropologists still tend to value personal expertise, the sharpness of classificatory conceptualization .of
technical virtuosity, cleverness in novelty, and do not
yet clearly recognize the fundamental value of the culture. But as long as speech is in culture, and cul-
humble but indispensable task of classifying-that tures are what we are classifying, speech obviously

is, structuring-our body of knowledge, as biologists belongs in the picture"-Comments to P. Kirchoff,
did begin to recognize it two hundred years ago"- Gatherers and Farmers, AA, 56:556-559 (1954).
Evolution, History, and Culture, in Sol Tax (Ed.),
Evolution after Darwin (Chicago: University of 87. Linguistic Time Depth Results So Far and
Chicago Press, 1960), vol. 2, p. 14. Their Meaning, !JAL, 21:91-105 (1955).

82. His repeated discussions of the use of supple- 88. Recent Ethnic Spreads, UCP-AAE, 47:235-310
tive stems for number in verbs, of the relations of (1959).
objective and subjective forms to each other and to
verbs, of the presence or absence of pronominal 89. Lg., 17:290-291 (1940), regarding Ray's work
incorporation, are all with an eye toward then current on Melanesian; Kroeber had reviewed Ray's book a
typological generalizations about Amerindian lan- quarter-century before, AA, 29:705 (1927).
guages.
90. Roman Jakobson, Franz Boas' Approach to
83. Prepared comment on Clyde Kluckhohn, Language, !JAL, 10:188-195 (1944). The disagree-
Notes on Some Anthropological Aspects of Com- ment between Boas and Sapir and the theoretical
munication (1960).
issue have been explicated by Morris Swadesh,
84. Noun Incorporation in American Languages,
Verh. der XVI. Internationalen Amerikanisten- Diffusional Cumulation and Archaic Residue as
Kongress (Wien, 1909), pp. 569-576; Noun Compo- Historical Explanations, SJA, 7:1-21 (1951).
sition in American Languages, Anthropos, 5:204-218
(1910). When Sapir then showed that "incorporation" 91. E.g., in !JAL, 21:92-93 (1955), and SMC,
could be given precise descriptive content (The 100:7 (1940).
Problem of Noun Incorporation in American lan-
guages, AA, 13:150-282 [1911]), Kroeber, noting that 92. Seen. 25.
Sapir's explication related it to stem-compounding, 93. Cf. Lg., 17:289 (1940); SMC, 100:7 (1940).
offered a fourfold typology of stem-compounding in 94. "I do not think the overall anarchy will be
terms of parts of speech that did away with need for permanent-more like a tum of the tide: still flowing
the term "incorporation" altogether: Incorporation
as a Linguistic Process, AA, 13:577-584 (1911). out and the new flood coming in. I'm not in the least
85. Arapaho Dialects, UCP-AAE, 12:71-138, pessimistic over it; stimulated rather"-Personal
esp. 93, (1916), In the monograph Kroeber accepts communication, July 12, 1960.
rehabilitation of terms such as "incorporation" and
"polysynthetic," as convenient designations for 95. Lg., 36:19-20 (1960).
particular applications of general processes (pp. 91- 96. Sapir spent a year before his degree as Research
92). Fellow at Berkeley, but: "Sapir's stay fell in the termi-

86. "Language itself is a natural part of culture from nal year of a second period of affluence and research
one point of view, though it can also be separated off activity provided for the Department and Museum of
for other purposes of study. I have therefore not
hesitated to put Paiute and Walapai into separate Anthropology by Regent Phoebe Apperson Hearst.
subareas and even main areas in my maps. It is true In the summer of 1908 came a renewed and deeper
that Yuman speech (Walapai) would be as practicable cut in resources, with the University assuming
north of the Grand Canyon as south of it or for that
matter in the Colorado River bottomlands; any responsibility for all staff salaries ; this circumstance
historically particularized language is in its nature
impervious to such interadaptation with environment. rendered a continuation of Sapir's connection with
Consideration of speech may therefore tend to blur the University impossible. In fact the staff of Anthro-

pology-Museum and Department-was reduced
to the two original academic appointees: Goddard and

myself. A year later, Goddard, depressed by the

contracted prospects at Berkeley, accepted an
appointment with the American Musuem in New

York."-Kroeber's preface, E. Sapir and M.
Swadesh, Yana Dictionary, edited by M. R. Haas
(UCPL 22. v; 1960).

