*27. E. F. Shewmake, English Pronunciation in Virginia, University of Virginia dissertation (1920), 1927. 028. Bertrand, Va. 29. L. R. Dingus, 'A Word-list from Virginia (Clinch Valley, Scott County)', DN 4. 177–93. 30. L. R. Dingus, ‘Appalachian Mountain Words', DN 5. 468–71. 31. H. Kephart, 'A Wordlist from the Mountains of Western North Carolina', DN 4. 407–19. 032. North Carolina (Columbia record). 033. Leister, N. C. *34. S. Primer, 'Charleston Provincialisms', Phonetische Studien 1. 227-44 (1888). *35. E. K. Kane, 'The Negro Dialects along the Savannah River', DN 5. 354-67. 036. Columbia, S. C. 037. Charleston, S. C. 038. Goose Creek (Gullah), S. C. 39. J. P. Fruit, 'Uncle Remus in Phonetic Spelling', DN 1. 196-8. 040. Macon, Ga. *41. L. W. Payne, 'A Word-list from East Alabama', DN 3. 279328; 343-91; pp. 279-85 deal with pronunciation. 42. J. W. Pearce, 'Notes from Louisiana', DN 1. 69–72. *43. L. S. Menger, 'A Note on American Pronunciation', Maître Phonétique, Dec. 1893, 168-71. *44. M. L. Hanley, 'The Texas L', DN 5. 247. 045. Lamar County, Texas. 046. Paris, Northeast Texas. 047. Stony, Texas. 048. Oklahoma. 49. J. W. Carr, 'A List of Words from Northwestern Arkansas', DN 2. 416-22; DN 3. 68–103, esp. 101-3; 124–165; 392–406. *50. V. Randolph, 'Pronunciation in the Ozark Mountains', AS 3. 401-7. 51. C. H. Grandgent, 'English Sentences in American Mouths: St. Louis, Mo.', DN 1. 203-4. 52. R. Weeks, 'A Phonetic Alphabet for English', Maître Phonétique, Feb. 1906, 32-3. 053. Lincoln County, Mo. 54. D. S. Crumb, 'Dialect of Southeastern Missouri', DN 2. 304-37. 55. J. L. B. Taylor, 'Snake County Talk',,DN 5. 197–225. 56. W. O. Rice and G. Hempl, "The Pioneer Dialect of Southeastern Illinois', DN 2. 225-49. 57. O. W. Hanley, 'Dialect Words from Southern Indiana', DN 3. 113-23. 58. C. H. Grandgent, 'English Sentences in American Mouths: Kentucky', DN 1. 203. *59. O. F. Emerson, 'The Ithaca (N. Y.) Dialect', DN 1. 85-173. *60. B. S. Monroe, "The Pronunciation of English in the State of New York', DN 1. 445–56. 061. Neighborhood of New York City (Columbia Record). 062. Colton, Northern New York State. 063. Kitchener, Southern Ontario. 064. North Philadelphia, Pa. 065. Lancaster County, Pa. *66. J. S. Kenyon, American Pronunciation. Ann Arbor, 1924. 67. J. S. Kenyon, American Pronunciation: Text, 24-9. 68. G. Hempl, 'American English', Maître Phonétique, July 1900, 72-3. 69. J. S. Kenyon, 'Western Reserve' (Word-list, with phonetic notation), DN 4. 386-404. 070. Rockbridge, Central Ohio. 071. Bismark, Central Illinois. 072. Louise Pound, 'Dialect Speech in Nebraska', DN 3. 55-67. THE WORD AND THE SENTENCE W. L. GRAFF MCGILL UNIVERSITY [Effort to define these terms and their relation to each other. Stress is laid on the fact that each has both a phonetic and a semantic aspect, neither of which must be unduly emphasized.] The definition of the word has caused a great deal of trouble to both psychologist and linguist. In spite of the numerous attempts to locate it properly among other linguistic facts, an examination of what has been written about it leaves the reader with an uncomfortable feeling of vagueness. The trouble, it seems to me, arises from the following outstanding mistakes: (1) either the phonetic or the semantic feature is given undue importance to the detriment of the one, though complex, semanto-phonetic combination; (2) the relationship of the word to the sentence and vice-versa is misrepresented; (3) the character of the word is often identified with its quantitative extension, or at least character and quantity are not strictly kept apart; (4) evolutionary facts of language are not distinctly separated from the static system. Let us first state that we are not concerned here with the problem of the origin of the word. The question how the word has come to be is just as immaterial for the understanding of what it is as knowing how primitive man built his first shelter is unnecessary in describing a modern apartment house. We may note, however, that while history is unable to give us the least information concerning this point, the principles of social psychology plead for the priority of the sentence to the word. From the outset we may also dispose of the fourth mistake mentioned. Although it is undoubtedly true that language changes continually, it is no less evident that these changes are only noticeable in retrospect. At any given period the speaking community is conscious of using the same language. Only linguists are aware of its ephemeral character; but their influence is comparatively small. The language-making crowd work with linguistic material which to all intents and purposes they feel to be stationary. The changes for which they are responsible are perfectly unconscious and unintentional. For them the word has a current value. And indeed, but for that relative stability, language would be a chaos unfit for social communication. When we trace a word back to what it was five hundred years ago, each link really represents a relatively static word current at a certain period. The historical interpretation is the