Koerner - History

7/27/2019 Koerner - History

1/15

Toward a History of Modern SociolinguisticsAuthor(s): Konrad KoernerSource: American Speech, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 57-70Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/455434

Accessed: 12/08/2009 21:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican

Speech.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/455434?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/455434?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/15

TOWARD A HISTORY OF MODERNSOCIOLINGUISTICSKONRADKOERNER

University of Ottawa

IT APPEARS TO BE A REGULAR PART OF North American culture that whensomething is declared to be new, few people care to aska question aboutwhat in effect distinguishes the allegedly novel idea or approach from theold. The past is soon forgotten, and people are happy to be part of a trendypresent which holds out the promise of becoming the future. There are, ofcourse, reasons for this phenomenon-historical, sociopolitical, and eco-nomic; however, an analysis of these reasons is not my concern here. I amsimply trying to explain why linguists on this continent usually lack ahistorical consciousness regarding their own field of study and, as a result,can be easily led into believing claims of novelty, discontinuity, break-through, and revolution made by someone in favorof a new product or, forthat matter, a theoretical stance. I still recall myown astonishment about theenthusiasm of my teachers for "sociolinguistics" during the late 1960s,which then was, as it is still today, largely associated with the name ofWilliam Labov (cf. Macauley 1988, 154-57). In this paper I refer mainly tothis brand of sociolinguistics rather than the line of research pursued byscholars coming from sociology (e.g., Bernstein 1960, 1971, Fishman 1972),which is better defined by the phrase SOCIOLOGY OF LANGUAGE; or researchprograms laid out by scholars with anthropological backgrounds, such asHymes' ETHNOGRAPHYOF SPEAKING (e.g., Hymes 1974), and by scholars whofavor an interactionist, discourse analysis approach (e.g., Gumperz 1971).Given what I noted in my opening sentence, I probably should not havebeen surprised to find next to nothing on the history of "sociolinguistics"when I first ventured to investigate the subject several years ago.' But I ex-pected a scholar like Dell Hymes, who has written on other aspects of thehistory of linguistics during the past twenty-fiveand more years (see Hymes1983 for a collection of his papers in this area), and who published, amongother things, a book called Foundations in Sociolinguistics (1974), to have en-lightened us on the origins, sources, and development of the field. However,one searches in vain for anysuch account in the bibliography of this prolificwriter. The closest thing that I could find to date on the history ofsociolinguistics wasYakovMalkiel's (1976) paper, which traces its develop-ment from Romance scholarship via dialectological work. There are a fewbrief textbook accounts of the historyof sociolinguistics (e.g., Wolfram andFasold 1972, 26-32; Bell 1976, 28-29; Milroy 1987, 5-11), but these go little

57


3/15

AMERICAN PEECH 6.1 (1991)beyond acknowledging the existence of a link between work in dialectologyand sociolinguistics. Some textbooks (e.g., Fasold 1984, Wardhaugh 1986)treat the subject without any historical perspective at all. This unsatisfactorysituation has been somewhat remedied by the publication of the first tomeof the recent Sociolinguisticsandbook (Ammon et al. 1988), which containsa large section on "Historyof Sociolinguistics as a Discipline," though onlyHagen's contribution comes in anywayclose to what I am tryingto do in thispaper (Hagen 1988b).2WilliamLabov,the leader of this field of research, should not be expectedto have engaged himself in writing the history of sociolinguistics, of course,although his work shows much of the sources of his own background andapproach (e.g., 1966a, 9-12), as we shall see in what follows. The pioneeringorganizer of the modern field of sociolinguistics does not need to involvehimself in history-writing;he is far too busywith regular research work, andhe knows that his place in the annals of the discipline is assured.We mayalsorecall the disastrous results of Noam Chomsky's forays into the supposedancestry of his own work, at least as far as serious historiographic reasearchin linguistics is concerned (cf. Koerner 1983). Apart from presenting uswith a distorted picture of the development of Western linguistic thought-not to mention the history of North American linguistics from Whitney tothe 1950s-Chomsky's example encouraged others to produce similarWhighistories and, even worse, propaganda pieces for a particular faith.It remains true, however, that a scientific field reaches its maturity onlyby becoming aware of its history and by becoming interested in having itdocumented (see, most recently, Shuy 1990 for a laudable effort in thisdirection). The present paper is a modest attempt to come to grips with thetaskof presenting the sources and early development of sociolinguistics, anarea of research generally and erroneously thought to have arisen in themid-1960s, perhaps as a result of the publication of the papers of theNovember 1963 San Francisco Conference on the Ethnography of Commu-nication (Gumperz and Hymes 1964) and of the proceedings of the 1964UCLA-Lake Arrowhead-conference devoted to the subject (Bright 1966),which no doubt served as a rallying point for this line of research and atwhich William Labov had ample opportunity to present his findings andhave his views discussed (Labov 1964, 1966b).

