Bloomfield and historical linguistics

Henry M. Hoenigswald
University of Pennsylvania
Summary

Bloomfield worked in both historical and synchronic linguistics. To the former, he contributed: (1) a large amount of work in specific fields; (2) scrutiny of the nature of historical linguistic investigation; and (3) an analysis of the phenomenon of linguistic change. In his Language (1933), he did not narrate the procedures involved in synchronic investigation, nor did he set forth the steps to be followed in analysis. In his exposition of the results of diachronic linguistics, his approach was one of respect and admiration for the achievements of nineteenth-century historical linguistics. Since he accepted the (often disputed) postulate of the regularity of sound-change, he defended it by indirect persuasion in setting forth the arguments by which it is confirmed. His view of the causation of phonological and morphological change is interpreted as an anticipation of later sociolinguistics. In so doing, he restated his predecessors’ and his own insights, thereby rescuing them from the ministrations of their would-be defenders.

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

Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan
1976 Saussure. Glasgow: Collins.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold
1880 Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen. Translated by E. Channing as Introduction to the Study of Language 1882, repr. as a New Edition (Amsterdam: Benjamins 1974).Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
(ed.) 1970 A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M.
1977 “Intentions, Assumptions, and Contradictions in Historical Linguistics”, in Roger W. Cole (ed.): Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, pp. 168–94. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
1978 “Secondary Split, Typology, and Universals”, in Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology, pp. 173–181. The Hague & New York: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell, and John Fought
1981 American Structuralism. The Hague, Paris & New York: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lepschy, Giulio C.
1970 A Survey of Structural Linguistics. London: Faber.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1932 Review of Eduard Hermann, Lautgesetz und Analogie (Berlin: Weidmann 1931) BSL 33:3.3 ff.Google Scholar
Teeter, Karl V.
1970 Review of Leonard Bloomfield, The Menomini Language. (New Haven & London: Yale Univ. Press 1962) Lg 46.525–33.Google Scholar
For general orientation, see, of course:
Hall, Robert A., Jr.
1951/52 “American Linguistics, 1925–1950”. Archivum Linguisticum 3.101–123; 4.1–16.Google Scholar