observer's privilege. Hence the definition of the word can only apply to a relatively static entity. The introduction of the historical aspect inevitably obscures the issue. The first requirement, then, in order to have a word is some articulate sound or sounds. In this sense (that is, as a mere shorthand term for the phonetic aspect of the word), it might be justifiable to speak of a 'phonetic word', if there were no other reasons for avoiding such terminology. But the question as to which and how many sounds are required and sufficient has unfavourably affected many a discussion of the subject. It seems appropriate, therefore, to emphasize the fact that neither a particular quantity nor a particular quality of sound is essential to the word. A small house built of wood or brick is a house just as well as a large one of stone or concrete. Both the number and the sort of sounds required for a word are determined by external circumstances and conditions. Historical grammar and etymology explain a good deal in this respect. Factors of importance are the phonetic material which a language has at its disposal, the habits of combination and reference, of differentiation and unification, of isolation and demarcation prevailing in a language at a given time. The verbal material consists of sounds and phonetic combinations. But each language operates with a comparatively small number of sounds, which are moreover systematically grouped according to their articulatory, auditory, and psychologically contextual properties. Phonetic combinations may enter wholesale into the formation of words; but again their number as well as their kind is peculiar to each language. Like sounds they are grouped and systematized in the minds of the speakers. Sounds and sound-combinations are combined with other sounds and other combinations in a way determined by certain general and specific habits. If the latter are dependent upon general motor and acoustic conditions, they are common to all languages. Thus, a succession of syllabic and non-syllabic sounds is necessary in any word of a certain phonetic extension. But it is a result of specific combining 1 Cf. Vendryes, Language, tr. by Radin 56 f.; Scripture (Karsten), Elements of Experimental Phonetics, 127 (1904). 2 See elsewhere in this article. habits that in English [pn, ps, St, Sp, kn, gn] are never at the beginning of a syllable; that in Italian consonantal clusters are very rare and a consonant is hardly ever at the end of a word; that other languages favour consonantal accumulations, etc. Similarly the phonetic combination -able [ǝbl] in English can only be made a constitutive element of a word under certain conditions. The habits of symbolization and reference also help in determining the phonetic character of the word. This is particularly obvious in the case of onomatopoeias and primitive reduplications. The facts that in English symbolization is frequently obtained through borrowing and that in German its ways rather lead to compounds and derivations, determine the acoustic and quantitative character of many an English and German word. Moreover the differentiation of sounds within the word is largely governed by special habits. In German [p] is seldom, in English it is often used as a differentiating sound of [b]. (Cp. the English words bat, pad, bad, pat, which sound much alike to speakers of certain High German dialects.) But in addition, words are phonetically differentiated from other words by certain means of parallelism and contrast. In this manner they, too, are systematically grouped. Thus the sound-combination cut [kat] is contrasted with all other monosyllabic stems of the same type such as boot, eat, hut, but, etc., from which it is distinguished in its acoustic and articulatory properties. The phonetic extension of the word is partly defined by such other forms as cutting [kat-iŋ], cutter [kat-ǝ], cuts [kat-s], etc. If I substitute [g] for [k], or [æ] for [a], or [d] for [t], the change is not only immediately noticed, but vigorously resisted by the emergence of such phonetic symbols as gut [gat], cat [kæt], cud [kad]. To be sure, the systematization of words is less strict than that of sounds or morphological elements. If in the given word I replaced [t] by [0], or [k] by [t], the disturbance would no doubt be observed, but tolerated with considerably greater complacency. Whatever resistance would then be felt would come from the sound-system rather than from the wordsystem. In spite of this restriction, however, the phonetic word-symbol is in a large measure defined as to its extension and quality, because it is surrounded by other words in the system. As to the habits of unification they find their primary expression in accentual conditions, the influence of which upon sound-quality and word-quantity is universally recognized. Finally, the defining effect of the prevailing habits of isolation is very evident if we compare so-called synthetic languages with analytic ones. In the former a greater number of sound-combinations are isolated and grouped as radical and formative elements; in |