Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 26:3 (1999) ► pp.313–332

Leonard bloomfield’s linguistic legacy

Later uses of some technical features

| Diamond Bar, Calif.

Leonard Bloomfield’s system of linguistics was recast by his colleagues and students. His morphophonemic phonology influenced Chomsky’s early generative phonology. His version of Wundt’s psychologically based immediate constituent analysis was adopted by the distributionalists, and later also by the Chomskyans, each for different reasons. His descriptive semantics was left out of American linguistics except for some linguistic anthropologists who came back to it around 1955. Finally, despite the restraint of his descriptions and his principles, the sources of distributionalism can be found in Bloomfield’s denial of lexical synonymy and his use of zeros in morphology.

Published online: 7 January 2000
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.26.3.08fou
References
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua
1954 “Logical Syntax and Semantics”. Language 301.230–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bendix, Edward
1966 Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary: The semantic structure of a set of verbs in English, Hindi, and Japanese. Bloomington: Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore & Linguistics, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Bloch, Bernard
1947 “English Verb Inflection”. Language 231.399–418. (Repr. in Joos 1957.243–254.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1949 “Leonard Bloomfield”. Language 251.87–98.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1914 Introduction to the Study of Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co. (Repr., with an Introduction by Joseph F. Kess, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1983.)Google Scholar
1926 “A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language”. Language 21.153–164. (Repr. in Joos 1957.26–31.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1933 Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
1935 “Linguistic Aspects of Science”. Philosophy of Science 21.499–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1936 “Language or Ideas?”. Language 121.89–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1939 “Menomini Morphophonemics”. Études phonologiques dédiées à la mémoire de N. S. Trubetzkoy (= Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague, 8), 105–115. Prague. (Repr. in Bloomfield 1970.351–362.)Google Scholar
1945 “On Describing Inflection”. Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 37:4/5.8–13.Google Scholar
1970 A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. Ed. by Charles F. Hockett. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf
1928 Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin-Schlachtensee: Weltkreis-Verlag.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1951 Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. M.A. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. (Printed, New York: Garland 1979.)Google Scholar
1964 “The Nature of Structural Descriptions”. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Chap. 4 (= pp. 65–110). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1979 Language and Responsibility. Based on conversations with Mitsou Ronat. Transl. by John Viertel. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Conklin, Harold
1955 Hanunoo Color Categories. South Western Journal of Anthropology 111.339–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodenough, Ward
1956 Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning. Language 321.195–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haas, William
1957 “Zero in Linguistic Description”. Studies in Linguistic Analysis, 33–53. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A., Jr.
1947 “Colloquial French Verb Inflection”. Romance Philology 11.39–50.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy
1973 Synonymy and Linguistic Analysis. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S.
1942 “Morpheme Alternants in Linguistic Analysis”. Language 181.169–180. (Repr. in Joos 1957.109–115.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1951[1947] Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1947 “Problems of Morphemic Analysis”. Language 231.321–343. (Repr. in Joos 1957.229–242.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1968 The State of the Art. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joos, Martin
ed. 1957 Readings in Linguistics [I]: The development of descriptive linguistics in America since 1925 [later changed to: … 1925–56] Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies. (4th ed., Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press 1966.)Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G.
1956 “A Semantic Analysis of Pawnee Kinship Usage”. Language 321.158–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1964a “A Formal Account of the Crow- and Omaha-type Kinship Terminologies”. Explorations in Cultural Anthropology, ed. by Ward Goodenough, 000–000. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
1964b “The Structural Analysis of Kinship Semantics”. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge Mass, 1962 ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 1073–1090. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1986 “Syntax”. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics ed. Thomas A. Sebeok, 1061–1071. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
1992 “Bloomfield’s Morphology and its Successors”. Transactions of the Philological Society 901.121–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky. (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 63.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1948 “The Identification of Morphemes”. Language 241.414–441. (Repr. in Joos 1957.255–271.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Percival, W. Keith
1976 “On the Historical Source of Immediate Constituent Analysis”. Notes from the Linguistic Underground ed. by James D. McCawley, 229–242. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L.
1943 “Taxemes and Immediate Constituents”. Language 191.65–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1958 “On Tagmemes nee Grammemes”. International Journal of American Linguistics 241.273–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 “Recollections of Bloomfield”. Historiographia Linguistica 161.217–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robins, Robert H.
1988 “Leonard Bloomfield, the Man and the Man of Science”. Transactions of the Philological Society 861.63–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trager, George L.
1944 “The Verb Morphology of Spoken French”. Language 201.131–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1955 “French Morphology: Verb Inflection”. Language 311.511–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Anthony & J. Atkins
1960 “The Meaning of Kinship Terms”. American Anthropologist 621.458–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1963 “On the Semantic Structure of Language”. Universals of Language ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 2nd ed., 114–171. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1966 “Explorations in Semantic Theory”. Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol.III1: Theoretical Foundations, 395–477. The Hague: MoutonGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Albert P.
1925 “One Set of Postulates for a Behavioristic Psychology”. Psychological Review 321.83–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wundt, Wilhelm
1906 Logik: Eine Untersuchung der Prinzipien der Erkenntnis und der Methoden wissenschäftlicher Forschung. Band I1: Allgemeine Logik und Erkenntnistheorie. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Barnhart, Cynthia A.
2013. A little-known aspect of Leonard Bloomfield’s linguistics. Historiographia Linguistica 40:3 ► pp. 433 ff. DOI logo
Heitner, Reese M.
2006. From a Phono-Logical Point of View: Neutralizing Quine’s Argument Against Analyticity. Synthese 150:1 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Koerner, E.F.K
2003. Remarks on the origins of morphophonemics in American structuralist linguistics. Language & Communication 23:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Passos, Maria de Lourdes R. da F. & Maria Amelia Matos
2007. The influence of Bloomfield’s linguistics on Skinner. The Behavior Analyst 30:2 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Tomalin, Marcus
2004. Leonard Bloomfield. Historiographia Linguistica 31:1 ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.