Edward Sapir and the Prague School

Gregory M. Eramian
Summary

This paper explores the intriguing and hitherto neglected question of contact between Edward Sapir (1884–1939) and members of the Prague Linguistic Circle (1926–1939) concerning the development of phonemic theory. The point of departure is Cain’s (1980) conjecture that the Prague Anglicists (Mathesius, Trnka, and Vachek) were more likely to have encountered the writings of Sapir than Sapir was to have read Jakobson’s and Trubetzkoy’s Czech and Russian publications. Sapir’s published theoretical works provide no evidence of contact with or knowledge of classical Prague School phonology. However, a thorough study of the relevant Prague School publications reveals that three of Sapir’s theoretical writings and three of his language monographs were well known to some of its members. Interestingly, three of the seven references to Sapir by the Anglicists appear in their German and Czech writings, while the largest number of references to Sapir occur in Trubetzkoy’s published scholarly works and letters written primarily in German and Russian. Trubetzkoy’s letters provide valuable supplementary evidence of personal communication between him and Sapir. Collation of material in the letters with passages in Trubetzkoy’s publications reveals that Sapir and members of the Prague School (Jakob-son, Mathesius, Trubetzkoy) were in personal contact from 1929, three years after the founding of the Circle. It also emerges that Trubetzkoy had read Sapir (1925) in a copy of the journal Language which Mathesius had lent to him as early as 1928, while Sapir had read vol. 1 of the Travaux and commented favorably on it to Trubetzkoy in 1929. Although Sapir and the Prague School developed their views on phonemic theory independently, Trubetzkoy’s articles and letters occasionally reveal fairly technical discussion of theoretical points and problems in the phonological systems of specific languages raised by Sapir. Finally, the letters provide convincing evidence that Trubetzkoy and Sapir shared an ongoing professional concern with advancing the cause of phonology in the international linguistic community. Sapir and members of the Prague School expended considerable effort toward a favorable reception of phonology by the American linguists (e.g., Leonard Bloomfield, Boas, Kent, Kurath, and Twaddell). In this connection, Sapir was very actively involved in the American branch of the Internationale phonologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft from its inception in 1932 during the Second International Congress of Phonetic Sciences in Amsterdam. Although Sapir and Trubetzkoy appear never to have met in person, the IP A turned out to serve as a pivotal link between Sapir and Trubetzkoy and, by extension, between the Linguistic Society of America and the Prague Linguistic Circle.

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
1933Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz
1920 “The Classification of American Languages”. AmA 22.367–376.Google Scholar
1929 “Classificiation of American Indian Languages”. Language 5.17.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1931 “Phonologie und Psychologie”. TCLP 4.22–52.Google Scholar
1933 “L’onomatopée et la fonction représentative du langage”. JPsych 30.101–119. (Repr. in Pariente 1969:111–132.)Google Scholar
1936 “Das Strukturmodell der Sprache”. TCLP 6.12–22.Google Scholar
Cain, Michael
1980 “Edward Sapir and Gestalt Psychology”. AnL 22.141–150.Google Scholar
Eramian, Gregory M.
1978 “Some Notes on Trubetzkoy’s Abandonment of Disjunctive Oppositions”. HL 5.275–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelb, Adhémar
1933 “Remarques générales sur ľutilisation des données pathologiques pour la psychologie et la philosophie du langage”. JPsych 30.403–429. (Repr. in Pariente 1969:227–256.)Google Scholar
Graff, Willem L.
