Bloomfield and semantics

Summary

Bloomfield’s position with regard to meaning and its importance in human use of language has been persistently misinterpreted. From a Wundtian, mentalistic psychology in his 1914 Introduction, he passed to a Weissian, non-mentalistic approach, as a result of which he considered it impossible to capture the totality of meaning because of its inaccessibility to scientific investigation by currently available techniques. Far from excluding considerations of meaning from our study of language, he regarded them as nevertheless essential. The author finds both Bloomfield’s and his critics’ views of the nature of meaning unsatisfactory, because they regard meaning as existent somewhere outside of the individual speaker. In this respect, Bloomfield’s point of view in his 1914 book was closer to reality than that which he expressed in his 1933 Language.

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
1914An Introduction to the Study of Language. New York: Henry Holt. (New ed., with an introduction by Joseph F. Kess, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins 1983.)Google Scholar
1933Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
1943 “Meaning”. Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 35.101–106. (Repr. in A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology ed. by C. F. Hockett, 400–405. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press 1970.)Google Scholar
Bonfante, Giuliano
1976 “Ancora il neutro italiano e rumeno”. L’Italia Dialettale 40.287–92.Google Scholar
Fries, Charles Carpenter
1954 “Meaning and linguistic analysis”. Lg. 30.57–68.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A., Jr.
1969 “Some recent developments in American linguistics”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 70.192–227.Google Scholar
1972 “Why a structural semantics is impossible”. Language Sciences 21.1–6. (Repr. in Hall, Language, Literature, and Life, 85–95. Lake Bluff, Ill.: Jupiter Press 1978.)Google Scholar
1973 “The semantics of the Rumanian neuter”. Rumanian Studies 2.189–192. Reprinted in Hall: Language, Literature, and Life, 96–99 (Lake Bluff, Illinois: Jupiter Press 1978).Google Scholar
1985 “Meaning and the idiolect: the idioseme”. Scientific and Humanistic Dimensions of Language: Festschrift for Robert Lado ed. by Kurt R. Jankowsky, 353–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. “Idiolinguistics”. To appear in Twelfth LACUS Forum (1986).Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1958A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K.
1978 [1970] “Bloomfieldian Linguistics and the Problem of ‘Meaning’: A chapter in the history of the theory and study of language”. Toward a Historiography of Linguistics by E. F. K. Koerner, 155–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, C. K. & I. A. Richards
1923The meaning of meaning. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, and Trübner; New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar