In this interview, we talk to Felicity Meakins about Pidgins, Creoles, and mixed languages. We discuss what they are, and how they are viewed in both linguistic scholarship and in speaker communities. Download | Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts References for Episode 25 Bakker, Peter, Daval-Markussen, Aymeric, Parkvall, Mikael, & Plag, Ingo. (2011). Creoles are typologically distinct from non-creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole languages, 26(1), 5-42. DeGraff, Michel. (2005). Linguists’ most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole Exceptionalism. Language in Society, 34(4), 533-591. McWhorter, John. (2001). The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology, 5(2/3), 125-166. Mufwene, Salikoko. (2000). Creolization is a social, not a structural, process. In I. Neumann-Holzschuh & E. Schneider (Eds.), Degrees of restructuring in creole languages (pp. 65-83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meakins, Felicity. (2013). Mixed languages. In Y. Matras & P. Bakker (Eds.), Contact Languages: A Comprehensive Guide (pp. 159-228). Berlin: Mouton. Meakins, Felicity, Hua, Xia, Algy, Cassandra, & Bromham, Lindell. (2019). The birth of a new language does not favour simplification. Language, 95(2), 294-332. Transcript by Luca Dinu JMc: Hi, I’m James McElvenny, and you’re listening to the History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences podcast, online at hiphilangsci.net. [00:20] There you can find links and references to all the literature we discuss. [00:24] Regular listeners will recall that in the last episode, we finally concluded our look at European linguistics from the 19th to the 20th century, and were planning to continue our story in America. [00:36] The North Atlantic is well known for being a stormy sea. [00:40] During our passage from Europe to America, we were blown off course and will now make a short detour over the next few episodes via the topic of contact linguistics. [00:51] To introduce us to this topic, we’re joined today by Felicity Meakins, who’s Professor of Linguistics at the University of Queensland in Australia. [01:01] Felicity is an expert on contact linguistics, having described several Australian contact varieties, and having made a number of important theoretical contributions to the field. [01:12] So Felicity, can you put us in the picture by telling us what contact linguistics is? [01:19] What does it mean to say that languages are in contact, and are some languages more in contact than others? [01:26] FM: Thanks, James. [01:27] Yeah, so contact linguistics is the study, I guess we would like to say, of languages in contact, but in fact, it’s a bit disingenuous to think about languages being in contact, because, of course, speakers are the agents of languages. [01:42] But to even think about languages being in contact or speakers being in contact, too, is a bit of a funny metaphor. [01:50] So really, when we think about language contact, we’re thinking about bilingualism, we’re thinking about languages being in contact, in a sense, in a bilingual or a multilingual individual’s brain, and we’re starting with those processes, the way that words slide between languages, we talk about these as borrowings, but again, it’s a bit of a tricky metaphor, the way that grammars come into contact and the kinds of influences that grammars within a bilingual’s mind might have. [02:18] So when we’re talking about languages in contact, what we’re really thinking about is the individual, bilingual individual, and the kinds of processes that are going on in their mind. [02:26] But of course, then, that individual exists in a society. [02:30] They talk to other people, so we’re also very interested in contact linguistics in the kinds of contact processes that are perpetuated between speakers, what kinds of uptake, new structures, new lingo that comes in that’s, you know, words that are borrowed and that sort of thing, have within communities. [02:48] So it’s not just about the individual. [02:50] It’s also about that individual and how they interact within other speech communities. [02:54] JMc: So would you say that the way that you describe the bilingual individual means that they have separate languages contained in their mind, and how do you think that the way that you’ve conceptualized contact linguistics in this respect relates to recent work in areas like translanguaging, where there’s this notion that the bilingual individual is not someone who has one or more languages contained in different regions of their brain, but has a selection of resources that they can deploy in different speech situations? [03:24] FM: Yeah, so going back to the first part of that question about whether people have languages compartmentalized in different parts of their brain or different ways of thinking about that, I guess we have that question about language itself. [03:36] So if we go back to Fodor’s idea of modularity of mind — and of course, this taps into a lot of generativist ideas (for instance, Chomsky and others) about the idea that, for instance, language and cognition are separate parts of the mind — we can also think about bilingualism in a similar way. [03:54] So do people have two or more languages that are somehow interconnected within a kind of neurological network, or whether these things are separated — these are all questions that people are exploring. [04:05] One of the ways that people explore these ideas is through what you’ve called translanguaging, which has been a more recent term, but many of us, particularly in the typological literature, have been referring to as code-switching for a long time. [04:17] So this is, yeah, the individual bilingual or multilingual speaker who switches between languages, they might do that between sentences, so they might start a conversation in one language and switch to another language. [04:29] We call that alternational code-switching, but some speakers actually even switch within sentences, and we call that insertional code-switching. [04:36] So that’s where you plonk a word from one language into the grammar of another language, so those are really common ways of code-switching. [04:46] And in more recent times, the literature’s shifted to talking about translanguaging, and we think of this as a more fluid process, but again, questions about whether that involves languages being separated within the mind or not are really interesting. [05:00] JMc: But I guess the term ‘code-switching’, you know — which has its origins in cybernetics, I guess, you know, in the cybernetic notion of code — implies that there is a whole language as a as a defined unit that can be clearly identified, which is perhaps precisely the problem when you’re talking about language mixing and contact languages? [05:19] FM: Yeah, absolutely. [05:22] So, for instance, if you look at the mixed language literature — so mixed languages are bilingual languages which we generally understand as being derived from code-switching in the first place, so I can talk about different forms of mixed languages, but one of the questions that comes up in that literature is whether a mixed language is different from code-switching, so whether it’s an autonomous language system, and by an autonomous language system is a sort of Saussurean idea — we’re thinking about whether changes in components of that language are reflected in components of the ancestry language or not, whether that language as a system is really evolving on its own accord. [06:02] So yeah, that definitely goes back to whether or not we’re compartmentalizing languages in the mind or whether we’re really thinking about these in a more sort of fluid way, so that might be the sort of idea that you’re thinking about. [06:17] JMc: Yeah, and do you think that this idea of a mixed language is a construction of the linguist who is researching the language, or is it something that the speakers of the language, do they think of it, do they conceptualize the languages they’re speaking as mixed languages themselves? [06:34] FM: Yeah, look, that’s a really excellent question. [06:36] So to answer that from a linguist’s perspective, mixed languages were something that I guess the linguistics literature only really started realizing maybe in the ‘80s, so the work of Sarah Thomason and Terrence Kaufman in their really classic 1988 book, and then of course Peter Bakker had the really nice monograph A Language of Our Own, so this is the monograph about Michif, and this was really when mixed languages really started coming on the radar as being contact languages in their own right. [07:10] So of course, a lot of us, as linguists, we’re really pushing against people saying, “Well, this is just code-switching. [07:16] This isn’t mixed… You know, this isn’t a mixed language. [07:18] This isn’t really what we call in Saussurean terms, again, an autonomous language system.” [07:24] So, in a sense, as linguists, we’ve been tasked by other linguists to demonstrate that these really are separate languages, but, of course, speech communities think about them in different ways, and there’s different reasons for that. [07:36] So I work a lot on a mixed language called Gurindji Kriol. [07:38] This is a language that’s spoken in Northern Australia. [07:41] It’s a combination of Gurindji, which is a traditional language of Australia, and Kriol, which is a more recent English-based Creole language. [07:50] So before I started working on this language a couple of decades ago, people would just generally call it, you know, quite derisive terms like sort of ‘rubbish Gurindji’ or, you know, just sort of saying that younger generations weren’t speaking Gurindji properly. [08:04] So the way of speaking that younger generations have didn’t have a label, in a sense, and Salikoko Mufwene, actually, who’s a creolist, really cautions against linguists and contact linguists from labelling languages and contact languages. [08:20] And so I have had this in mind, but it has been quite a useful thing for the community to say, “No, as younger generations we speak a different kind of Gurindji. [08:29] Kriol is mixed in. [08:30] It’s done in really systematic ways in terms of word choice, in terms of grammatical structure, and for us, we’re going to call this language Gurindji Kriol.” [08:40] And so for instance, in the Australian national census now, you can say, “I’m a speaker of Gurindji,” you can say, “I’m a speaker of Kriol,” or you can say you’re a speaker of Gurindji Kriol. [08:49] So in a sense, the speech community now recognizes that as a language in its own right, but yeah, there are real differences often between what speech communities think and what, you know, how linguists label languages. [09:00] JMc: And taking the variety of Gurindji Kriol as an example, what sort of image does the language have? [09:07] In what way is it used now? [09:09] Is it something that is purely used for conversation, or are there sort of efforts at standardization, if I can put it that way, where there’s an effort to develop a standard orthography and where it’s used in official signage or correspondence or to write literature? [09:25] FM: Yeah, so Gurindji Kriol is still a part of the larger language ecology, so the Gurindji community themselves are really aware that it’s only older generations that speak the hard language, the old language, Gurindji, and there’s a lot of grief associated with that, and with that grief, Gurindji Kriol isn’t valued as much. [09:47] It is valued much more by younger generations in the last couple of decades, but so Gurindji itself has an orthography. [09:54] It’s got a spelling system. [09:55] It’s got a dictionary. [09:55] It’s now got a grammar that we released last year. [09:59] Gurindji Kriol itself, we’ve been writing about the language in scientific papers and this sort of thing, but within the community, there isn’t a standard orthography for it. [10:08] It’s really just used among the community, among, you know, people under the age of 45 or 50. [10:14] But having said that, this is starting to change, so we had a wonderful project that started last year that was based around termites. [10:22] So termites are a much-maligned insect variety. [10:26] You know, we usually think of them as eating up houses and that sort of stuff, but they’re very valued by Gurindji people. [10:32] They’re used extensively in bush medicine practices, and the resin from termite mounds is used to stick spearheads, for instance, to wooden shafts and that sort of thing. [10:40] So we had a project around this. [10:40] We have produced a book with the Karungkarni Arts Centre there. [10:46] The book has been written in hard Gurindji, so in the traditional language. [10:49] It was then translated into English, and then we had extensive conversations with the community about actually including the third language, which was Gurindji Kriol, and so there was a lot of discussion about this, about what it meant for the community in terms of how much it values the language or not, but this will actually be the first book that’s produced within the community that actually has Gurindji Kriol as one of the languages of literacy, I guess. [11:14] JMc: So that’s a very interesting point about how the community feels about their language. [11:17] Could you say something about how this feeling that the loss of hard Gurindji represents a loss of culture, so this feeling that maybe Gurindji Kriol is a degenerate form of hard Gurindji, how that sort of idea relates to efforts that are widespread across Australia, and in other countries that have suffered from settler colonialism, to revitalize or revive traditional Indigenous languages? [11:46] Because I guess you could make the argument that reviving a traditional language, so a language that has been lost from use in in day-to-day speech altogether, represents this idea that you’re trying to bring back something that has, you know, a cultural artefact that has been completely taken from you, but I guess in Gurindji Kriol, a new language has developed, like a new way of being a Gurindji person has developed. [12:15] FM: Yeah, that’s right, so Gurindji Kriol sits on the cusp of tradition and modernity. [12:22] It both represents the continuity of traditional Gurindji culture, as well as a nod to the modern world, and the modern world for Indigenous people in northern Australia is Kriol (spelt with a K), which is an English-based Creole language. [12:37] Nonetheless, Gurindji is a really important part of the community — and by that, I mean traditional Gurindji. [12:44] So people are aware that in no longer speaking the traditional language, there are really important cultural aspects that are also not being practised. So, for instance, Gurindji has got an incredible system of cardinal directions. [12:58] There’s at least 32 different ways of saying north, and, you know, multiply that by four, so we’ve got north, south, east, and west. [13:05] Gurindji people don’t use left and right, so if they’re talking about the, I guess, position of the Vegemite in relation to the flour — let’s make this nice and Australian — you know, people talk about the Vegemite being to the east of the flour on the shelf instead of to the left or right, for instance, and so this is a really complex system that is underpinned by the trajectory of the sun but is really absolutely in operation regardless of whether it’s day or nighttime. [13:32] So younger generations who speak Gurindji Kriol absolutely have a sense of cardinal directions, use them. [13:38] They’re absolutely anchored in the world as well, but they don’t have this incredibly complex system as well, so they use terms like ‘north’, ‘south’, ‘east’, and ‘west’, but they’re not inflected for the 32-plus forms that we know that hard Gurindji has. [13:55] So there are certainly ways that the traditional language as it’s no longer being spoken in this really rich form, there are, you know, sort of cultural effects. [14:05] And, you know, another part of the system that we might think about and what we have in Australia, which are called tri-relational kinship terms, so this is where you have highly complex morphology which reflects the relationship of the speaker to the person who’s listening, and also to the referent. [14:21] So you have a three-way relationship that’s encoded in single kinship terms, and that kind of kinship structure is exceedingly important in all First Nations communities across Australia. [14:32] The tri-relational kinship system is incredibly complex, and it is something that’s really on the wane. [14:38] So again, it’s something that there’s a lot of anxiety about these really important systems, whether it’s spatial awareness or kinship, where there are changes going on, and some of those changes are still captured in Gurindji Kriol, but not in quite the same ways. [14:52] JMc: So if we can zoom back out again to broader questions of contact linguistics, can I ask you, are there different kinds of contact varieties? So linguists frequently talk about such things as Pidgins, and Creoles, and mixed languages. [15:09] These terms have come up in your answers to the previous questions. [15:12] How are these different kinds of contact variety defined? [15:16] Do they exhibit specific structural properties, or do these labels describe certain kinds of sociolinguistic situations? [15:24] FM: Yeah, so there has been a debate for a long time about whether we define contact languages according to typological, or structural criteria, or socio-historical criteria. [15:36] Most of us have landed on socio-historical criteria. [15:40] So, for instance, Pidgin languages we consider to be really nobody’s first language. [15:46] They’re languages that are born out of a need to communicate between disparate groups but where there’s also disparate power, so colonial situations, for instance, whether it’s, say, in Australia where people have remained on country but have been colonized in particular ways, or whether you’ve got West African slaves, for instance, being brought to the Caribbean. [16:05] Sometimes those Pidgin languages start being learnt as the first languages of mostly Black communities, different kinds of Black communities, whether it’s in the Caribbean or Pacific or other parts of the world where there are European colonial masters, although I accept that’s gendered [16:23] language, actually. [16:25] So in those situations where children start learning the languages, and over a number of generations, those languages complexify, and they become the first languages of communities, that’s when we start thinking about them as being Creole languages. [16:36] So they generally have a lexifier, which is a European language (particularly English, French, Portuguese, German, even, in Papua New Guinea, has been a lexifier language), and then a number of substrate languages, which influence the way that the structure of the semantics, the sound system, the phonology, and some aspects of grammar are then structured. [16:55] And those languages which then complexify are called Creole languages. [17:00] So those are sort of socio-historical definitions. [17:03] Mixed languages differ because they’re usually born out of situations where there are bilingual communities, so there might be language shift going on. [17:12] This is the case with Gurindji Kriol, which is a complex situation, because there’s a pre-existing Creole, right? [17:16] So this is like a second degree of language contact. [17:19] So in this particular situation, you’ve got language shift from Gurindji to this English-based Creole language, but you’ve got a community that were highly bilingual at the point where this mixed language was produced, but you get other situations like Michif, which I was talking about before, which is a Cree-French mixed language where you had French buffalo hunters who were the men, and then they were married to Cree women, and so this mixed language came about from that kind of socio-historical situation. [17:48] So the mixed languages come out of quite, you know, literally mixed situations, but we prefer to talk about socio-historical criteria to, you know, typological or structural criteria. [18:00] JMc: And do you think there’s enough similarity between these different socio-historical situations to be able to come up with a category like Pidgin, or Creole, or mixed language? [18:10] So is there enough similarity between the experience of people living on country in Australia with British white settler colonists coming in to Africans who have been transported from West Africa to the Caribbean to work on plantations and so on? [18:26] FM: Yeah, I think there is, because what’s at the core of this is a power differential, and a power differential and also, say, numbers of humans. [18:36] So what you have is a very small number of people who are, you know, absolutely in power (these are the European colonists), and then a large population of non-European people who speak different languages who are in a much less powerful situation. [18:54] So I think that’s the real commonality between, say, a situation of slavery, for instance, that we saw in the Caribbean where people were displaced, and Australia where we would still call it, actually, a situation of slavery, although slavery had been officially abolished at this point, but it’s still slavery, but where people are still largely on country or displaced, but not to a large