THESOURCESFMODERNOCIOLINGUISTICS.y own research revealed thatwe could envisage the broad Labovian type of sociolinguistics to be theconfluence, the synthesis, of various lines of research that go back to at leastseveral generations of linguistic workers. The link between dialect geogra-phy and sociolinguistics has been made by various scholars (e.g., Trudgill1983); it is too obvious to be overlooked, but this may explain in part why it

58


4/15

MODERNSOCIOLINGUISTICShas not been as frequently acknowledged as one might expect. Another lineof linguistic thought goes back to the later nineteenth century, whenscholars such as William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894), Heymann Steinthal(1823-1899), Michel Breal (1832-1915), Hermann Paul (1846-1921),JanBaudouin de Courtenay (1846-1929), and others reacted against the view,usually associated with ideas propounded by August Schleicher (1821-1868) according to which linguistics should be thought of as a naturalscience and that language ought to be treated like a living organism. Thischange in philosophical outlook among linguists became fairly general inthe wake of the publication of Wilhelm Dilthey's (1833-1911) Einleitung indie Geisteswissenschaften (1883) and the ensuing debate over the essentialdifferences between Naturwissenschaft and Geisteswissenschaft in Germanyand elsewhere (Koerner 1982,187-88). This reference to the change in theintellectual climate is important, as it provides the background for a betterunderstanding of the establishment of a specific line of research. So, inaddition to dialectology, we may also have to recognize a particular line ofapproach to language and to questions of language change that has beensociological in orientation. As well, we may become aware of the morerecent influx of work on bi- and multi-lingualism into sociolinguistic research.

The influence of Whitney, Paul, Baudouin de Courtenay, and others onSaussure is well established (see Koerner 1973 for details); it suggests at thesame time that Saussure did not need Durkheim to be able to characterizelanguage as a fait social (Bierbach 1978). To cite just one passage fromWhitney's Language and the Study of Language, to which Saussure frequentlyreferred in his lectures on general linguistics at the beginning of thiscentury:

Speech is not a personal possession, but a social; it belongs, not to the individual,but to the member of society. No item of existing language is the work of anindividual; for what we may severally choose to say is not language until it beaccepted and employed by our fellows. The whole development of speech, thoughinitiated bythe acts of individuals, iswrought out bythe community. [Whitney 1867,404]

I shall return to the importance of Whitney below. The role he played inEuropean linguistics during the last quarter of the nineteenth century hasbeen discussed elsewhere already (see Koerner 1980).

FROM DIALECT GEOGRAPHY TO SOCIOLINGUISTICS. As mentioned, Malkiel(1976) established a connection between dialectological work in Romancelanguages and sociolinguistics. In other words, we must go back to thebeginnings of fieldwork in dialect geography during the last decades of thenineteenth century to see the sociological component slowly infiltrating

59


5/15

AMERICAN PEECH 6.1 (1991)linguistic geography. I am thinking in particular of the Marburger chuleestablished byGeorgWenker (1852-1911), which isstill activetoday (Knoopet al. 1982) and the school created somewhat later by the SwissJulesGillieron (1854-1926) in Paris (Jaberg 1908), whose students Jacob Jud(1882-1952) and KarlJaberg (1877-1958), together with the assistance ofPaul Scheuermeier (1888-1973), Gerhard Rohlfs (1892-1984), and MaxLeopold Wagner (1880-1962), compiled the voluminous Atlas linguistiqueetethnographiquede I Italie et de la Suisse meridionale (Jaberg andJud 1928-40).Both the German and the Swissenterprises are of particular interest in thepresent context, as I shall indicate below.To begin with, Max Weinreich (1894-1969), the father of the muchbetter known Uriel Weinreich (1926-1967), did his doctoral dissertation onYiddish with Ferdinand Wrede (1863-1934), Wenker's successor at theUniversity of Marburg (Weinreich 1923). (From 1926 onwards, Wredebrought out the massive Deutscher prachatlas,nitiated many yearsearlier byWenker.) More interestingly perhaps, Wrede- whom Meillet cites in hisfamous 1905 paper (see Meillet 1921, 255)-much earlier drew parallelsbetween ethnography and dialectology, distinguishing between in-dividuallinguistische and sozial-linguistische instances of borrowing amonglanguages (Wrede 1902).