97. C. Levi-Strauss, L'Express (Paris, October 20,
1960), pp. 32-33,

REFERENCE NOTE

This note is organized in two parts: (A) concerning Kroeber; (B) concerning the
history of linguistics and of linguistic work in anthropology.

A. KROEBER

For a brief but excellent discussion of Kroeber's linguistic work, see Hoijer

708 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

(1960). For discussion of other aspects of his work, see Rowe (1962) and Steward
(1961). For his complete bibliography as of mid-1961, see Gibson and Rowe (1961).

References not in the general bibliography:

GIBSON, ANN J., and JOHN H. ROWE
1961. A Bibliography of the Publications of Alfred Louis Kroeber. AA, 63:
1060-1087.

HOIJER, HARRY

1960. Alfred L. Kroeber 1876-1960. AL, 2 (8): 31-32.

ROWE, JOHN H.

1962. Alfred Louis Kroeber 1876-1960. American Antiquity, 27: 395-415.

STEWARD, JULIAN H.

1961. Alfred Louis Kroeber 1876-1960. AA, 63: 1038-1060.

B. HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS AND LINGUISTIC WORK IN ANTHROPOLOGY

The present surge of interest in the history of linguistics will result in a number
of new and valuable treatments. At present no really satisfactory general study is
available, but a number of relatively adequate and accessible accounts can be
consulted, such as Arens (1955), Benfey (1869), Bloomfield (1914, chap. 10),
Carroll (1953, pp. 15-23, 246-268), Cassirer (1923, chap. 1 [pp. 117-176 in the 1953
translation]; 1944, chap. 8), Gray (1939), Jakobson (1933), Jespersen (1922, Book I),
Kroeber (1944, chap. 4), Meillet and Cohen (1952, pp. xvii-xiii), Pedersen (1931),
Sandys (1903, 1908), Steinthal (1863), Thomsen (1927), White (1896, chap. 17).
Accounts more limited in scope are also found in W. Sidney Allen (1949, 1953),
Brough (1951), Bloomfield (1933, chap. 1), Cassirer (1945), Emeneau (1955),
Grundriss (1916), Meillet (1934, Appendix), Robins (1951, 1958), Verburg (1949,
1952). T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Profiles of Linguists by Linguists (in preparation) will be
an especially valuable resource. In general, consult obituary articles in linguistic
journals and the section on the history of linguistics in the issues of the Linguistic
Bibliography. ·

On the history of linguistic work in anthropology, and hence, of linguistic
anthropology, see the general discussions in Boas (1904), Hymes (1963c), Kroeber
(1950), Levi-Strauss (1949, 1953b, 1960d), Pennimann (1952, pp. 195-204, 435);
with particular reference to American anthropology, also see Frederica De Laguna
(1960, pp. 380-383), Hallowell (1960, pp. 23-34), Kroeber (1939b), and Wissler
(1942). See also, of course, the introductions to the Parts of this book, especially
to Part I and the articles and references therein.

References not in the general bibliography:

ALLEN, W, SIDNEY

1949. Ancient Ideas on the Origin and Development of Language. Transactions
of the Philological Society (London, 1948). Pp. 35-60. London.

1953. Phonetics in Ancient India. (London Oriental Series, No. 1.) London:
Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, for the School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London.

ARENS, HANS

1955. Sprachwissenschaft. Der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur
Gegenwart. Munich and Freiburg: Alber.

DELL H. HYMES 709

BENFEY, THEODOR

1869. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und Orientalischen Philologie in
Deutschland seit dem Anfange des 19. Jahrhunderts mit einem Ruckblick
au/ die fruheren Zeiten. (Geschichte der Wissenschaften in Deutschland,
herausgegeben <lurch die Historische Commission bei der Konig!.
Academie der Wissenschaften, No. 8.) Munich: Cotta'schen Buch-
handlung.

BOAS, FRANZ

1904. The History of Anthropology. Science, 20: 513-524.

BROUGH, JOHN

1951. Theories of General Linguistics in the Sanskrit Grammarians. Transac-
tions of the Philological Society (London). Pp. 27-46. London.

[ GRUNDRISS DER INDOGERMANISCHEN SPRACH- UND ALTERTUMSKUNDE]

1916-. (Series of histories of linguistics with extensive bibliography.l Strassburg;
then Berlin and Leipzig: de Gruyter.

