¹ Burt W. and Ethel G. Aginsky, Word 4.168–72 (1948).—This paper was presented as a forum lecture before the Linguistic Institute at the University of California in Berkeley, 27 June 1951.

² Cf. Bernard Bloch and George L. Trager, Outline of linguistic analysis 8 (Baltimore, 1942).

³ A. Reichling, What is general linguistics?, Lingua 1.8–24 (1948).

⁴ Ernst Otto, Sprachwissenschaft und Philosophie 53 (Berlin, 1949).

⁵ Louis Hjelmslev, Principes de grammaire générale (Copenhagen, 1928).

⁶ Op.cit. 15, 101–7, 268–70.

⁷ Op.cit. 16; cf. Hjelmslev, La catégorie des cas 1.84 (Aarhus, 1935).

⁸ Priscian, ed. Keil, 12.3.13, 14.1.1, 16.1.1.

⁹ ‘unde sciens grammaticam in uno idiomate scit earn in alio, quantum ad omnia quae sunt essentialia grammaticae. quod tamen secundum earn non loquatur in illo nec loquentes intelligat, hoc est propter diversitatem vocum et diversas figurationes earum, quae sunt accidentalia grammaticae.‘ Quoted in G. Wallerand, Les oeuvres de Siger de Courtrai, Les Philosophes belges 8.(43) (Louvain, 1913).

¹⁰ E.g. Edward Sapir, Language 125 (New York, 1921).

¹¹ A. Meillet, Linguistique historique et linguistique générale 1.175 (Paris, 1926).

¹² Sapir, Language 126.

¹³ C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The meaning of meaning⁸ 260 (London, 1946).

¹⁴ Edward Sapir and Morris Swadesh, Nootka texts 235–43 (Philadelphia, 1939).

¹⁵ Cf. the suggestion of B. L. Whorf, Lg. 21.9 (1945), that in ‘Nitinat and the other Wakashan languages’ the terms noun and verb are meaningless, because ‘the power of making predications or declarative sentences and of taking on such moduli as voice, aspect, and tense, may be a property of every major word’.

¹⁶ Hjelmslev, Principles 39–42, 256.

¹⁷ Op.cit. 251.

¹⁸ Cf. Sapir, Language 7: ‘There are, properly speaking, no organs of speech; there are only organs that are incidentally useful in the production of speech sounds. The lungs, the larynx, the palate, the nose, the tongue, the teeth, and the lips, are all so utilized, but they are no more to be thought of as primary organs of speech than are the fingers to be considered as essentially organs of piano-playing or the knees as organs of prayer.‘

¹⁹ Hans Vogt, Un problème actif-passif dans le verbe, Grammaire et psychologie 134 (Paris, 1950).

²⁰ Viggo Brøndal, Les parties du discours (Copenhagen, 1948).

²¹ Op.cit. 78; cf. Brøndal, Essais de linguistique générale 143 (Copenhagen, 1943).

²² Sapir, Language 125; Leonard Bloomfield, Language 172, 201 (London, 1935).

²³ Eugene A. Nida, Field techniques in descriptive linguistics, IJAL 13.138–46 (1947), Morphology² 178 (Ann Arbor, 1949).

²⁴ Cf. B. Bloch, A set of postulates for phonemic analysis, Lg. 24.4 (1948).

²⁵ It should scarcely be necessary to point out that formal analysis includes both morphological and syntactic analysis.

²⁶ See below, p. 295.

²⁷ Cf. Hjelmslev, Principes 316.

²⁸ B. L. Whorf, IJAL 16.67–72 (1950). The argument is based on Whorf's study of the Hopi language. See also his four papers reissued (as Four articles on metalinguistics) by the Foreign Service Institute, Department of State, 1950; and Harry Hoijer, Cultural implications of some Navaho linguistic categories, Lg. 27.111–20 (1951).

²⁹ Cf. Ogden and Richards, The meaning of meaning 96 fn. 1: ‘It must be remembered, disconcerting though the fact may be, that so far from a grammar—the structure of a symbol system—being a reflection of the world, any supposed structure of the world is more probably a reflection of the grammar used.‘ The relevance of such enquiries to linguistics was emphasized by Sapir; see his articles The grammarian and his language, American Mercury 1.149–55 (1924), and The status of linguistics as a science, Lg. 5.207–14 (1929).

³⁰ Cf. Hjelmslev, La catégorie des cas 1.135.

³¹ IJAL 16.68 (1950).

³² See Bronislaw Malinowski, The problem of meaning in primitive languages (Supplement 1 in Ogden and Richards, The meaning of meaning); id., An ethnographic theory of language, Coral gardens and their magic 2.3–74 (London, 1935); J. R. Firth, The technique of semantics, Transactions of the Philological Society 1935.36–72; id., The tongues of men (London, 1937); id., Personality and language in society, Sociological review 42.37–52 (1950).

³³ E.g. Bloomfield, Language 172.

³⁴ E.g. Sapir, Language 126.

³⁵ E.g. Meillet, Linguistique historique et linguistique générale 1.175. Cf. Nida, Morphology² 178.

³⁶ J. Fourquet, La notion du verbe, Grammaire et psychologie 72–96.

³⁷ Cf. fn. 28.

³⁸ Sapir, Language 142.

³⁹ Cf. also such Latin sentences as deus omnipotens, probably with a difference of intonation when standing as a complete sentence.

⁴⁰ Word 4.168–72 (1948).

⁴¹ Cf. Bloomfield, Language 140.

⁴² Firth, The use and distribution of certain English sounds, English studies 17.1 f. (1935); id., The technique of semantics, TPS 1935.36–72; id., Personality and language in society, SocR 42.37–52 (1950); id., Modes of meaning, Essays and studies 1951 118–49; Nida, A system for the description of semantic elements, Word 7.1–14 (1951). Cf. Hjelmslev's use, in grammatical analysis, of the Saussurean distinction between valeur and signification: La catégorie des cas, 1.103.

⁴³ When word-classes have been designated noun and verb etc. in the grammatical structure of two or more languages, valid comparisons can, of course, be made between the intra-linguistic meaning of a word-class within the structure of one language and the intra-linguistic meaning of a similarly designated word-class in another language. But such comparisons must be operationally subsequent to the designation of the classes to be compared and cannot be the basis for such designation.

⁴⁴ Cf. M. B. Emeneau, Language and non-linguistic patterns, Lg. 26.200 (1950).