Bloomfield as an Indo-Europeanist

Winfred P. Lehmann
University of Texas
Summary

In Bloomfield’s day, Indo-European studies had become ingrown and isolated from general linguistics. Bloomfield was one of those who contributed to restoring Indo-European linguistics to its proper place. His training, especially at Leipzig, gave him control of the data and the theory by which the achievements of the “Neo-Grammarians” had been effected. His mastery of these doctrines is evident in his 1933 Language, whose chapters 17–27 embody an admirable demonstration of the findings of classical Indo-European linguistics. To these, he added considerations of geographical and social variation, leading to the distinction between alterations due to phonetic change and those due to borrowing, both internal (analogical) and external (social). Confirmation of his view of the regularity of sound-change, and hence of the validity of comparative method, was furnished by his well-known reconstruction of Proto-Central Algonquian [çk]. In this way, Bloomfield contributed majorly to the re-incorporation of Indo-European studies into general linguistics.

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

Benveniste, Emile
1935 Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1909–10 “A Semasiologic Differentiation in Germanie Secondary Ablaut”. Modern Philology 7.245–288, 345–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1911a “Review of Heinrich Schröder: Ablautstudien ”. (Heidelberg: C. Winter 1910) JEGP 10.122–129.Google Scholar
1911b “Review of Francis A. Wood: Indo-European ax : axi : ax u : A Study in Ablaut and in Word-Formation ” (Strassburg: K.J. Trübner 1905) JEGP 10.628–631. (Repr. in Hockett 1970.26–29.)Google Scholar
1911c “The Indo-European Palatals in Sanskrit”. American Journal of Philology 32.36–57. (Repr. in Hockett 1970.7–25.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1912 “Etymologisches”. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 37.245–61.Google Scholar
1914 “Review of S. Feist: Kultur, Ausbreitung und Herkunft der Indogermanen ” (Berlin: Weidmann 1913) JEGP 13.472–75.Google Scholar
1914. 1933 Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl
1904 Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indo-germani-schen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collinge, N. E.
1985 The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov
1973 “Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Verschlusse”. Phonetica 27.150–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. I & II. Tbilisi: Publishing House of the Tbilisi State University. In Russian.Google Scholar
Hamp, Eric
1976 “Why Syntax Needs Phonology”. In Steever et al. (eds.) 1976:348–64.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
ed. 1970 A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. (Abbreviated H. plus page number.)Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1973 “Glottalized and Murmured Occlusives in Indo-European”. Glossa 7.141–66.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1927 “ә indo-européen et ḫ hittite”. Symbolae Gram-maticae in Honorem loannis Rozwadowski 1.95–104 (Kraków).Google Scholar
1935 Etudes indo-européennes. Kraków: Gebethner & Wolff.Google Scholar
Szemerényi Oswald
1970 (1st ed.); 1980 (2nd ed.) Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Steever, Sanford, et al.
(eds.) 1976 Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1982 “From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects of Gram-maticalization”. In W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds.): Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, 245–71 (Amsterdam: Benjamins). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert
1976 “Towards Proto-Indo-European Syntax: Problems and Pseudo-Problems”. In Steever et al. (eds.) 1976:305–326.Google Scholar