HALLOWELL, A. IRVING

1960. The Beginnings of Anthropology in America. In Frederica De Laguna
(Ed.), Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1888-1920.
New York: Harper & Row. Pp. 1-90.

KROEBER, A. L.

1944. Configurations of Culture Growth. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
of California Press.

PENNIMANI T. K.

1952. A Hundred Years of Anthropology. 2nd rev. ed. London: Duckworth.

ROBINS, R. H.

1951. Ancient and Medieval Grammatical Theory in Europe. London: Bell.
(Reviewed, H. Hoenigswald, Lg., 1953, 29: 179-182.]

1958. Dionysius Thrax and the Western Grammatical Tradition. Transactions
of the Philological Society (London, 1957). Pp. 67-106. London.

SANDYS, SIR JOHN EDWYN

1903. A History of Classical Scholarship. Vol. I, From the Sixth Century B.C. to
the End of Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(3rd rev. ed., 1921.)

1908. A History of Classical Scholarship. Vol. II, From the Revival of Learning
to the End of the Eighteenth Century; Vol III, The Eighteenth Century in
Europe and the United States of America. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. [Reprinted, New York: Hafner, 1958, vols. I-II, III.]

STEINTHAL, HEYMANN

1863. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Romern mit
Besonderer Rucksicht auf die Logik. Berlin: Di.immlers Verlagsbuch-
handlung. (2nd rev. ed., 1890; reissued 1961.)

THOMSEN, VILHELM L. P.

1927. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bis zum Ausgang des 19 Jahrhunderts;
Kurzgefasste Darstellung der Hauptpunkte. Translated from the Danish
by Hans Pollak. Halle: Niemeyer. (Original Danish edition, 1919;
translated with prologue and epilogue by Javier de Echave-Sustaeta,

710 ALFRED LOUIS KROEBER

Historia de la linguistica. [Colleccion Labor, Seccion 3, Ciencias literarias,
418.] Barcelona, Madrid, Buenos-Aires, Rio de Janeiro: Editorial Labor,
1945.)

VERBURG, P. A.

1949. The Background to the Linguistic Conceptions of Bopp. Lingua, 2:
438-468.

1952. Taal en Functionaliteit. Wageningen: Veenman and Sons. [Reviewed,
R. G. Faithfull, Archivum Linguisticum, 1955, 7: 144-150.]

WHITE, A. D.

1896. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. New
York. (Reprinted, New York: Dover, 1960, 2 vols.)

WISSLER, CLARK

1942. The American Indian and the American Philosophical Society. PAPS,
86: 189-204.

General Bibliography

Articles marked with an asterisk are included (complete or in part) in the text.

ABERLE, DAVID F.

1960. The Influence of Linguistics on Early Culture and Personality Theory.
In Gertrude E. Dole and Robert L. Carneiro (Eds.), Essays in the Science
of Culture in Honor of Leslie A. White. New York: Crowell. Pp. 1-29.

ADAMS, JOHN BOMAN

*1957. Culture and Conflict in an Egyptian Village. AA, 59: 225-235.

ALLEN, HAROLD B. (ED.)

1958. Readings in Applied English Linguistics. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts. [2nd ed., enlarged, 1963.]

ASCH, SOLOMON E.

1958. The Metaphor: A Psychological Inquiry. In R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo
(Eds.), Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford: Stanford
University Press. Pp. 86-94.

AUSTIN, WILLIAM M. (ED.)

1960. Report of the Ninth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and
Language Study; Anthropology and African Studies. (Monograph Series
on Languages and Linguistics, No. 11.) Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.

BALLY, CHARLES

1950. Linguistique generale et linguistique franfaise. (3rd ed. [same as 2nd].)
Bern: Francke. (1st ed., 1932.)

1951. Traite de stylistique franfaise. (3rd ed.) Geneva: Georg; Paris: Klinck-
sieck. 2 vols. (1st ed., 1909.)

1952. Le Langage et la vie. (3rd ed.) (Societe de Publications Romanes et
Frarn;aises, No. 34.) Geneva: Droz; Lille: Giard. (Previous editions,
1925, 1935.)

BARKER, GEORGE C.

1945. The Social Functions of Language. ETC.: A Review of General Semantics,
2: 228-234.

1950. Pachuco: An American Spanish Argot and Its Social Functions in Tucson,
Arizona. (University of Arizona Social Science Bulletin, No. 18.) Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.