extent. [19:15] JMc: Okay. [19:17] So let me ask you as well: Over the past 20 years or so, there’s been much controversy over so-called Creole exceptionalism, and this is a cluster of ideas and approaches in linguistics that try to treat Creoles as in some way a special type of language different from ‘normal’ languages (in inverted commas). [19:36] I guess this issue feeds back into the previous question about how contact varieties are defined, so do you think there is, for example, a Creole prototype that can be identified on structural grounds, and what do you think the postulation of a Creole prototype tells us about the researchers? [19:53] You know, why would they want to imagine such a thing, and why do they pick the particular parameters that they choose to define the prototype? [20:02] FM: Yeah, so I guess the most recent instantiation of that has been John McWhorter’s 1998 Creole prototype, so that was based on three different features. [20:14] So the idea of that is that Creoles lack inflectional morphology, they lack tonal contrast, and they lack non-compositional derivational morphology. [20:23] And we don’t really have to think too much about two and three. [20:26] It’s really that the thing that linguists have mostly focused on is that lack of inflectional affixation. [20:31] So the idea with this, really, is that the Creole prototype, and therefore Creoles, are actually simpler, morphologically simpler forms of language. [20:40] So Michel DeGraff, who’s a Haitian linguist, has really taken exception to this, and this is where the label, sorry, ‘Creole exceptionalism’ comes from. [20:51] So he had a seminal paper that came out in 2005 called ‘Linguists’ most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole Exceptionalism,’ and this appeared in Language in society. [21:02] And so he really called out the field of linguistics for continuing to postulate exceptional and abnormal characteristics in the diachrony or synchrony of Creoles as a class, and he went further, and he was saying that this is really still rooted in the racial essentialism that underpins European colonial expansion, and it’s really perpetualizing the marginalization of Creole languages and their speakers. [21:29] So that’s the kind of background to that debate. [21:31] The thing that really, I guess, it comes down to is whether or not Creole languages have inflectional morphology, and bearing in mind that a lot of lexifier languages are pretty poor — like English, we’ve got, you know, an inflectional s in agreement, our third-person singular agreement system, we’ve got a past tense in -ed — it’s not a whole lot to go on with. [21:52] But yeah, if Creoles have less morphology, then we’re talking about simplification processes and, of course, simplification really, quite reasonably, tweaks the antenna of people when we’re talking about languages which are majority spoken by Black people. [22:08] So that debate has gone on for a bit. [22:10] What’s happened more recently is that there have been phylogenetic approaches to try and, I guess, scale up the data that’s thrown at this debate. [22:19] So there was a very well known paper that came out that was written by Peter Bakker and a number of authors in 2011, and so they really used a lot more Pidgin and Creole languages in this analysis. So, for instance, John McWhorter’s 1998 survey was based just on eight Creole languages; Peter Bakker’s paper was based on a data set of 18 Creole languages, and then they had a second set of analyses that actually ramped this up a lot more and used a lot more Creole languages in it. [22:50] And what they did was, they used features that had been coded in different kinds of databases. [22:55] One of those was the Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. [22:59] The other database that was coded up was from John Holm and Patrick’s Comparative Creole Syntax, so they coded up a whole bunch of features and then compared these and used phylogenetic NeighborNet models to see whether Creoles clustered differently based on typological structural features, as opposed to non-Creoles. [23:22] They found clustering, but one of the main criticisms of this paper is that they’re using features that are already identified as perhaps Creole features, so they’re features that we as creolists are kind of interested in, so there’s a sort of circular argumentation to this. [23:37] And many of us have criticized this approach saying what we need to be doing is taking a large database of language features, whether this is from the WALS database, or whether this is from the new Grambank [23:49] database that’s coming out of Jena, and then randomly sampling features from both languages that have been labelled Creole languages based on socio-historical factors and also non-Creole languages, and then seeing whether we get clusters of features. [24:05] And, you know, I’m interested in this question, but what I want to see is the methodology done well, and I think we haven’t really seen that happen just yet, so as of yet, the jury is out, really, on whether we want to be saying that Creole languages have particular structural or typological features that can categorize them as a separate class, or whether really we want to be leaning on those socio-historical features as the way that we categorize contact languages. [24:32] JMc: And do you think that the sort of circular reasoning that has been happening in these studies so far, do you think that it’s just poor methodology, or do you think that it’s that people are blinded by an ideology about simplicity, as DeGraff may argue, or do you think there’s even sort of evil intentions in trying to cast Creoles and Pidgins as inherently defective? [24:57] FM: Yeah, that’s a really interesting question. [25:01] I think to answer that, I’d say that linguistics is relatively new to the use of biological methods, so we have been doing this for a while in historical linguistics. [25:11] We’ve been using phylogenetics to create language trees and NeighborNet models for a little while, but I think we still have a little bit to learn from biology. [25:22] So biology has this idea of an ascertainment bias, and an ascertainment bias is where, for instance in linguistics, specifically choosing language features that have been noted for their complexity and simplicity in a particular way. [25:37] So biology is already at a point where they’re interested in particular questions, but what they do is, they randomly select features. [25:44] And I think this is something… [25:46] This is a methodological issue that we really have to think about in linguistics, so this is work that I’ve been doing with biologists Lindell Bromham and Xia Hua, who are at the ANU in Canberra, and we’ve been taking into account, for instance, the idea of the ascertainment bias. [26:03] So we’ve been thinking about the idea of morphological simplification as, for instance, the preferential adoption of simpler elements, like if you’re borrowing, say, prepositions over case morphology, or the simplification of more complex language features, so for instance syncretism of case in language shift scenarios — but the way that we’ve gone about this is to select language features simply on the basis of the fact that they vary, and then we’ve gone through and categorized all of those features and their variants according to morphological complexity, and we’ve used established criteria in the morphological literature, and then we’re asking the question, is there a preferential, you know, for instance, adoption of simpler variants over more complex variants? [26:49] And I think this is the way to get around things like ascertainment bias. [26:53] So I think, you know, as linguists we’re still quite young in using biological methods. [26:59] We’re still not necessarily learning the lessons that biology has also learnt. [27:05] Inadvertently, we’re then perpetuating, for instance, racial stereotypes of Creoles being simpler languages because Creoles are spoken by mostly Black people of different kinds. [27:16] This then feeds into racial stereotypes which are really, you know, just not helpful. [27:22] And so I think that’s how that process is working. Michel DeGraff, of course, would have stronger things to say about this, though, and I absolutely acknowledge those, as would Salikoko Mufwene. [27:33] JMc: Okay. [27:34] Well, thank you very much for answering those questions. [27:36]

In this interview, we talk to Lorenzo Cigana about Louis Hjelmslev and the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle. Download | Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts References for Episode 24 Primary Sources ‘Travail collectif du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Linguists, Paris, Klincksieck, 1949, pp. 126–135. Bulletins du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 1–7 (1931–1940) Bulletin du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 1941–1965 (8–31). Choix de communications et d’interventions au débat lors des séances tenues entre septembre 1941 et mai 1965, Copenhague, Akademisk Forlag. Rapport sur l’activité du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 1931–1951, Copenhague, Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag, 1951 Diderichsen, Paul (1960), Rasmus Rask og den grammatiske tradition: Studier over vendepunktet i sprogvidenskabens historie, København: Munskgaard. Hjelmslev, Louis (1931–1935), Rasmus Rask. Udvalgte Afhandlinger udgivet paa Bekostning af Rask-ørsted Fondet i Hundredaaret for Rasks Død paa Foranledning af Vilhelm Thomsen af Det danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab ved Louis Hjelmslev med inledning af Holger Petersen. Bind 1–3, København, Levin & Munksgaards Forlag. Holt, Jens (1946), Rationel semantik (pleremik), København: Munskgaard. Jespersen, Otto (1913), Sprogets logik (The Logic of Language’), København, J.H. Schultz. Jespersen, Otto (1918), Rasmus Rask: i hundredåret efter hans hovedvaerk, Kjøbenhavn, Gyldendal. Jespersen, Otto (1924), Philosophy of Grammar, London, G. Allen and Unwin. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916), Cours de linguistique générale, Payot, Paris. Togeby, Knud (1951), Structure immanente de la langue française, Copenhagen, Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag. Secondary Sources Gregersen, Frans and Viggo Bank Jensen (forthcoming). Worlds apart? Roman Jakobson and Louis Hjelmslev. History of a competitive friendship, in Lorenzo Cigana and Frans Gregersen (eds.), Studies in Structuralism. Harder, Peter (forthcoming). Functionalism from Martinet to Dik, Croft and Danish Functional Lin-guistics, in Lorenzo Cigana and Frans Gregersen (eds.), Studies in Structuralism. Margaret Thomas (2019). Formalism and Functionalism in Linguistics. The engineer and the collector. London: Routledge. Rasmussen, Michael (1987). ‘Hjelmslev et Brøndal. Rapport sur un différend’, Langages 86: 41–58. Ducrot, Oswald (1968). Le structuralisme en linguistique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. ‘Infrastructuralism’ Project, University of Aarhus: https://cc.au.dk/infrastrukturalisme/om-projekt-infrastrukturalisme/ Transcript by Luca Dinu JMc: Hi, [00:11] I’m James McElvenny, and you’re listening to the History and Philosophy of the Languages Sciences Podcast, online at hiphilangsci.net. [00:19] There you can find links and references to all the literature we discuss. [00:23] Here at Hiphilangsci, our bags were packed and we were about to board the White Star Line steamship for New York when an urgent telegram arrived with a request to cover one more topic in Europe. [00:36] We very much welcome this level of engagement on the part of our audience and would like to oblige the request. [00:42] So now we offer a previously unplanned episode on Louis Hjelmslev and the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle. [00:50] To guide us through this topic, we’re joined by Lorenzo Cigana, who is a researcher in the Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics at the University of Copenhagen and currently undertaking a major project on the history of the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle. [01:07] So, Lorenzo, to get us started, can you tell us, what was the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle? [01:14] When was it around, who were the main figures involved, and what sort of scholarship did they pursue? [01:21] LC: Yeah, hello, James. [01:24] First of all, thanks for having invited me to this chat, and a good morning to all the colleagues and friends out there. [01:30] Well, I guess the best way to put it is to say that the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle was among the most important and active centres in 20th-century linguistic structuralism and language sciences, along with, of course, the circle of Paris, Geneva, Prague and, on the other side of the ocean, New York. [01:49] It has been referred to also as the Copenhagen School, but the suitability of this label is somewhat debatable. [01:56] We will return later, maybe, to this topic. [02:00] Not just the existence of the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle, but its very structure, was actually tied to the structure of those similar organizations [02:09]. [02:10] It was founded by Louis Hjelmslev and Viggo Brøndal on the 24th of September, 1931. [02:17] That’s almost exactly one month after the Second International Congress of Linguists, which was held between the 25th and the 29th of August, 1931, in Geneva, a city that, of course, had a symbolic value since it was the city in which Ferdinand de Saussure was born. [02:34] And actually, if you check the pictures that were taken back then during that meeting, during that congress, you can see a lovely, merry company of linguists all queuing to visit Ferdinand de Saussure’s mansion on the brink of the old part of the city, which is very nice. [02:51] The Copenhagen Linguistic Circle also printed two series of proceedings, so we had Bulletins, the Bulletin du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague, and the other was the Travaux, Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague, which was a way to match what the Société linguistique de Paris and the Linguistic Circle of Prague had already been doing at that time. [03:15] What about the internal organization, you asked? [03:18] So the circle was divided into scientific committees, each of them devoted to the discussion of specific topics, so we had a glossematic committee, for instance, which was formed by Hjelmslev and Hans Jørgen Uldall, and tasked to develop the theory called glossematics. [03:36] Then there was a phonematics committee devoted to phonological analysis, and a grammatical committee which was focused on general grammar and morphology, which had a strong momentum. [03:50] Now, you might have the impression to see here Louis Hjelmslev’s imprinting, so to speak, and you would be right. [03:55] Louis Hjelmslev surely was the leading figure. [03:59] He was in many senses the engine behind the circle’s activity, something he was actually called out for in the following years. [04:07] At first, Hjelmslev got along very well with the other founder, Viggo Brøndal. [04:13] Hjelmslev was a comparative linguist and an Indo-Europeanist, while Viggo Brøndal was a Romanian [in the sense of ‘Romance’] philologist and philosopher, so they did complement each other. [04:23] Moreover, they both were the descendants, so to speak, of two important academic traditions, and this is something I really want to stress, as in fact it is important to keep in mind that the circle didn’t come out of the blue. [04:38] The sprout had deep roots. [04:41] Hjelmslev, for instance, had been a student of Otto Jespersen and Holger Pedersen. [04:47] Now, the first, Otto Jespersen, was an internationally renowned and influential linguist back then. [04:53] He was said to be one of the greatest language scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries, and his research was focused on grammar and the English language. [05:03] He wrote a number of important works in syntax, like the theory of the three ranks, or more far-reaching contributions significantly called ‘The Logic of Language’ (Sprogets logik) in 1913 (if I’m not wrong) and also Philosophy of Grammar in 1924, which coincidentally is what I like to call my domain of research, philosophy of grammar. [05:26] Holger Pedersen, in turn, was a pure Indo-Europeanist and was in the same generation of Vilhelm Thomsen, Karl Verner, who is often mistakenly taken as German, and Hermann Möller was corresponding with Ferdinand de Saussure and offered his version of the laryngeal theory. [05:43] So although in being less interested in general linguistics, Pedersen worked on Albanian, Celtic, Tocharian, and Hittite, and [05:52] also in the existence of a Nostratic macro-family, for example, linking the Indo-European family to others, like Finno-Ugric and Altaic. [06:02] And if we focus on Viggo Brøndal, what about his background? [06:06] Well, he was a pupil of Harald Høffding, one of the most important Danish philosophers, who worked extensively on the notion of analogy and analogical thinking, which was a topic of great momentum in the epistemology of that time. [06:21] Moreover, he read and commented on the Course in General Linguistics, the Cours de linguistique générale of Saussure, as soon as it was published, and was particularly receptive to all that came from Wilhelm von Humboldt, Gottfried Leibniz, and from the phenomenological tradition of Franz Brentano and Edmund Husserl. [06:41] However, if we push our gaze even more backwards, we see that all these figures we have just mentioned — Jespersen, Høffding, and Pedersen — were in turn standing on the shoulders of other giants, so to speak, and in fact, they all had knowledge, in a way or another, of the work of their predecessors, notably Johan Madvig and Rasmus Rask, who both lived in the early 19th century. [07:08] So let us just focus on Rask, who is rightly considered as the pioneer or the founding father of multiple linguistic disciplines, like Indo-Europeanistics and Iranian philology, among others. [07:20] So Rask didn’t just give relevant factual contributions to language comparison, but also insightful theoretical and methodological considerations, and these considerations can especially be found in his lectures on the philosophy of language and were especially dear to Louis Hjelmslev. [07:38] And then, Louis Hjelmslev saw an anticipation of his own approach, and no wonder why. [07:45] Rask distinguished between two complementary stances in linguistics. [07:48] So we have the mechanical perspective, which provides a collection of facts, and a philosophical perspective on the other side, which tries to find the system or the link between all these facts, and adopting Rask’s own analogy, the mechanical view deals with the process of making colours, [08:08] for example, with the preparation of the frames and all the different stances required to paint a nice portrait, but only the philosophical perspective deals with the process of painting and the portrait themselves. [08:22] So this is quite important to keep in mind. [08:25] So why I decided to give this glimpse on the background of the circle is because it is important to, again, keep in mind that the influence of those figures lingered on, so they were still present in the mind of the circle’s members as a tradition they all came from. [08:43] Rask in particular was dear to many linguists of the Copenhagen School. [08:47] Jespersen wrote a biography of Rask, Hjelmslev collected his diaries and tried to make him a structuralist ante litteram, Diderichsen tried to reframe Hjelmslev’s own interpretations. [08:58] So it was on such fertile ground that the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle built its own scholarship. [09:06] And let us come now to the Copenhagen School itself. [09:11] So you asked, James, who their members were and what kind of output they had. [09:16] Well, despite the claim that each member built his own tradition, there were indeed some shared guidelines, and glossematics being one of them, possibly the most important back then. [09:29] The work of building this new theory, glossematics, was carried out mostly by, of course, Louis Hjelmslev and his friend and colleague Hans Jørgen Uldall, who joined his project in 1934, yeah. [09:44] Now, we have already spoken of Louis Hjelmslev, but very little is known about Hans Jørgen Uldall, who was a remarkable figure in his own right. [09:51] He was first and foremost a very talented phonetician and collaborated with Daniel Jones, who was arguably the greatest British phonetician of the 20th century. [10:00] Uldall’s phonetic transcriptions were also known as extremely precise, and yet he was also trained as [10:08] a field anthropologist, so another interesting aspect of his life. [10:12] He travelled all across America, especially around California, carrying out research for Franz Boas. [10:19] This gave him an incredible background that complemented so well Louis Hjelmslev’s own strong comparativist and epistemological views, and of their collaboration during the ’30s, it was reported that they couldn’t say where someone’s idea finished and the other started. [10:35] And this is, I really believe this is such a brilliant and comforting example of collaboration between two scholars. [10:42] But of course, there were also other members. [10:45] So if you take the proceedings, the 6th International Congress of Linguists, for example, that was held in Paris in 1949, you can find a nice summary of the activity of the Copenhagen Circle since its very foundation, and it’s a very nice summary indeed also because it gives you a clear idea about how the circle understood itself, rather, how it wanted to present itself to the audience, and this meant roughly: “We deal [11:14] with general grammar and morphology over everything else.” [11:18] So Hjelmslev worked on the internal structure of morphological categories: case, pronouns, pronouns, articles, and so forth. [11:28] Brøndal, too, in a way, and he was trying to describe the structural nature of such systems and their variability as two complementary aspects connected to logical levels [11:39] of semantic nature. [11:41] But then there were also Paul Diderichsen, Knud Togeby, Jens Holt, and Hans Christian Sørensen, four fascinating figures. [11:51] So if we take Knud Togeby, he’s probably the best-known of these four, at least beyond the borders of Denmark. [12:00] He wrote La structure immanente de la langue française in 1951, a sort of a compendium in which he described French in all its layers, from grammar to phonology, and was harshly criticized by Martinet. [12:14] And now, if you pay attention to the way he used the very term ‘immanent’, structure immanente de la langue française, you’ll recognize, I mean, I guess, the imprinting of Hjelmslev, because Hjelmslev was stressing, right, the need of something of an immanent description. [12:31] Paul Diderichsen was originally a pupil of Brøndal, and later became a follower of Hjelmslev. [12:38] He is mostly known for having developed the so-called fields theory, which is basically a valency model for syntax that works particularly well for Germanic languages and that played a big role in how Danish was thought [12:52] and still is nowadays. [12:54] He also developed what he called graphematics, which means a description of written language that could be compatible with the framework of glossematics, since it was based on graphemes conceived as formal units. [13:08] However, Diderichsen became frustrated with it and cast it aside. [13:14] And then we have Jens Holt and Hans Christian Sørensen, two figures that I personally feel very much related to. [13:21] They were both specialists of Slavic languages. [13:25] They both struggled with Hjelmslev’s theory and tried to apply it to the morphological category of aspect, and they both ended up in reworking some points of Hjelmslev’s theory in their own way. [13:39] For instance, Jens Holt in particular tried to develop his own rational semantics, and here again we find this weird urge to qualify a theory as rational, right? Something which is quite telling. [13:51] And he called his model ‘pleremics’ — that is, investigation of content entities in plain reference with glossematics, as glossematics itself was indeed its natural framework. [14:05] And finally, we should mention Eli-Fischer Jørgensen, who cannot be left out of the picture. [14:10] We can think of her as the Danish version of Lady Welby, the glue of the circle. [14:16] She corresponded with the most important figures of linguistics and phonetics at that time, and had a life-long correspondence with Roman Jakobson. [14:25] She began her studies in syntax but found it too philosophic a home, so she decided to change, landing on phonology and phonetics instead. [14:35] Now, despite the consonances between the members, and despite their ties to Hjelmslev, no school was established, no consistent tradition. [14:45] They were tapping Louis Hjelmslev’s ideas, all right [14:47], but according to their own needs, as glossematics was the most consistent theory discussed back then. [14:53] Yet because, or perhaps thanks to, the different backgrounds and stances, they could keep a consistent general framework, and that must have been of some discomfort to Hjelmslev himself later on. [15:08] JMc: How did the Copenhagen Circle relate to other linguistic schools active at this time, in particular the Prague Linguistic Circle, which we’ve heard quite a bit about in this podcast, mostly in episodes 15 and 21? [15:21] LC: Yeah. [15:22] Well, in order to answer your second question, we will use the strategy that was developed by Homer in the Illiad. [15:28] You know, painting in poetic terms the clash between two whole armies is a hell of a job. [15:32] The escamotage was then to describe the war between the two armies, the Greeks and the Trojans, by collapsing the armies into champions, [15:41] right? So instead of having complicated, confused war scenes, we have battle scenes between two champions. [15:48] This is what I would like to do here, because it’s actually… I wouldn’t call it a war, but a conflict, in a way. [15:56] That was really what happened back then. [15:58] So the Prague Circle and the Copenhagen Circle had overall a relationship that could be called a friendly competition, or rather competitive friendship, [16:07] right? I mean, not that this kind of relationship characterized the attitude of every single member, but if we boil it down to the relationship between our main actors or champions, so to speak (so Roman Jakobson, Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Serge Karcevskij, Viggo Brøndal and Louis Hjelmslev), the label, I guess, can be pretty accurate. [16:29] So let us take, for instance, what happened at the Second Congress of Phonetic Sciences in London in 1935. [16:35] The backstory for it is that they had all met themselves at the first congress of linguists in the Hague in 1928, so they knew each other. [16:46] Then around 1932, Jakobson – or rather, the Prague Circle – would write to Hjelmslev asking, “Wouldn’t you be interested in providing a phonological description of modern Danish?” [16:59] To which Hjelmslev answered, “Yeah, I can do that.” [17:03] Then two years passed, Hjelmslev met Uldall, they discovered that both the content and the expression side of language (roughly, the signifier and the signified) could be described in parallel, so their approach changed somewhat, and in 1934, Hjelmslev wrote to Uldall saying, “You know what? We are not going to give what Jakobson asked us for. We are going to give our own talks, putting forward our own theory,” that back then was phonematics. [17:34] “Let us show them that we are a battalion, that we, wir marschieren.” [17:39] That was the word used. [17:41] And this, I mind you, at the very heart of phonetic conference and at the very same session in which Trubetzkoy was speaking: it must have been disruptive. [17:50] It must have looked like a sort of a declaration of war, and indeed, it was understood as such, as Trubetzkoy himself wrote to Jakobson wondering about Hjelmslev being a friend to the phonological cause or rather an enemy. [18:04] And as you know, in the past, we were probably a little bit too keen in considering this kind of competition on a personal level, as if between Trubetzkoy and Hjelmslev there was a personal animosity or rancour. [18:17] I personally don’t think so. [18:19] I do