Perhaps more important in the present context is the fact that, in 1931,the SwissJudand Scheuermeier were brought over to this continent for thesummer to trainAmerican students to undertake dialectological field work.The Austrian-born Hans Kurath (b. 1891) had secured a grant from theAmerican Council of Learned Societies for this purpose. We know thatRaven I. McDavid,Jr. (1911-1984), for instance, was one of those whoparticipated in the research that led to the Linguistic Atlas of New Englandedited byKurathand others (1939-43). It seems significant, therefore, thatMcDavidpublished an articleentitled "DialectGeographyand SocialScienceProblems" as early as 1946 (see also McDavid's autobiographical sketch[1980a]). His 1948 "socialanalysis"on "Post-Vocalic-r/ in South Carolina,"however, has recently been hailed asapioneering instance of variation study(Shuy 1990, 193). By the time of McDavidand O'Cain (1973) the connec-tion between dialectology and sociolinguistics had been recognized, thoughperhaps more implicitly than publicly acknowledged.Even outside established schools important dialectological work wasdone in the later nineteenth century; mention can be made of Schleicher'slittle-known study of his native dialect (Schleicher 1858) and of JostWinteler's (1846-1929) celebrated KerenzerMundart1875) asjust two suchexamples. That the social component in language variation was re-cognized before the turn of the century may be gathered from Richard

60


6/15

MODERNSOCIOLINGUISTICSL6we's (1863-c.1940) paper of 1882, which Hagen (1988b, 408) has re-ferred to as the "only . .. known early study on social dialect variation incities," and the dialect work of yet another scholar of the time, PhilippWegener (1848-1916), dealing with the same geographic area asL6we,whonoted the following in his 1891 contribution to Hermann Paul's Grundriss:

In the Magdeburg egionthe ruralworkersgo into the citiesin largenumberstowork here asmasons,handy-men, rin thefactories.Thejointworkbrings heminto regularcontactwiththe urbanworkers;he LowGermanruralworkerusuallydoes not mindbeinginfluencedbythe commonspeechof thecitydwellers, ndthisthe moreso, thelarger hedistance romhisruraldialectandthehigherhis esteemfor the advantages f urban ife. [Wegener1891,937;mytranslation:KK]I resist the temptation to give this statement a modern interpretation. I

believe, however, thatin observations like these we maydiscern an awarenessof the "sociology of language" avant la lettre, nd I am sure that many othersuch statements could be found in the early work of dialectologists. (Seealso Olmsted and Timm 1983 on Baudouin de Courtenay, a former studentof Schleicher's, who conducted considerable field work from the 1870sonward.) No doubt the actual contact in these linguistic investigations withspeakers of different varieties of language in differing socioeconomicsettings fostered such awareness, to the extent that it becomes at timesdifficult to distinguish sharplybetween dialectology and sociolinguistics inthe work of these scholars, especially in areas of research that are now calledURBAN DIALECTOLOGY.

In order to establish a more obvious connection between the differentlines of development in the history of sociolinguistics, let me draw some-thing like agenealogy. Before we are able to do so, however, afew additionallinks will have to be established. We mentioned Saussure's high esteem forWhitney,which probablygoes back to his yearsat the Universities of Leipzigand Berlin (1876-1880) . During his years in Paris, Saussure's most distin-guished student wasAntoine Meillet (1866-1936), who in turn had AndreMartinet (b. 1908) as his student. I mention this fact because Martinetwrotea monograph-length studyof his native dialect in 1939, which waspublishedafter World War II (1946), and also because Labov, like Meillet andMartinet, has alwaysbeen particularly interested in questions of languagechange. More important still, while a professor at Columbia University inNew YorkCity, Martinet had Uriel Weinreich as his student, both for theM.A. and the Ph.D. degrees. Itwas Weinreich's doctoral thesis of 1951 whichled to the book he became famous for, namely, Languages in Contact(Weinreich 1953), a sociogeographical studyof bilingualism whose title hehad taken from a series of lectures given byMartinet (asWeinreich indicatesin his acknowledgements, x). It should be added that Weinreich also studied

61


7/15

AMERICAN PEECH 6.1 (1991)under Jakob Jud in Zurich during the academic year 1948-49 (Malkiel1969), doing fieldwork in Switzerland, thus establishing another Swissconnection in sociolinguistics avant la lettre.Finally,we need only recall thefact that Labov (b. 1927) took his advanced degrees with Weinreich (seeLabov 1963, 1966a) in order to establish a kind of genealogical line leadingfrom Whitney to Labovand to contemporary sociolinguistics (see figure 1).No doubt this is an overly simplistic lineage, and much more evidence,textual as well as biographical, must be supplied in order to offer a moreadequate picture. Mynext section will add to this composite picture. Butthose familiar with Labov's work know of his frequent acknowledgement ofdebt to his teacher Weinreich and of his references to the work of Meillet,Saussure, Hermann Paul, and others, making this genealogy somewhatmore credible.

The transition from dialectological work to sociolinguistic research issomething like a naturaldevelopment, as can be shown byreference to workdone on Dutch during the first decades of this century.Although noting that"the sociological approach had scarcely found its way into linguistics,"Jacobus Van Ginneken (1877-1945) attempted to bring aboutjust this sortof approach in his two-volume Handboek erNederlandseaal (Van Ginneken1913-14) as he indicated in the subtitle, De sociologischetructuurvan hetNederlandssee Hagen 1988a, 271-72, for details). The next decade saw thepublication of a work which Hagen (273) rightly characterizes as "averyadvanced socio-linguistic study,"namely, Gesinus GerardusKloeke's (1877-1963) DeHollandsche xpansie 1927), which Bloomfield treated as paradig-matic for the discussion of isoglosses in his chapter on dialectology(Bloomfield 1933, 328-31). As the full title of his book indicates (seeKloecke 1927), the author is combining in his research language geography,sociology, and history; sound change is regarded as taking place by aprocess of social adaptation or borrowing from the speech of the upperclasses by speakers from the socioeconomically lower classes.

FIGURE 1FromWhitney o LabovWhitneySaussureMeillet

MartinetWeinreich

Labov

62


8/15

MODERNSOCIOLINGUISTICSHISTORICAL LINGUISTICS, LANGUAGECHANGE, AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS. While the

dialectology-sociolinguistics connection is rather obvious, the link thatexists between certain traditions in historical linguistic work andsociolinguistics is not. Interestingly enough, very early in his career, Labovmade it clear that the focus of his research "has always been on theunderstanding of linguistic change" (1966b, 102). It is therefore not surpris-ing that, realizing where he had come from, we can find the connectionbetween sociolinguistics and earlywork on language change acknowledgedin the work of Labov. For instance he states (1972, 267):

In 1905,Meilletpredictedthat this centurywould be devotedto isolatingthecausesof languagechangewithin a socialmatrix n whichlanguage s embedded.Butthatdid nothappen.Infact,therewerealmostno empirical tudiesof languagechangein its social context in the 50 years ollowingMeillet'spronouncement.

Labovappears to be referring to Meillet's celebrated paper, "Commentles mots changent de sens,"which Meillet published in Emile Durkheim's(1858-1917) periodical Anneesociologique,nd which still today is regardedas exemplary in the semantic change debate (see Arlotto 1972, 163-83,Lehmann 1973, 212-13). 6One may assume that Labov would have takenthe by-nowclassical studies by Louis Gauchat (1866-1942) and by EduardHermann (1869-1950) as exceptions to his pronouncement (see Lehmann1973, 163-64); however, one misses a reference to the work of Kloeke(Labov 1972, 23 and passim; 1966a, 11). Curiously enough, Kloeke is notmentioned in Weinreich's huge bibliography (1953,123-46) either. Earlierin his book Labov quotes, with approval, the following (1972, 263):

Language s ... the social factparexcellence, the resultof social contact. It hasbecome one of the strongest bonds uniting societies, and it owes its developmentto the existenceof the socialgroup. [Vendryes1925 (1921), 11]Joseph Vendryes (1875-1960), firsta pupil and later a long-time collabo-rator of Meillet's, fully shared his teacher's views on the social nature of

language and on the desirabilityof establishing a sociological linguistics. Hisgoal, like Meillet's and his school (cf. Bolelli 1979), was to pinpoint thecauses of linguistic change and not simply describe the mechanism oflinguistic evolution as was common practice among historical linguists,Neogrammarian or not, of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.While Meillet ventured little beyond the area of lexical change (which inmany instances offers itself best to sociological interpretation asregards thereasons for meaning change, loss of words, and the like), Vendryes, as thetitle of his book suggests-although he, too, devotes two chapters tomeaning change alone (192-211 and 212-30)-tried to argue that linguisticevolution is but a reflection of social evolution (352ff.).

63


9/15

AMERICAN PEECH 6.1 (1991)Yet while other students of Meillet, such asAlf Sommerfelt (1892-1965)

from the 1930s onwards (e.g., Sommerfelt 1932) and Marcel Cohen (1884-1974) in his later years, belabored the subject of a sociology of language, itis fair to say that little concrete advance was made in the explanation oflanguage change on the basis of social factors (cf. Labov's remarks 1972,267). However,Meillet's student Martinet did instill in his student Weinreicha strong interest in historical linguistics and the explanation of the causes oflinguistic change, an interest he passed on to his student Labov (cf.Weinreich et al. 1968), as may be gathered from most of his research fromthe mid-1960s onwards (e.g., Labov 1982, a recent monograph-lengthaccount). In fact, Labov'swork constitutes a synthesis of earlier attempts ata sociological approach to questions of language change, beginning withMeillet's paper of 1905 (if not much earlier) and dialectological researchdone in the United States since the 1930s, which in turn goes back toEuropean traditions established during the last quarter of the nineteenthcentury. EvenWhitney,who made such seemingly modern-sounding obser-vations as the following, wasEuropean-trained: 'We regard every language... as an institution, one of those which, in each community, make up itsculture. Like all the constituent elements of culture, it is various in everycommunity, even in the different individuals composing each" (1875, 280).

BILINGUALISM, MULTILINGUALISM,AND LANGUAGESIN CONTACT. There is yet athird line traceable in more recent work (ignoring the late-nineteenth-century debate on Mischsprachennd the like) that filtered, I believe, intomuch of modern-dayworkin sociolinguistics. I am not so much referring tostraightforwardresearch on bilingualism such as Werner Leopold (1896-1984) conducted in the 1930s and 1940s, which is more directly associatedwith "psycholinguistics,"as to bilingualism research that is conscious of thesociopolitical environment in which it occurs. I am thinking in particularofthe work of EinarHaugen (b. 1906) from the early1950s onwards,especiallyhis ground-breaking study of the Norwegian language in the United States(1953). In this context, it is interesting to note that Weinreich pere, ike hisson a native speaker of Yiddish,published papers on bilingualism asearlyas1931. It is easyto imagine that following the arrivalof the Weinreichs on theNorth American continent, and given the multilingual situations that theymust have encountered in New YorkCity, their interest in plurilingualismand language contact would have increased. (In this last regard, Martinet'sinfluence on Uriel Weinreich must have been of singular importance.)In other words, the sources of modern-day sociolinguistics are diverseand complex, and they all had a bearing on the development of the variousresearch programsfrom the 1960s onwards.In the North American context,where over ten percent of the population is of African ancestry, we should

64


10/15

MODERN SOCIOLINGUISTICSnot forget the importance that was attached by the administrations ofpresidents Kennedy and Johnson to the study of Black English (see Drake1977, 78-106, for details), research in which Labov was very prominent.

CONCLUDINGOBSERVATIONS. riting at the beginning of the century underthe influence of Durkheimian sociology, Meillet did not have a name for thenew approach to language and language change in particular. Butjust a fewyearslater, in 1909, his compatriot Raoul de la Grasserie (1839-1914) spokeof sociologieinguistiquen a programmatic article. The term sociolinguistics,however, did not make its appearance before 1952, somewhat too late to beemployed in Haugen's and Weinreich's studies of 1953. Created by HaverC. Currie (b. 1908) and used in a programmatic paper dealing withwhatwewould refer to as "(social) register" of speech (1952), the term "socio-linguistics" was picked up by Wallis (1956), the same year that Pickfordoffered a "sociological appraisal" of American dialectology.7 It appears,however, that it took almost ten more years before "sociolinguistics" be-came the generally accepted name for an important subfield of linguisticresearch (e.g., Bright 1966).

Considering the different sources of modern sociolinguistics traced inthis paper, we might depict the evolution of the field with the help of thediagram (which is obviously incomplete) shown in figure 2. (The diagramexcludes extralinguistic, in particular sociological and psychological, workthat has exercised an influence on sociolinguistic theory and practice.)It is true that the appearance of a cover term for a particular field ofresearch does not necessarily signal the beginning of a discipline, but itmarks the point at which professional identification of a particular enter-prise is regarded as desirable by at least some of its practitioners. If theawakening of interest in the history of SOCIOLINGUISTICSis any indication, itappears that the field is truly reaching its maturity.

FIGURE 2The Sources of SociolinguisticsDialectology HistoricalLinguistics Bi- and MultlingualismStudies

Wrede (1902) Meillet (1905) M. Weinreich (1931)Gauchat (1905) Vendryes (1921) U. Weinreich (1951)Jaberg (1908) Sommerfelt (1932) Haugen (1953)Hermann (1929) F Ferguson (1959)McDavid (1946, 1948) (Martinet 1946 [1939]) Friedrich (1961)1

U. Weinreich (1953)Labov (1963)

SOCIOLINGUISTICS

65


11/15

AMERICAN SPEECH 66.1 (1991)NOTES

1. Although I owned a copy of it, it required the alertness of others to draw myattention to Stephen 0. Murray'sGroupFormationn Social Science 1983) as a mineof information (actually not used when writing this paper) on certain developmentsin sociolinguistics, to which I gladly refer the reader, particularly chapters 10,"LanguageContact: EarlySociolinguistics" (esp. 199-213 on Haugen, U. Weinreich,and Fishman) and 11, "The Ethnography of Speaking" (esp. 235-55 on Ferguson,Gumperz, Hymes and others, and 318-26 on Labov).2. The section includes also a paper byMichael Clyne on the history of languagecontact and another by Ian Hancock on research on pidgins and creoles, thuseffectively enlarging the scope of sociolinguistics eyond what is meant by the termin the present paper.3. It came as a surprise to me when I read in a recent sociolinguistics paper thefollowing remark: "Languagesare, in fact, remarkablystable organisms, transmit-ting their essential characteristics from one generation to the next" (Macaulay1988, 156-57).4. Thanks to the diligent search among the Whitney papers at Yale's SterlingLibraryby John E.Joseph, we know that Saussure wrote a letter to Whitney on 7April 1879 in which he referred to their meeting a few days previously; see Joseph(1988).5. Labov (1966a, 10) quotes from a paper given by Meillet (in 1906-not 1905)in which Meillet had argued that because language was a social science "le seulelement variable auquel on puisse recourir pour rendre compte du changementlinguistique est le changement social dont les variations du langage ne sont que lesconsequences parfois imm6diates et directes, et le plus souvent mediates etindirectes" (Meillet 1921, 17). Labov offers a-not always faithful-rendering inEnglish of the French original.6. I say "appearsto be" since Labov does not supply a reference; however, fromanother reference to Meillet in the same volume (185) it would seem that he is infact referring to Meillet's paper of 1906 (as in Labov 1966a, 10).7. Thus Shuy (1989, 298) is probably quite wrong in asserting that Currie's useof the term sociolinguisticsn 1952 was "the only extant use preceding the LakeArrowhead and the 1964 UCLA Institute." For instance, Paul Friedrich, reviewingFerguson and Gumperz (1960), spoke quite liberally of "sociolinguistics"as if it hadalready been an established term (see Friedrich 1961, 163).

REFERENCESAmmon, Ulrich, Norbert Dittmar, and KlausJ.Mattheier, eds. 1988. Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik:AnInternationalandbookoftheScienceofLanguageandociety.Berlinand New York: de Gruyter.Arlotto, Anthony. 1972. Introduction o HistoricalLinguistics.Boston: Houghton.Bell, RogerT. 1976. Sociolinguistics: oals,Approaches,nd Problems.ondon: Batsford.Bernstein, Basil B. 1960. "Languageand Social Class." British ournalofSociology 1:271-76..1971. Class,Codes, nd Control. vols. 2nd ed., 1974-75. London: Routledge.Bierbach, Christine. 1978. Spracheals "Faitsocial": Die linguistischeTheorieF. deSaussuresund ihr Verhdltnis u denpositivistischenSozialwissenschaften.ubingen:Niemeyer.

66


12/15

MODERN SOCIOL1NGUISTICSBloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language.New York: Holt.Bolelli, Tristano. 1979. "La scuola linguistica sociologica francese." Studi e Saggi

Linguistici(Pisa) 19: 1-26.Br6al,Michel. 1883. "Les ois intellectuelles du langage: Fragment de s6mantique."Annuaire de l'Association our l'encouragementesgtudes recques nFrances17:132-42.Bright,William,ed. 1966. Sociolinguistics:roceedingsftheUCLAConference.he Hague:Mouton.Cohen, Marcel. 1958. La grande nvention de l'icriture t son evolution. 3 vols. Paris:Klincksieck.Currie, Haver C. 1952. "A Projection of Sociolinguistics: The Relationship of

Speech to Social Status." SouthernSpeech ournal 18: 28-37.. 1981. "Sociolinguistics and American Linguistic Theory." InternationalJournal of theSociology fLanguage31: 29-41.Dilthey,Wilhelm. 1883. EinleitungindieGeisteswissenschaften:ersucheinerGrundlegungfurdas StudiumderGesellschaft nd derGeschichte. eipzig: Duncker und Humblot.Drake, Glendon F. 1977. TheRoleofPrescriptivismn AmericanLinguistics,1820-1970.Amsterdam: Benjamins.Fasold, Ralph W. 1984. TheSociolinguistics f Society.Oxford: Blackwell.Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. "Diglossia."Word15: 325-40.

Ferguson, Charles A., and JohnJ. Gumperz, eds. 1960. LinguisticDiversity n SouthAsia: Studies n Regional,Social and Functional Variation. Bloomington: IndianaUniv. Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics.Fishman,Joshua A. 1972. Language n SocioculturalChange:Essays.Ed. Anwar S. Dil.Stanford: Stanford UP.Friedrich, PaulW. 1961. Review of Ferguson and Gumperz 1960. Language37: 163-68.Gauchat, Louis. 1905. "L'unite phonetique dans le patois d'une commune." Ausromanischenprachen ndLiteraturen:FestschriftfurHeinrichorf.Halle: Niemeyer,175-232.Grasserie,Raoul de la. 1909. "De asociologie linguistique." MonatsschriftfurSoziologie1: 725-45.Gumperz,JohnJ. 1971. Language n SocialGroups:Essays.Ed. AnwarS. Dil. Stanford:Stanford UP.Gumperz,JohnJ., and Dell H. Hymes, eds. 1964. TheEthnographyfCommunication.New York:Holt.Hagen, Anton M. 1988a. "Dutch Dialectology: The National and the International

Perspective." HistoriographiaLinguistica15: 263-87.. 1988b. "Sociolinguistic Aspects in Dialectology." In Ammon et al. 1988,402-13.Haugen, Einar. 1953. The NorwegianLanguage in America:A Study in BilingualBehavior.2 vols. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P. 2nd ed., Bloomington:

Indiana UP, 1969.Hermann, Eduard. 1929. "Lautveranderungen in der Individualsprache einerMundart."NachrichtenderGesellschaft erWissenschaftenu Gittingen 9: 195-214.Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations n Sociolinguistics:An EthnographicApproach.Phila-delphia: U of Pennsylvania P.. 1983. Essays n theHistoryofLinguisticAnthropology. msterdam: Benjamins.Hymes, Dell, and John Fought. 1975. "American Structuralism."CurrentTrends n

67


13/15

AMERICAN SPEECH 66.1 (1991)Linguistics. Ed. Thomas A. Sebeok. Historiography of Linguistics. The Hague:Mouton, vol. 13. 903-1176.

Jaberg, Karl.1908. Sprachgeographie:eitragzumVerstdndnis esAtlaslinguistiquede laFrance.Aarau: Sauerlander.Jaberg, Karl, and Jakob Jud, eds. 1928-40. Sprach-und SachatlasItaliens und derSuiidschweiz. vols. Zofingen: Ringer.Joseph, John E. 1988. "Saussure's Meeting with Whitney, Berlin, 1879." CahiersFerdinandde Saussure 42: 205-13.Kloeke,G[esinus] G[erardus]. 1927.DeHollandscheexpansieinezestiendeeneventiendeeeuwen haarweerspiegelingn dehedendaagsche ederlandsche ialecten.The Hague:

Nijhoff.Knoop, Ulrich, Wolfgang Putschke, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand. 1982. "Die

Marburger Schule: Entstehung und frfihe Entwicklung der Dialektgeogra-phie." Dialektologie: in Handbuchzur deutschenund allgemeinenDialektologie.Ed.Werner Besch, et al. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 38-92.Koerner, E. F. Konrad. 1973. Ferdinandde Saussure: Originand Development f hisLinguistic Theoiy n Western tudiesofLanguage.Braunschweig: F. Vieweg.. 1978. Towarda Historiography fLinguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.. 1980. "L'importance de William Dwight Whitney pour lesjeunes linguistesde Leipzig et pour Ferdinand de Saussure."Lingvisticae nvestigationes : 379-94.Repr. in Koerner 1988, 1-15.. 1982. "Positivismin 19th-Century Linguistics." Rivista di Filosofia73: 170-91. . 1983. "The 'Chomskyan Revolution' and ItsHistoriography." Language&Communication : 147-69. Rev. version in Koerner 1989, 101-46.. 1986. "Aux sources de la sociolinguistique [moderne]." LingvisticaeInvestigationes 0: 381-401. Repr. in Koerner 1988, 155-74.. 1988. SaussureanStudies Etudes saussuriennes.Geneva: Editions Slatkine.

1989. PracticingLinguisticHistoriography.Amsterdam and Philadelphia:Benjamins.Kurath, Hans, with Marcus L. Hansen, Julia Bloch, and Bernard Bloch. 1939.Handbookof theLinguistic Geography fNewEngland.Providence: Amer. Councilof Learned Societies.Labov,William. 1963. "TheSocial Motivation of Language Change." Word 9: 273-309.. 1964. "Phonological Correlates of Social Stratification." In Gumperz andHymes 1964, 164-76.. 1966a. The SocialStratificationofEnglishin New YorkCity.Washington, DC:Center for Applied Linguistics.. 1966b. "Hypercorrection bythe LowerMiddle Classas a Factor of LinguisticChange." In Bright 1966, 84-113.. 1972. SociolinguisticPatterns.Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P.

. 1982. "Building on Empirical Foundations." In Perspectives n HistoricalLinguistics. Ed. Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: Benjamins, 17-92.Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. HistoricalLinguistics:An Introduction. nd rev. ed. NewYork: Holt.

Leopold, Werner F. 1939-50. SpeechDevelopment fa BilingualChild.4 vols. Evanston:Northwestern UP.

68


14/15

MODERN SOCIOLINGUISTICSL6we,Richard. 1882. "DieDialektforschungim Magdeburgischen Gebiete."JahrbuchdesVereinsfiirniederdeutscheprachforschung4: 14-52.Macauley, Ronald K.S. 1988. "WhatHappened to Sociolinguistics?" EnglishWorld-

Wide9: 153-69.Malkiel,Yakov.1969. "UrielWeinreich, Jakobjud's Last Student." RomancePhilology22: 128-32.. 1976. "From Romance Philology through Dialect Geography to Sociolin-guistics." InternationalJournal f theSociology f Language9: 59-84.Martinet,Andre. 1946 [1939]. "Descriptiondu parlerfranco-provencal d'Hauteville(Savoie)." Revuede linguistiqueromane15: 1-86.McDavid, Raven I., Jr. 1946. "Dialect Geography and Social Science Problems."SocialForces 5: 168-72. Repr. in McDavid 1979, 131-35.. 1948. "Postvocalic /-r/ in South Carolina: A Social Analysis." AmericanSpeech 3: 194-203. Repr. in McDavid 1980b, 1-14.. 1979. Dialect n Culture:Essays n GeneralDialectologyyRaven I. McDavid, r.Ed. William A. Kretzschmar,Jr., et al. University: U of Alabama P.. 1980a. "Linguistics, through the Kitchen Door." FirstPersonSingular. Ed.Boyd H. Davis and Raymond K. O'Cain. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3-20.. 1980b. Varieties fAmericanEnglish. Ed.Anwar S. Dil. Stanford: Stanford UP.McDavid,Raven I.,Jr., and Raymond K. O'Cain. 1973. "Sociolinguistics and DialectGeography." KansasJournalof Sociology : 137-56.Meillet, Antoine. 1905. "Comment les mots changent de sens."Annie sociologique9:1-38.

. 1906. "L'etat actuel des etudes de linguistique generale Lecon d'ou-verture du Cours de grammaire comparee au College de France lue le mardi 13fevrier 1906." Revuedes Idees3: 296-308.. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique generale. 2 vols. Paris:Societe de Linguistique.Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Observing nd AnalysingNaturalLanguage:A CriticalAccountof

SociolinguisticMethod.Oxford and New York: Blackwell.Murray, Stephen 0. 1983. GroupFormation n Social Science. Carbondale andEdmonton: Linguistic Research.Olmsted, David L., and Lenora A. Timm. 1983. "Baudouin de Courtenay asSociologist." Essays n Honorof CharlesF. Hockett.Ed. Frederick B. Agard, et al.Leiden: E.J. Brill, 430-43.Paul, Hermann. 1880. PrincipienderSprachgeschichte.alle/Saale: Niemeyer.. 1890. Principlesof the Historyof Language. Ed. Herbert Augustus Strong.London: Longmans.Pickford, Glenna Ruth. 1956. "American Linguistic Geography: A Sociological

Appraisal." Word12: 211-33.Schleicher, August. 1858. Volkstiimlichesaus Sonnebergim Meininger Oberlande.Weimar: H. B6hlau.Shuy, Roger W. 1989. "The Social Context of the Study of the Social Context ofLanguage Variation and Change." Synchronic nd DiachronicApproacheso Lin-

guisticVariation nd Change.Ed. ThomasJ. Walsh.Washington, DC:GeorgetownUP, 293-309.. 1990. "ABrief History of American Sociolinguistics, 1949-1989." NorthAmericanContributionsotheHistoryofLinguistics. Ed. Francis P. Dinneen and E.F. Konrad Koerner. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 183-209.

69


15/15

AMERICAN SPEECH 66.1 (1991)Sommerfelt, Alf. 1962 [1932]. "La inguistique: science sociologique."DiachronicandSynchronicAspectsofLanguage:SelectedArticles.The Hague: Mouton 36-51.Trudgill, Peter. 1983. OnDialect: Socialand Geographicalerspectives. ew York:New

YorkUP.Van Ginneken,Jac [obusJoannes Antonius]. 1913-14. Handboek erNederlandseaal:De sociologischetructuurvan hetNederlands.2 vols. s'Hertogenbosch: Malmberg.Vendryes,Joseph. 1925 [1921 ]. Language:A LinguisticIntroductionoHistory.Trans.Paul Radin. London: Routledge.Wallis, Ethel. 1956. "Sociolinguistics in Relation to Mezquital Otomi TransitionEducation." Estudiosantropologicosn homenaje l doctorManuel Gamco. Mexico,DF: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, 523-35.Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1986. An Introduction o Sociolinguistics.Oxford: Blackwell.Wegener, Philipp. 1891. "DieBearbeitung der lebenden Mundarten." Grundriss ergermanischen hilologie.Ed. Hermann Paul. Strassburg: Trfibner. 1: 931-44.Weinreich, Max. 1923. Shtaplen: Fir etydn tsu der yidisher shprakhvisnshaftunliteraturgeshikhte.erlin: n.p..1931 a. "Diproblem fun tsveyshprakhikayt."YIVO-Bleter:114-29..1931 b. "Tsveyshprakhikayt:Mutershprakh un tsveyteshprakh." YIVO-Bleter1: 301-11.Weinreich, Uriel. 1951. Research roblemsn Bilingualism,withSpecialRegard o Switzer-land. Diss. Columbia U.

.1953. Languagesn Contact: roblemsndFindings.New York:Linguistic Circleof New York., William Labov, and Marvin I. Herzog. 1968. "EmpiricalFoundations fora Theory of Language Change." Directionsor HistoricalLinguistics. Ed. WinfredP. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel. Austin: U of Texas P, 97-195.

Whitney, William Dwight. 1867. Language and the Study of Language.New York:Scribner..1875. Lifeand Growth fLanguage:An OutlineofLinguisticScience.New York:Appleton.Winteler, Jost. 1875. Die KerenzerMundart des Kantons Glarus in ihren Grundziigendargestellt.Leipzig: Winter.

Wolfram,Walt, and Ralph W. Fasold. 1972. TheStudy of Social Dialects in AmericanEnglish.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.Wrede, Ferdinand. 1902. "Ethnographie und Dialektwissenschaft." HistorischeZeitschrift8 (n.s. 52): 22-43., ed. 1926. DeutscherSprachatlasauf Grund des von GeorgWenkerbegriindetenSprachatlasdesDeutschenReiches.Marburg:Elwert.

70

Documents

Koerner - History