711

712 GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

BARKER, ROGER G., and LOUISE BARKER
1961. Behavior Units for the Comparative Study of Cultures. In Bert Kaplan
(Ed.), Studying Personal£ty Cross-Culturally. New York: Harper & Row.
Pp. 457-476.

BARKER, ROGER G., and HERBERT F. WRIGHT
1954. Midwest and Its Children. New York: Harper & Row.

BASCOM, WILLIAM R.

1949. Literary Style in Yoruba Riddles. ]AF, 62: I-67.

BASILIUS, HAROLD

1952. Neo-Humboldtian Ethnolinguistics. Word, 8: 95-105.

BAZELL, C. F.

1954. The Choice of Criteria in Structural Linguistics. In Martinet (Ed.),
Linguistics Today. ,Pp. 126-135. [Same as Word, 10: 2-3.]

BECKWITH, MARTHA W.

1922. Hawaiian Riddling. AA, 24: 311-331.

BENDER, HAROLD H.

1922. Home of the Indo-Europeans. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

BERGSLAND, KNUT, and HANS VOGT
1962. On the Validity of Glottochronology. CA, 3: 115-158.

BERNSTEIN, BASIL

*1961. Aspects of Language and Learning in the Genesis of Social Process.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1: 313-324.

BLACK, MAX

1949. Language and Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
1962. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

BLOCH, BERNARD, and GEORGE L. TRAGER
1942. Outline of Linguistic Analysis. (Special Publications of the Linguistic
Society of America.) Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.

BLOCH, JULES

1910. Castes et dialectes en Tamoul. Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de
Paris, 16: 1-30.

BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD

1914. An Introduction to the Study of Language. New York: Holt.
1925. Why a Linguistic Society? Lg., 1: 1-5.
1926. A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language. Lg., 2: 153-164,

[Reprinted in !JAL, 15: 195-202 (1949); also in Martin Joos (Ed.).
Readings in Linguistics. Washington: American Council of Learned
Societies. Pp. 26-31.]
*1927a. Literate and Illiterate Speech. American Speech, 10: 432-9.
1933. Language. New York: Holt.
1942a. Philosophical Aspects of Language. In Studies in the History of Culture.
The Disciplines of the Humanities. (Published for the Conference of
Secretaries of the American Council of Learned Societies.) Menasha,
Wis.: Banta. Pp. 173-177.
1942b. Outline Guide for the Practical Study of Foreign Languages. Baltimore:
Linguistic Society of America.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 713

1943a. Meaning. Monatshefte fiir deutschen Unterricht, 35: 101-116.
1944. Secondary and Tertiary Responses to Language. Lg., 20: 45-55.

BOAS, FRANZ

1889. On Alternating Sounds. AA (o.s.), 2: 47-53. [Also in Frederica De
Laguna (Ed.), Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1888-
1920. New York: Harper & Row. Pp. 385-402.)

1904. The History of Anthropology. Science, 20: 513-524 (October 21).
1907. Language. In F. W. Hodge (Ed.), Handbook of American Indians North

of Mexico. (BAE-B 30.) Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution,
1907-1910. Vol. I, pp. 757-759.
*1911. Introduction. Handbook of American Indian Languages, (BAE-B 40, Part
I.) Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Pp. 1-83.
1914. Mythology and Folk-tales of the North American Indians. ]AF, 27:
374-410. [Also in Boas, 1940, pp. 451-490.)
1917. Introductory. !JAL, 1: 1-8. [Also in Boas, 1940, pp. 199-210.)
1920a. The Classification of American Languages. AA, 22: 367-376. [Also in
Boas, 1940, pp. 211-218.)
1920b. The Methods of Ethnology. AA, 22: 311-321. [Also in Boas, 1940, pp.
281-289.)
1925. Stylistic Aspects of Primitive Literature. ]AF, 38: 329-339. [Also in
Boas, 1940, pp. 491-502.)
1929a. Classification of American Indian Languages. Lg., 5: 1-7. [Also in Boas,
1940, pp. 219-225.)
1929b. Metaphorical Expressions in the Language of the Kwakiutl Indians. In
Verzameling van Opstellen door Oud-Leerlingen en Bevriende Vakgenoten
opgedragen aan Mgr. Prof. Dr. Jos. Schrijnen, 3 Mei 1929. Chartres.
Pp. 147-153. [Also in Boas, 1940, pp. 232-239.J
*1934. Geographical Names of the Kwakiutl Indians. (Columbia University
Contributions to Anthropology, No. 20.) New York: Columbia University
Press.
1937. Some Traits of the Dakota Language. Lg., 13: 137-141. [Also in Boas,
1940, pp. 226-231.]
1938a. General Anthropology. New York: Heath.
1938b. Language. In Boas, General Anthropology. New York: Heath. Pp. 124-
145.
1939a. A Report of the Committee on Research in American Native Languages,
1927-1937. American Council of Learned SocietiRs Bulletin, no. 29: 105-
115.
1940. Race, Language and Culture. New York: Macmillan.
1942. Language and Culture. In Studies in the History of Culture. The Disci-
plines of the Humanities. (Published for the Conference of Secretaries of
the American Council of Learned Societies.) Menasha, Wis.: Banta. Pp.
178-184.

