« ZurückWeiter »
SURVEY OF LINGUISTIC STUDIES
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCED WORK IN THE UNITED
By ROLAND G. KENT AND E, H, STURTEVANT
One of the considerations that led to the foundation of the Linguistic Society of America, was the impression that the opportunities for training in linguistic science were inadequate and very unevenly distributed. It was hoped that we could assist in remedying the situation; and in fact, since
our organization, whether through our influence or not, several universities have notably strengthened their linguistic staff.
The logical first step toward bringing the influence of the Society to bear, is to make a survey of what is actually being done. At the same time a tabulation of the linguistic courses in the more important graduate schools should be of assistance to prospective graduate students. Hence we have attempted to indicate the opportunities offered to students of the science of language. We hope that similar surveys may be printed at more or less regular intervals, and that these may serve in some degree as a means of measuring the development of linguistic studies in the American univer
The material tabulated below was taken chiefly from the published announcements for 1926–27, and is therefore subject to certain errors. Some of the scholars listed have retired; some are no longer living. Many new appointments have been made; new assignment of classes has given certain subjects to different instructors. As far as possible these changes are taken into account; for our statements regarding each institution have been submitted to one or more scholars teaching there, for correction. the work was started during the summer vacation, some of our inquiries remained unanswered for so long a time that it has been difficult properly to take into account the data which were finally presented; and especially the problem of determining precisely what is a "linguistic course,” has brought many difficulties and possibilities of error. We ask pardon for all our errors, whatever their source; and we hope that our readers will send word of inaccuracies and omissions which they notice, to one or the other of those whose names stand at the head of this article, that similar errors may be avoided in later surveys. We are under obligation to the following persons for generous assistance: H. Almstedt, Missouri; A. L. Andrews, Cornell; S. T. Barrows, Iowa; F. B. Barton, Minnesota; H. H. Bender, Princeton; G. M. Bolling, Ohio State; E. Chiera, Pennsylvania; J. P. W. Crawford, Pennsylvania; G. O. Curme, Northwestern; G. Dahl, Yale; A. M. Espinosa, Stanford; W. H. Faulkner, Virginia; G. T. Flom, Illinois; J. A. Geary, Catholic; C. H. Grandgent, Harvard; G. Gruener, Yale; P. Haupt, Johns Hopkins; E. C. Hills, California; U. T. Holmes, North Carolina; S. Kroesch, Minnesota; A. G. Laird, Wisconsin; C. G. Lowe, Washington (St. Louis); J. L. Lowes, Harvard; C. A. Manning, Columbia; J. A. Montgomery, Pennsylvania; C. H. Moore, Harvard; S. Moore, Michigan; E. F. Parker, Washington (St. Louis); L. Pound, Nebraska; E. Sapir, Chicago; D. B. Shumway, Pennsylvania; T. Starck, Harvard; A. M. Sturtevant, Kansas; N. L. Torrey, Yale; E. B. Williams, Pennsylvania. We express our indebtedness also to the Deans of the various Graduate Schools and to their assistants, who without exception have been most kind in helping us.
At the outset a number of difficulties were met, and it has been necessary to make several arbitrary decision as to the handling of the material. First, we have limited our researches to those advanced courses in linguistic subjects that carry graduate credit. Second, we have considered only institutions which are members of the Association of American Universities, although we realize that several distinguished schools are not included. Of the twenty-six universities in the Association, Clark University alone gives no courses bearing upon linguistic science, but that is in accord with the purposes of the institution. Third, we have had to distinguish between linguistic courses and literary courses. In English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, and Greek, we have selected the linguistic courses according to the apparent meaning of the catalogues, and have omitted all others. In other languages the differentiation in character is not clearly drawn, and so we have taken account of all courses which involve the use of the language itself for reading or otherwise. We must state that those scholars giving courses in the History of the English Language have been listed under Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and Modern English; those giving the History of the German Language have been listed similarly under Old High German, Middle High German, and Modern High German.
The term “linguistic course” has been taken to mean one that deals with the principles and the history of language in general or of a group of languages or of a specific language; with phonology and morphology, syntax, semantics, phonetics; with general (descriptive) or experimental phonetics, whether or not illustrative of a single language; with the psychology of language. A number of the courses represented in the Tables are to be found in the announcements, not under the language departments, but under psychology, education, anthropology, etc.
The arrangement of courses in groups has not been easy, and the categories represented by the columns of the Tables are in some respects unsatisfactory. General Linguistics properly includes Phonetics and Linguistic Psychology. There is no clear division between General Phonetics and Experimental Phonetics. What one institution calls “Vulgar Latin" may elsewhere be called "Popular and Late Latin," and thus fall under our category "Latin,” while still other schools may employ the phrase “Vulgar Latin" as equivalent to "Comparative Romanic.” In such matters we have generally followed the terminology of the published announcements; but when we secured direct testimony that a course in Old French, for example, included a treatment of Comparative Romanic, the institution and the instructor have been listed under both headings, even though the printed catalogue did not give this information. It must be remembered also that many courses are not offered every year, because they are rarely elected; but they have been listed on the same footing as the others, since in most institutions a graduate student who has special need for such a course will find that the instructor will shift his offering in such a way as to accommodate the student.
As for the Tables themselves, they are virtually self-explanatory. The division of headings in the four Tables is partly for logical reasons, and partly for convenience of printing. The universities are arranged in alphabetical order, but no institution appears in any Table unless it is represented there by courses given. The key to the numerals in the Tables is given in the faculty lists which follow. The question mark shows that the catalogue of the institution lists the subject without giving the name of the instructor, and that we have not received information of his identity. The dash indicates that the instructor is through removal, retirement, or death no longer in charge, but appointment is expected to be made, though the name is not available.