1935 “Remarks on the Phoneme”. AS 10.83–87.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude
1967 “Extraits de la correspondence de N. S. Trubetzkoy”. Linguistique 3:1.109–136.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Tetsuro
1984 “Edward Sapir in Japan: A Survey of Translations, 1940–1983”. HL 11.461–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Internationale Phonologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft
1933 “Bulletin d’infor-mation N.l”. ČMF 19.59–64.Google Scholar
1935 “Information Bulletin No. 2”. Supplement to ČMF 22, 12 pp.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1923O češskom Stixe preimuščestvenno v sopostavlenii s russkim [On Czech Verse, Particularly in Comparison with Russian Verse]. Prague. (Repr., Providence as Brown University Slavic Reprint No. VI 1969.)Google Scholar
1928a “The Concept of the Sound Law and the Teleological Criterion”. Repr. in Selected Writings I: Phonological Studies, 1–2. The Hague: Mouton 1962.Google Scholar
1928b “Proposition au Premier Congres International de Linguistes”. Actes du Premier Congrès International de Linguistes à la Haye, 33–36. Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff. (Repr. in Selected Writings I, 3–6.)Google Scholar
1929Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celie des autres langues slaves. (– TCLP 2). Prague.Google Scholar
1975N.S. Trubetzkoy’s Letters and Notes. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1979 “The Twentieth Century in European and American Linguistics: Movements and continuity”. The European Background of American Linguistics by Henry M. Hoenigswald, 161–173. Dordrecht: Foris. (Repr. in Jakobson 1985:266–278).Google Scholar
1985Selected Writings VII: Contributions to comparative mythology; Studies in linguistics and philology, 1972–1982. Edited by Stephen Rudy, with a preface by Linda R. Waugh. Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. & Morris Halle
1956Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jenness, Diamond
1940 “Edward Sapir”. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada 1939, 3rd series, 33.151–153. (Repr. in Koerner 1984:9–11.)Google Scholar
Koerner, E. F. Konrad
1978 “Zum Ursprung und Entwicklung des Phonem-Begriffs: Eine historische Notiz”. Toward a Historiography of Linguistics: Selected essays, 177–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
ed. 1984Edward Sapir: Appraisals of his life and work. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Liberman, Anatoly
1980Review of R. Jakobson, N.S. Trubetzkoy’s Letters and Notes . Linguistics 18.543–556.Google Scholar
Lowie, Robert H.
ed. 1965Letters from Edward Sapir to Robert H. Lowie. [Berkeley: published by Luella Cole Lowie, the editor’s widow].Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, David
1941 “Edward Sapir”. Jewish Social Studies 3.131–140. (Repr. in Koerner 1984.23–32.)Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém
1911 “O potenciálnosti jevů jazykových” [On the Potentiality of the Phenomena of Language]. Věstnik Král. české společnosti nauk (Prague), Třída Filos, histor., Section II. (English transl. in Vachek 1967:1–32.)Google Scholar
1926 “Linguistická charakteristika a její místo v moderním j azykopytu [Linguistic characterology and its place in modern linguistics]”. ČMF 13.35–40.Google Scholar
1928 “On Linguistic Characterology with Illustrations from Modern English”. Actes du Premier Congrès International de Linguistes á la Haye, 56–63, Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff 1930 (Repr. in Vachek 1967:56–67).Google Scholar
1929a “La Structure phonologique du lexique du tchèque moderne”. TCLP 1.67–84.Google Scholar
1929b “Ziele und Aufgabe der modernen Phonologie”. Xenia Prageusia Ernesto Kraus, 432–445. Prague: Societas neophilologorum apud Societam mathematicorum et physicorum.Google Scholar
1940 “Funkční linguistika [Functional Linguistics]”. SaS 6:2.112.Google Scholar
Meriggi, Piero
1933 “Sur la structure des langues ‘groupantes’”. JPsych 30.185–216.Google Scholar
Murray, Stephen O.
