stimulus is not in question, since both Sturtevant-Kent and Pedersen react to it. 9 We have then the three stimuli A, B, C all present in our environment; the question is what verbal responses to them are to be regarded as the most adequate. The answer is conditioned, of course, by our past. We began with a British heritage: that means calling A 'philology', and responding to B and C only with phrases, not with separate words. But, when the influence of Germany began to affect our University life, there came in the continental terminology: 'linguistics' for A, 'philology' for B, and 'philology' in a restricted sense (philology par excellence) for C. The usage, particularly of 'philology' as a response to B, was confined to certain narrow circles of professed (and, I think, chiefly classical) philologians, and was there perfectly familiar. To document this would be tedious rather than difficult; I may refer to the article by Maurice Bloomfield, already cited, and may quote also Gildersleeve, Oscillations and Nutations of Philological Studies 13: 'I would reiterate the confession of my faith in the formulae of my youth, my belief in the wider conception of philological work, in the necessity of bringing all our special investigations into relation with the whole body of philological truth, the life of the world, the life of humanity.' I might also allude to the fact that the American Philological Association felt no need to change its name with its shift of interests; 'philological' in its title merely took on instead the new meaning. Or, to give one more example: when a periodical 'devoted to research in the Languages, Literatures, History, and Life of Classical Antiquity' was founded, its editors named it Classical Philology. The use remained, however, esoteric, the mark of a professional dialect; not even the official terminology of our Universities was affected by it. The most surprising thing to me in the whole discussion is the way in which the fact that 'philology' has been used as a response to B both in continental Europe and in this country, is ignored both by Pedersen and by Sturtevant-Kent. The inconveniences attendant upon the habit of calling A 'philology' are familiar and need not be rehearsed; but a recent illustration given by Pedersen will bear repetition. The organizers of the 'premier congrès international de linguistes' wished to issue their first circular in English. British English offered nothing but the manifestly impossible 'Congress of Philologists', and so the choice was limited to French, German, or the The practical difficulty of forming derivatives from such phrases is properly stressed by Pedersen. good American 'First International Congress of Linguists', which was actually chosen. As another I may add from a different source a story now going the rounds. A famous British press (it need not here be named) undertook to publish a translation of Pedersen's Sprogvidenskaben; but, most regrettably, the undertaking came to naught. The rock on which it shattered was the insistence of the press that A be called 'philology', even where it was being explained that it was not philology. Se non fosse vero, sarebbe ben trovato. A recent consequence has been a tendency in this country to insist that the better response to A is 'linguistics'. The usage has gained ground rapidly; though, as Pedersen shows, even the contributors to LANGUAGE have not followed it with perfect consistency. The inconsistency, however, is only half as great as Pedersen believes; for he had missed the fine points very neatly made by Sapir (1.452) and Collitz (2.10) in using philologist not linguist.10 The usage seems likely to become established," and we are all agreed that there is every reason to wish for that outcome. Pedersen seems to think that we have been overcautious in our use, not so much of 'linguistics' itself but of 'linguist' and 'linguistic', especially in the more popular of our writings. He has thus indicated a way in which we can help on the desired result: usage alone can establish usage. It will help also, I may add, if continental linguists in writing English will (they do not always as yet) avoid this Briticism. The rest of the problem is more difficult. The trouble is not that one form is serving as a response to two stimuli; such a situation is most normal, and of itself need cause no embarrassment. Rather the difficulty is that there seems to be no prospect of 'philology' as a response to B gaining a firmer foothold. After fifty years there are no signs of it. On the contrary even those closest to philology (C) avoid the usage: the Archaeological Institute, for instance, did not name its schools Schools of Classical or Oriental Philology, nor have we an American Council of Philological Societies. One feels at once that there was no likelihood of such titles being chosen. Not that there was risk of philology being confounded with linguistics: that contributed no doubt, but the important factor was that the specialized meaning of philology (C) was 10 The other passages are Esper, MONOGR. 1. 5; Espinosa 3. 20,. "Official dialects change slowly. If that of our Universities comes to preserve a fossilized meaning of 'philology', the fact may be added to our collections of similar curios. prominent enough to render its use in the broader sense unattractive. That again is a normal linguistic process, and it is what seems likely to happen in this case. Pedersen's attitude may indicate that it is taking place already on the continent; Sturtevant and Kent are moving in the same direction. But then we are left without a response to B, and that means the risk of becoming irresponsive to that stimulus, of losing our broadest outlook upon the purpose of our studies. It is a risk not to be incurred lightly, and yet there seems to be no alternative; for no substitute for philology in this sense seems available. History is likewise over-specialized for the purpose, Anthropology too is preempted; Humanist and Humanities are too rich in their connotations, and the latter besides is handicapped by its ending. Perhaps some one may hit upon the right term. Until he does we must steer our course as best we can between Scylla and Charybdis. BOOK REVIEWS The Vowel: its Physiological Mechanism as shown by the X-Ray. Pp. xliv + 353. By G. OSCAR RUSSELL. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1928. A wonderful piece of laboratory work, but a most vexatious book! Such will be the impression of every understanding reader of Professor Russell's treatise; but it is to be feared that some will not penetrate beneath the awkward style, the poor arrangement (which distributes the figures through the text without bringing them near to the points where they are needed), and the tiresome repetitions. But the important thing is that our author knows his subject as few men do, and that he puts before us concrete and well attested evidence for his statements. Although a great deal of sound and careful work has been done in phonetics, much of which is summarized in the introductory portion of this volume (1-43), satisfactory observation of the throat and the back part of the mouth during speech has until recently been impossible, and this fact has left a clear field for the theoretic systematizers. Some of their guesses have seemed plausible to linguists, and have thus gained wide currency in books on grammar and among teachers of the modern languages. For example, many a grammarian has pinned his faith to the dogma that the characteristic quality of the several vowels is a function of the position of the upper surface of the tongue, and that the tongue positions of the several vowels is represented by the familiar vowel-triangle, thus: i u е о As Russell points out, some of the best phoneticians have always opposed this generalization, and evidence against its validity has gradually been accumulating, so that (133) as long ago as 1914 Vietor, the chief proponent of it, acknowledged that it was largely erroneous. Nevertheless the vowel triangle and its implications about tongue-position still form the very basis of the system of phonetics generally received among linguists. To us, therefore, it is a serious shock to be told that there is no evidence of weight behind our conception of the vowel triangle, and that a great mass of evidence dis proves it. And yet the new book will not seem revolutionary to those who have followed the best experimental work in phonetics. It contains far more evidence on the workings of the hidden vocal organs than we had before, but enough was already known to establish several of Russell's main conclusions. The chief advances here made are traceable to several improvements in laboratory technique. (1) Russell has invented a marvelous device, which he calls a laryngo-periskop, for observing the action of the vocal cords and the walls of the larynx with a minimum of interference with the normal functioning of the speech organs. Several photographs made with this instrument are included in the book, and the reviewer can testify to its extraordinary value in actual use. The book does not include a description of it. (2) Russell has also improved the technique for taking x-ray pictures of the tongue and other soft parts of the mouth during speech. An elaborate description of this technique is given (44-88), and it is conclusively defended against the criticisms that have been made by various scholars. A number of photographs made by this process are published here, and many more will shortly appear in the author's Speech and Voice, to be published by Macmillan. Russell makes his x-ray pictures with such care that on their basis he can calculate the capacity of the oral cavity and of its several parts. There are included in the present volume 129 such calculations for vowel sounds of various languages as spoken by various subjects. (3) The author has also an improved technique for making palatograms, by which results are more accurate and are obtained more rapidly than heretofore. He also has an ingenious device for recording at the same time the configuration of the roof of the mouth. 139 palatograms are published here. As already suggested the evidence demolishes the theory that vowel quality is solely or even chiefly dependent upon the position of the surface of the tongue. One and the same vowel may be and frequently is produced with the front part of the tongue in various positions, and some vowels normally present tongue-positions unlike those we have hitherto assumed. For example, [æ] is usually produced with the tongue arched toward the soft palate, and there is no observable tendency for [1] to have a higher tongue-position than [e]. Russell's numerous calculations of the volume of the mouth cavities do not support any of the theories according to which the character of the vowels depends upon cavity-tones. |