BOGATYREV, P., and ROMAN JAKOBSON
1929. Die Folklore als eine besondere Form des Schaffens, Donum Natalicium
SchriJnen. Nijmegen-Utrecht. Pp. 900-913.

BONFANTE, GIULIANO

1947. The Neolinguistic Position. Lg., 23: 344-375.

714 GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

BONFANTE, GIULLIANO, and THOMAS A. SEBEOK
1944. Linguistics and the Age and Area Hypothesis. AA, 46:382-386.

BRIGHT, WILLIAM 0.

1960a. Linguistic Change in Some Indian Caste Dialects. In Charles A. Ferguson
and John J. Gumperz (Eds.), Linguistic Diversity in South Asia.
(RCAFL-P 13; !JAL, 26 [3], Part III.) Bloomington. Pp. 19-26.

*I960b. Social Dialect and Language History. CA I (5-6): 424-425.

1963. Language. In B. J. Siegel (Ed.), Biennial Review of Anthropology 1963.

Stanford: Stanford University Press. Pp. 1-29.

BROWER, REUBEN A. (ED.)

1959. On Translation. (Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature, No. 23.)
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

BROWN, ROGER W.

1956. Language and Categories. In J. S. Bruner, J. J. Goodnow, and G. A.
Austin, A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley. Pp. 247-312.

1957. Linguistic Determinism and the Parts of Speech. JASP, 55: I-5.
1958. Words and Things. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
BROWN, ROGER w., and MARGUERITE FORD
*1961. Address in American English. JASP, 62: 375-385.
BROWN, ROGER w., and A. GILMAN
1960. The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity. In Thomas A. Sebeok (Ed.),

Style in Language. New York: Wiley; Cambridge: Technology Press.
Pp. 253-276.
BROWN, ROGER w., and ERIC H. LENNEBERG
1954. A Study in Language and Cognition. JASP, 49: 454-462.
1958. Studies in Linguistic Relativity. In Eleanor Maccoby, T. H. Newcomb,
and E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. (3rd ed.) New
York: Holt. Pp. 9-18.

BRUNER, J. s., J. J. GOODNOW and G. A. AUSTIN
1956. A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley.

BRYANT, MARGARET M.

1962. Modern English and Its Heritage. (2nd ed.) New York: Macmillan.
(1st ed., 1948.)

BUHLER, KARL

1934. Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fisher.

BULL, WILLIAM A.

*1955. The Use of Vernacular Languages in Fundamental Education. !JAL, 21:
288-294.

BURKE, KENNETH

1945. A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall.
1951a. A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall.
1957. The Philosophy of Literary Form. Studies in Symbolic Action. (Rev. ed.

abridged by the author.) New York: Vintage Books (K-51). (1st ed.,
1941.)
1958. The Poetic Motive. The Hudson Review, 11: 54-63.
1961. The Rhetoric of Religion. Boston: Beacon.
1962. What Are the Signs of What? AL, 4 (6): 1-23.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 715

BURLING, ROBBINS

1962. A Structural Restatement of Njamal Kinship Terminology. Man, 62:
122-124 (Article 201).

CARNAP, RUDOLPH

1942. Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

CARPENTER, EDMUND, and MARSHALL MCLUHAN (EDS.)
1960. Explorations in Communication: An Anthology. Boston: Beacon.

CARROLL, JOHN B.

1953. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1958. Some Psychological Effects of Language Structure. In P. Hoch and J.

Zubin (Eds.), Psychopathology of Communication. New York: Grune and
Stratton. Pp. 28-36.

