Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 37:3 (2010) ► pp.321–340

William Dwight Whitney and the Social Dimension of Lexical Diffusion

| Gordon College
The paper traces how the American linguist William Dwight Whitney (1827–1894) and his intellectual descendants anticipated, and in part influenced, modern-day discussions of ‘lexical diffusion’, the piecemeal spread of phonological changes both through an individual speaker’s word-inventory and speaker-to-speaker through an entire community. Whitney regarded these two processes as inextricably linked; he also stressed comparison between different speech communities in search of locally distinct diffusionary patterns that challenged the Neogrammarian regularity hypothesis. Recent discussions of these and other aspects of lexical diffusion suggest that comparative-local studies, such as Whitney pioneered, remain essential for working out the explanatory nexus between lexical diffusion’s internally-phonological and social contexts.
Published online: 17 November 2010
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.37.3.02alt
References (50)
References
Alter, Stephen G. 2005. William Dwight Whitney and the Science of Language. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl & Hermann Osthoff. 1967 [1878]. “Preface to Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen ”. Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics ed. and transl. by Winfred P. Lehmann, 197–209. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Christy, Craig. 1983. Uniformitarianism in Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collinge, N[eville] E. 1994. “Historical Linguistics: History”. Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics ed. by R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson, vol. III1, 1559–1567. Oxford & New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Bertold. 1882 [1880]. Introduction to the Study of Language. Transl. by Eva Channing [of Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. (Repr., with an Introduction in English by Konrad Koerner, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1974.)Google Scholar
. 1908. Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen. 5th ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Easton, Morton W[illiam]. 1884. “Analogy and Uniformity”. American Journal of Philology 51.164–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleason, Henry Allan, Jr. 1955. Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 2003. “Variationist Approaches to Phonological Change”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 369–400. New York: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
H[errick], R[obert]. 1943. “Tarbell, Frank Bigelow”. Dictionary of American Biography. Published under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies, vol. XVIII1, p. 306. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its nature, origin and development. London: G. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2001. “Is there Such a Thing as ‘grammaticalization’?”. Language Sciences 231.163–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda. 2003. “Introduction”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Joseph & Janda, 3–180. New York: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995, 2003. “The Phonological Basis of Sound Change”. Handbook of Phonological Theory ed. by John A. Goldsmith, 640–670. Oxford & Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. (Repr. in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 313–342. New York: Blackwell.)Google Scholar
Koerner, Konrad, ed. 1991. First Person Singular II: Autobiographies by North American scholars in the language sciences. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K. 2002. Toward a History of American Linguistics. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2004. “The Place of Geology in W. D. Whitney’s Linguistic Argument”. Essays in the History of Linguistics by Koerner, 145–158. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. “Hermann Paul and General Linguistic Theory”. Language Sciences 301.102–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. “Evidence for Regular Sound Change in English Dialect Geography”. History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics ed. by Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen, 42–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. I1: Internal factors. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lien, C[hienfa]. 1994. “Lexical Diffusion”. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics ed. by R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson, III1, 2141–2144. Oxford & New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1967. “Each Word Has a History of its Own”. Glossa 11.137–149.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1991. Linguistic Variation and Change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Murray, Stephen O. 1983. Group Formation in Social Science. Carbondale, Ill.: Linguistic Research, Inc. [A thoroughly revised edition appeared as Theory Groups and the Study of Language in North America: A social history (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1994.)]Google Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte. 1990. Change in Language: Whitney, Bréal, and Wegener. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ogura, Mieko. 1995. “The Development of Middle English i and u: A reply to Labov (1992, 1994)”. Diachronica 121.31–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paley, William. 1825 [1785]. Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy. 11th American ed. Boston: Richardson & Lord.Google Scholar
Paul, Herman. 1880. Principien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Holger. 1931 [1924]. The Discovery of Language: Linguistic science in the nineteenth century. Transl. by J[ohn] Webster Spargo [of Sprokvidenskapen i det Nittende Aarhundrede: Metoder och resultater]. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Repr., Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962.]Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. (Repr., 1949.)Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1972 [1885]. “On Sound Laws: Against the Neogrammarians”. Transl. by Theo Vennemann & Terence H. Wilbur [of Über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker (Berlin: R. Oppenheim, 1885]. Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the Transformational Theory of Phonological Change ed. by Theo Vennemann & Terence H. Wilbur, 39–72. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H[oward]. 1917. Linguistic Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Repr., 1962.)Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1924. “Phonetic Law and Imitation”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 44:1.38–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1947. An Introduction to Linguistic Science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tarbell, Frank B[igelow]. 1886. “Phonetic Law”. Transactions of the American Philological Association 171.5–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S[hi]-Y[uan]. 1969. “Competing Changes as a Cause of Residue”. Language 45: 1.9–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y., ed. 1977. The Lexicon in Phonological Change. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S. Y. & C. F. Lien. 1993. “Bidirectional Diffusion in Sound Change”. Historical Linguistics: Problems and prospectives ed. by Charles Jones, 345–400, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin Herzog. 1968. “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change”. Directions for Historical Linguistics ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel, 97–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Benjamin Ide. 1901. “The Causes of Uniformity in Phonetic Change”. Transactions of the American Philological Association 321.5–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1867. Language and the Study of Language. New York: Scribner & Co.Google Scholar
. 1875. The Life and Growth of Language. New York: D. Appleton & Co.; London: Henry S. King.Google Scholar
. 1886. “The Method of Phonetic Change in Language”. Proceedings of the American Philological Association 171.xxxiii–xxxv.Google Scholar
. 1894. “Examples of Sporadic and Partial Phonetic Change in English”. Indogermanische Forschungen 41.32–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Terence H. 1977. “Introduction”. The Lautgesetz Controversy: A documentation ed. by Terence H. Wilbur, ix–xc. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1972. “Hugo Schuchardt and the Neogrammarians”. Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the Transformational Theory of Phonological Change ed. by Theo Vennemann & Terence H. Wilbur, 75–113. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Dovetto, Francesca M.
2018. An American at the origins of EuropeanSprachwissenschaftand Italian historiographical thought. Historiographia Linguistica 45:3 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 august 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.