1981 “Sapiťs Gestalt”. AnL 23.8–12.Google Scholar
Pariente, Jean-Claude
ed. 1969Essais sur le langage. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1921Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
1922 “The Takelma Language of Southwestern Oregon”. Handbook of American Indian Languages (= Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No.40, Part II), 1–296. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
1925 “Sound Patterns in Language”. Language 1.37–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1930 “The Southern Paiute Language: Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean Language; Texts of the Kaibab Paiutes and Uintah Utes; Southern Paiute Dictionary”. Proceedings, American Academy of Arts and Sciences 65:1.1–296; 65:2.297–536; 65:3.537–730 (1931) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1931 “Notes on the Gweabo Language of Liberia”. Language 7.30–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1933 “La Réalité psychologique des phonèmes”. JPsych 30.247–265. (Repr. in Pariente 1969:165–188.)Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris
1934 “The Phonemic Principle”. Language 10.117–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1935 “Twaddell on Defining the Phoneme”. Language 11.244–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trager, George L.
1934 “The Phonemes of Russian”. Language 10.334–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trnka, Bohumil
1935 “O definici fonématu [On the Definition Of the Phoneme]”. SaS 1.238–240.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, (Prince) Nikolaj Sergeevič
1929 “Zur allgemeinen Theorie der phonologischen Vokalsysteme”. TCLP 1.39–67. (Repr. in Vachek 1967:108–142.)Google Scholar
1931a “Die phonologischen Systeme”. TCLP 4.96–116.Google Scholar
1931bDie Konsonantensysteme der Ostkaukasischen Sprachen”. Caucasia 8.1–52.Google Scholar
1933 “La phonologie actuelle”. JPsych 30.227–246. (Repr. in Pariente 1969:141–164.)Google Scholar
1935Anleitung zu phonologischen Beschreibungen. Brno: Cercle lin-guistique de Prague.Google Scholar
1936 “Die phonologischen Grenzsignale”. Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 22–26 July 1935, 45–49. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1937 [Letter to the Linguistic Society of America Accepting Honorary Membership, Vienna, 21 Jan. 1937 under “Notes and Personalia”]. Language 13.152.Google Scholar
. [written in 1934]. 1938 “Die phonologischen Grundlagen der sogenannten ‘Quantität’ in den verschiedenen Sprachen”. Scritti in Onore di Alfredo Trombetti, 155–176. Milano: Ulrico Hoepli.Google Scholar
1939Grundzüge der Phonologie (= TCLP 7). Prague. (4th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1967.)Google Scholar
Twaddell, William Freeman
1935 “On Defining the Phoneme”. Language Monographs, No. 16. Baltimore: Waverley Press.Google Scholar
Tynjanov, Jurij & Roman Jakobson
1928 “Problemy izučenija literatúry i jazyka [Problems in the study of literature and language]”. Novyj Lef 12.36–37. (Repr. in Texte der russischen Formalisten ed. by Stempel, Inge & Wolf-Dieter Paulmann, vol. II, 386–390. München: Wilhelm Fink 1972.)Google Scholar
Vachek, Josef
1932 “Professor Daniel Jones and the Phoneme”. Charis-teña Guilelmo Mathesio Quinquagenario a Discipulis et Circuli Linguis-tici Pragensis Sodalibus Oblata, 25–33. Prague: Pražský Linguistický Kroužek.Google Scholar
1933 “What is Phonology?ES 15.81–92.Google Scholar
1935 “Several Thoughts on Several Statements of the Phoneme Theory”. AS 10.243–255.Google Scholar
1936 “One Aspect of the Phoneme Theory”. Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 22–26 July 1935, 33–40. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1966The Linguistic School of Prague: An Introduction to its theory and practice. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
comp. 1967A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Ibid.Google Scholar
1968Dutch Linguists and the Prague Linguistic School. Leiden: Univ. of Leiden Press.Google Scholar
van Ginneken, Jacobus
1933 “La biologie de la base d’articulation”. JPsych 30.266–320.Google Scholar
Wellek, René
1976 “Vilém Mathesius (1882–1945): Founder of the Prague Linguistic Circle”. Sound, Sign and Meaning: Quinguagenary of the Prague Linguistic Circle ed. by Ladislav Matejka, 6–14. (= Michigan Slavic Contributions, 6.) Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar