Bloomfield the Man

Summary

The wide-spread conception of Bloomfield as a cold, unfeeling person, devoted only to a naïve scientism, is discussed and refuted. The very intensity of his feelings led him to repress them and to give vent to them only indirectly, often which quiet but bitter wit and sarcasm. He consequently distanced himself from many of the normal concerns of every-day life and of university politics. This had unfortunate results in the failure of the University of Chicago’s administration to recognize his merits; his move to Yale in 1940; his wife’s resultant mental break-down on separation from her Chicago environment; and his ensuing stroke in 1946. His contribution to linguistics during the war-years (1941–45) was thus outweighed by the loss of further influence he might have had on the development of American “structuralism” after 1946.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Armstrong, D. M.
1968A materialist theory of the mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, and New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1914An introduction to the study of language. New York: Henry Holt. (New ed., Amsterdam, Benjamins 1983.)Google Scholar
1928Menomini texts. New York: Stechert.Google Scholar
1932Review of E. Hermann: Lautgesetz und Analogie. Language 8.220–233.Google Scholar
1933Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
1944 “Secondary and tertiary responses to language”. Language 20.45–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1945 “On describing inflection”. Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 37:4/5.8–13.Google Scholar
1961Let’s read [ed. C. L. Barnhart]. Detroit: Wayne University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. Austin
1921Social decay and regeneration. London: Constable; New York and Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A., Jr.
1950 “Leonard Bloomfield”. Lingua 2.117–23. [Obituary.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1969 “Some recent developments in American linguistics”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 70.192–227.Google Scholar
1984Review of Bloomfield (1983 [1914]). Historiographia Linguistica 10.320–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
(ed.) 1970A Leonard Bloomfield anthology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hoijer, Harry
1968Review of Sebeok (ed.) (1966.) Language 44.96–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iordan, Iorgu, and Werner Bahner
1962Einführung in die Geschichte und Methoden der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Latham, Peter
1948Brahms. London: Dent, and New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy (later: Collier Books).Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A.
(ed.) 1966Portraits of linguists. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Spitzer, Leo
1943 “Why does language change?”. Modern Language Quarterly 4.413–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar