Abbildungen der Seite

jects that interest them in order to maintain his position. His colleagues in the social and physical sciences, whose point of view is in some respects nearer to his, are separated from him by the academic organization.

Until the formation of the Linguistic Society of America in December 1924, a similar situation prevailed in the American system of learned societies. The linguists not only formed a small minority in the societies devoted to the several groups of national civilizations and literatures; but, as few as they were, the linguists were also distributed among four or five different national societies.

The Linguistic Society gathered linguists into an organization of their own in which all of them were at home, and it provided a central place of publication for all sorts of contributions to linguistic knowledge. It immediately became evident that the closest bonds were those that connected all linguists, no matter what particular language they were working with, and that the interests of all demanded cooperation between, let us say, classical and Romance linguists, rather than their traditional separation into two groups each consisting chiefly of non-linguists. It remained to find a way of bringing together for a considerable period of time a number of linguists for the joint prosecution of their studies.

Hence the Linguistic Institute was organized. For the first two years sessions of six weeks each were held at Yale University, apart from any summer school. While generous financial assistance was given by the Carnegie Corporation, the American Council of Learned Societies, and Yale University, these sessions were possible only because the scholars who conducted courses were willing to do so for stipends ($250 each in 1928, $350 each in 1929) that, in some cases, barely covered their expenses. Even so, the attendance upon courses was disappointingly small on account of the fees that had to be charged.

In the summers of 1930 and 1931 the sessions were held in connection with the summer session of the College of the City of New York, which institution assumed all financial responsibility, although contributions were made by the American Council of Learned Societies (for the session of 1931) and by several individual donors. Stipends were somewhat increased and fees were materially reduced under the new arrangement. Even so no stipends, except those paid to three foreign scholars and to the holders of three specially subsidized lectureships in the session of 1930, exceeded $400 in any of the first four sessions.

While the benefits coming from the sessions were great, as we shall see in a moment, they were being bought at the price of keeping much the same crops of scholars at work summer after summer. It seemed impossible to relieve them by others of equal prominence unless some at least of the stipends could be increased. Rather than interfere longer with the summer researches of a few devoted scholars, it was regretfully decided not to hold further sessions of the Institute until more satisfactory arrangements could be made. It should be clearly understood that the initiative in this matter came from the Administrative Committee of the Linguistic Institute. The College of the City of New York undertook a Language Institute of its own in the summer of 1932, and there is no reason to suppose that continued cooperation by the Linguistic Society would not have been welcome.

In 1936 the more satisfactory conditions that had been hoped for were provided by cooperation between the Linguistic Society and the University of Michigan. In each of the summers from 1936 to 1939 inclusive the Linguistic Institute has been an integral part of the graduate work of the Summer Session of the University of Michigan. Stipends have been upon the same liberal scale as in other parts of that school, and, while the staff of the University of Michigan has carried a large part of the teaching load, the outside staff has been changed from year to year. Only one man who taught in the earlier sessions has conducted regular classes in more than one of these later sessions, and the one exception has taught only twice at Ann Arbor. Furthermore fees have been reduced to the usual low level of the University of Michigan, with a resultant increase in attendance.

While the University of Michigan has borne most of the expense of the four recent sessions of the Institute, contributions have been made by the Linguistic Society, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the Institute of Pacific Relations.

The following table gives in one column the total number of teachers and public lecturers in each of the eight sessions and in a second column the total number of persons registered for courses. It should be remembered that some of the teachers and lecturers have also registered as students, and that some of the students registered in Institute courses at Ann Arbor have been primarily interested in other subjects than linguistic science. Furthermore, a good many persons have taken part in the activities of the Institute without getting into either category. It is not possible to give exact totals of the persons who have had a share in the various sessions.

[blocks in formation]

A table has been drawn up showing the geographical distribution, but nothing significant emerges beyond the fact that the larger enrollment of the four recent sessions has been accompanied by a wider distribution.

All persons who have been intimately associated with the Institute have been impressed by the high scholarship and the enthusiasm of the participants. This is in part due to the stimulus which we still get from associating with a solid community of linguists, but it comes also largely from the fact that some of the foremost linguistic scholars of our day have taken part in the venture. It would be invidious to single out living Americans; but it is enough to mention Hermann Collitz, H. C. Elmer, A. V. Williams Jackson, T. Atkinson Jenkins, Eduard Prokosch, and Edward Sapir, and, from France and Switzerland, Pierre Fouché, Jakob Jud, and Jules Marouzeau.

The formal courses conducted at the Linguistic Institute serve several essential purposes. First of all they assist in training graduate students in linguistics. In part, of course, they duplicate work given in many graduate schools, but a considerable number of them cover subjects that are treated in few American universities. Even such important matters as the comparative grammar of Greek and of Latin are now omitted by several of the foremost graduate schools, although they profess to provide satisfactory training for the Ph.D. in Greek and Latin. Besides the Institute has included such courses as American English, History of American Dialects, American Dialect Geography, Old Irish, The Language of the Homeric Poems, Hittite, Comparative Semitic Grammar, History of the Egyptian Language, Field Methods in Linguistics, Problems in the Preparation of a Linguistic Atlas. These topics are adequately treated in only a few American universities, and some of them nowhere in the country except at the Linguistic Institute; some, indeed, nowhere else in the world.

The unique or nearly unique character of these and other courses at

the Institute makes them important also for mature scholars who desire to broaden their scholarly background. For instance, a Semitist and several Anglists have profited greatly from learning the field method of the Americanists. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for scholars with regular teaching duties to have got this essential supplementary training elsewhere than at the Institute.

One subject, Introduction to Linguistic Science, has been treated in each session, but by five different scholars. In this way five widely different points of view regarding the foundations of the science have been presented. Probably the most stimulating of these courses was the one of 1938, which was attended by virtually the entire membership of the Institute.

This sort of cross fertilization between different schools of linguistic thought and between specialists in different languages and groups of languages has been effected not only through formal courses but even more by public lectures (usually followed by lengthy discussion), by luncheon conferences, and by informal discussion in small groups of from two to a dozen persons. Such activities as these have distinguished all sessions of the Institute from most university sessions, and they, chiefly, have led to the current increase in the vigor and productiveness of American linguistic science.

The direct effect of the Institute upon research has been perhaps most clearly discernible in two directions, the study of American dialects, and the field study of unrecorded languages.

The project for a dialect atlas of the United States and Canada had long been discussed, but active steps toward its realization began with a conference held in connection with the second session of the Linguistic Institute in 1929, when fifty scholars, including the teachers and several of the students in the Institute, met, at the invitation of the American Council of Learned Societies, to discuss plans, methods, and organization. The conference resulted in a report and in the appointment by the American Council of a committee to take charge of the project.

During the next two years extensive preliminary studies were carried out and a staff of workers was selected. These were brought together for intensive training and for extended discussion of problems at the fourth session of the Institute in 1931. Several courses that summer were especially designed for the Atlas staff, in particular one that was

1 Published in the Record of the Linguistic Institute, Second Session Linguistic Society of America, Bulletin No. 4.

conducted by Professor Jakob Jud of Zürich, one of the editors of the Italian dialect atlas. In addition the members of the Atlas staff held frequent conferences for the purpose of agreeing in as much detail as possible upon a method of field work.

Work upon the Dialect Atlas of New England, the first section of the larger project, was begun immediately after the close of the session. Field work in New England was completed in 1933, and the Atlas itself began to appear in 1939. Besides, most of the field work in the South Atlantic States has been completed and a beginning has been made on the Middle Atlantic States.

In the sessions of 1936 and 1937 the Editor and the Assistant Editor of the Linguistic Atlas of New England gave courses on the method of making a linguistic atlas, with the result that a preliminary survey of the speech of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois is now under way.:

The effect of the Institute upon field work on unrecorded languages began with Sapir's course, Field Methods in Linguistics, in the session of 1937, supplemented by an informal course on the phonetics of Navaho, which Sapir gave during the same session. At Sapir's suggestion two American Indian informants were brought to Ann Arbor for the session of 1938, where their speech was studied and recorded under more advantageous conditions than can usually be secured by a single worker who visits an Indian tribe. In particular, texts recorded by a first rate phonograph, such as could not readily be taken on a field trip, yield samples of natural speech which can then be played repeatedly. In this way stylistic and other features usually distorted by dictation can be secured. More important still, linguists who were not familiar with the methods developed by the Americanists observed and took part in this sort of study.

At the session of 1939 the same method was employed not only with an Algonquian informant, but also with a Dravidian informant, brought to Ann Arbor for the purpose, and with Lithuanian and Polish informants.

2 The Linguistic Atlas of New England. Vol. 1, in two parts. By Hans Kurath, with the collaboration of Miles L. Hanley, Bernard Bloch, Guy S. Lowman, and Marcus L. Hansen. Providence. 1939.

Handbook of the Linguistic Geography of New England. By Hans Kurath, with the collaboration of Marcus L. Hansen, Julia Bloch, and Bernard Bloch. Providence. 1939.

3 Information about the progress of the Linguistic Atlas of the United States and Canada may be found in the reports published every year in the Bulletin of the American Council of Learned Societies.

« ZurückWeiter »