CARROLL, JOHN B. (ED.)

1956. Language, Thought, and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee
Wharf. New York: Wiley; Cambridge: Technology Press.

CARROLL, JOHN B., and JOSEPH B. CASAGRANDE
1958. The Function of Language Classifications in Behavior. In Eleanor
Maccoby, T. H. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social
Psychology. (3rd ed.) New York: Holt. Pp. 18-31.

CASAGRANDE, JOSEPH B.

*1948. Comanche Baby Language. IJAL, 14: 11-14.
1954-1955. Comanche Linguistic Acculturation, I, II, III. IJAL, 20: 140-151,
217-237; 21: 8-25.

CASSIRER, ERNST

1923. Philosophie der symbolischen Formen: Die Sprache. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.
(Translated by Ralph Mannheim, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms,
Vol. I, Language. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.)

1944. An Essay on Man. An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture.
New Haven: Yale University Press. (New York: Doubleday Anchor
Books [A3], 1953.)

1945. Structuralism in Modern Linguistics. Word, 1: 99-120.

CATALAN, DIEGO (ED.)

1957-1958. Misceldnea homenaje a Andre Martinet: Estructruralismo e historia.
(Biblioteca filologica de la Universidad de la Lagune.) Tenerife, Canarias:
Universidad de la Laguna (Distribucion, Editorial Gredos, Madrid).
[Reviewed, F. H. Jungemann, Word, 15: 465-484 (1959); R. A. Fowkes,
Lg., 1959, 35: 78-90.]

CHAFE, WALLACE (ED.)

1963. Aspects of Language and Culture. (Proceedings, American Ethnological
Society, Washington, D.C., 1962.) Seattle: University of Washington
Press.

CHAO, YUEN-REN

1931. Eight Varieties of Secret Language Based on the Principle of Fanch'ieh.
Academia sinica, National Research Institute of History and Philology,
Bulletin, 2: 312-354. Peiping. [Text in Chinese.]

1956. Chinese Terms of Address. Lg., 32: 142-149.

716 GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHERRY, COLIN

1957. On Human Communication. A Review, a Survey, and a Criticism.
Cambridge: Technology Press. (New York: Science Editions, 1961.)

CHOMSKY, N.

1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.

CHOWDHURY, MUNIER

1960. The Language Problem in East Pakistan. In Charles A. Ferguson and
John J. Gumperz (Eds.), Linguistic Diversity in South Asia. (RCAFL-P
13; !JAL, 26 [3], Part III.) Bloomington. Pp. 64-78.

COHEN, MARCEL

1950. Le Langage, structure et evolution. Paris: Editions Sociales.
1956a. Pou~ une Sociologie du langage. Paris: Paris Editions, Albin Michel.
1956b. Social and Linguistic Structure. Diogenes, 15: 38-47.

COLE, D. T.

*1953. Fanagalo and the Bantu Languages in South Africa. Africa Studies, 12:
1-9.

CONKLIN, HAROLD C.

*1955. Hanunoo Color Categories. SJA, 1l: 339-344.
1956. Tagalog Speech Disguise. Lg., 32: 136-139.
1957. Hanunoo Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.

*1959. Linguistic Play in Its Cultural Context. Lg., 35: 631-636.
1962. Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomies. In Fred W. House-
holder and Sol Saporta (Eds.), Problems in Lexicography. (RCAFL-P
21; !JAL, 28 [2], Part IV.) Bloomington. Pp. 119-141.

COWAN, GEORGE

*1948. Mazateco Whistle Speech. Lg., 24: 280-286.

DAUZAT, ALBERT

1929. Les Argots: caracteres-evolution-influence. Paris: Delagrave.

DANEHY, J. s., C. F. HOCKETT, and R. PITTENGER
1960. The First Five Minutes. Ithaca: Martineau.

DE CAMP, DAVID

1961. Social and Geographical Factors in Jamaican Dialects. In R. Le Page
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Creole Language Studies. (Creole
Language Studies, No. 2.) London: Macmillan. Pp. 61-84.

DE LAGUNA, GRACE

1927. Speech, Its Function and Development. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[Also, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963.]

DE LAGUNA, FREDERICA (ED.)

1960. Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1888-1920. New
York: Harper & Row.

DE SAUSSURE, FERDINAND

1916. Cours de linguistique generate. Paris: Payot. (Translated by Wade
Baskin, Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library,
1958.)