believe that scientific contrasts were felt in a very serious way, as back then there was indeed a need to gauge [18:27] one’s contribution to a common cause, and in this case, the common cause was the building of a new discipline: structural linguistics. [18:34] And indeed, starting from 1935, Hjelmslev and Uldall put a lot of effort into disseminating their view, stressing the fact that it was complementary and not identical to the one that the Circle of Prague was developing. [18:49] Hence, for instance, the stress that Hjelmslev put on the fact that the investigation in phonology should focus on the possible pronunciations of linguistic elements and not at all be limited to the concrete or the factual pronunciation. [19:02] Their view on language was becoming larger and larger, and coincidentally, their frustration grew too. [19:09] In the same years, so around ’35, ’36, Hjelmslev was invited by Alan Ross to hold some lectures on his new science in Leeds in Great Britain, and after having touched upon the rather skeptical attitude in the audience, Hjelmslev wrote back to Uldall saying, “No one seems to understand what we are trying to do. [19:29] They all want old traditional neo-grammarian phonetics. [19:32] Oh, Uldall, I really want to go back to the continent.” [19:36] So a theoretically rich ground for confrontation was of course the theory of distinctive features, or mérisme, as Benveniste would have called them, and Prague was keen in analyzing a phoneme into smaller features of a phonetic nature, of course, while for Hjelmslev, this procedure was too hasty. [19:55] If phonemes are of abstract, formal nature, they should be analysed further into formal elements rather than straight into phonetic oppositions. [20:04] Such basic formal elements were called glossemes and represent the very goal of glossematics, the science of glossemes. [20:10] And then there was, of course, the aspect of markedness and binarism. [20:14] This is the idea which Jakobson stubbornly maintained throughout his life that distinctive features always occur in pairs defined by logical opposition [20:23], an idea that Hjelmslev never endorsed and actually actively fought. [20:28] So overall, I think one could say that the relationship between these approaches – Prague and Copenhagen, Paris – was twofold. [20:37] Viewed from the outside, they gave the idea of being a uniform approach, a single front opposed to the one of traditional grammar or traditional linguistics of the past, [20:47] right? So they were trying to build what Hjelmslev hoped for, a new classicism. [20:52] However, viewed from the inside, if we increase, so to speak, the focus of our lens, we begin to notice massive differences that might appear a matter of detail, but that are quite significant in themselves. [21:06] So we have, at the same time, unity and diversity, a key [21:10] aspect that need to be taken into account simultaneously if you want to give an accurate picture of what happened in structural linguistics back then. [21:19] JMc: What became of the Copenhagen Circle? [21:22] Did it continue over several generations, or does it have a contained, closed history with a clear endpoint? [21:28] What lasting effects did the scholarship of the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle have on linguistics? [21:34] LC: Well, the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle is still alive and kicking, actually. [21:40] It has changed somewhat direction, that for sure, and we may say that the structural approach or the structural generation has flowed naturally into the new generation, which is called the functional one. [21:55] But this would be to oversimplify the state of affairs. [21:59] I do believe the flow from one generation to the other wasn’t a simple transmission of approaches, methods, and ideas. [22:06] The modern approach, the functional one, understands itself of course in some continuity with a broad framework of structuralism, even of glossematics. [22:17] Yet in many respects, it was also a matter of reacting – right? – against the purely formal stance that glossematic structuralism represented in Copenhagen, as well as with Hjelmslev’s somewhat cumbersome figure not just in scholarship and intellectual activity, but also in academic bureaucracy, by the way. [22:42] So this is interesting. [22:44] And it is, after all, a game of positions – right? – of theoretical postures. [22:49] Some of them can be seen as interpretation or explanations of previous positions. [22:55] Others are original claims that are not necessarily linked with the previous theories. [23:00] So Danish functionalism, first, I would like to say that it has nothing to do, of course, with the trend in Danish architecture. [23:07] Functionalism in linguistics can be seen as sort of a combination of insights coming from structural framework, all right, with some ideas already fitting the [23:16] subject and that were developed later on, especially by Simon Dik in Amsterdam, and also with some ideas coming from cognitivism. [23:27] And at the very core of Danish functionalism, [23:31] even if it may be trivial to record here, is the attention given to how linguistic elements are used in given contexts. [23:39] So in functionalism, it’s how they function, or what is functional in such a context. [23:46] Function thus has nothing to do with relation, which was how the term was adopted by Hjelmslev, [23:53] right? So here we have a first sort of a distinction. [23:56] Function in terms of relation was what linguistic structuralism and Hjelmslev’s structuralism wanted to use. [24:05] In the new context of functionalism, ‘function’ is rather interpreted as a role, and it is strongly tied to the idea of language as a communicative tool. [24:18] And now, this is very interesting, because such a definition may appear so obvious and trivial, right? Language as communication. [24:28] But actually, this is not. [24:29] After all, this was not how language was conceived in other structural contexts by Hjelmslev, for instance. [24:36] For Hjelmslev, the point was not communication, but formation or articulation, so language is less a way to communicate than a tool to articulate meanings in relation to expressions and vice versa. [24:49] It’s also a way to represent subjectivity as such, a position that was explained so well by Oswald Ducrot, for instance. [24:58] So claiming that language serves to communicate can be seen as a position that was held in reaction to what a certain structural tradition was trying to do, and this entails some other theoretical consequence, like how expression and content (so signifier and signified) were interpreted and are interpreted nowadays, a cascade of differences and of conceptual claims that may seem a matter of details, once again, but which we need to be aware of. [25:27] And I cannot elaborate this further without entering into details, but let me just say that these differences are not purely terminological. [25:35] How function and form are defined in linguistics nowadays is not how function and form were defined back then, so we cannot assume these concepts are universal, or trivial, or commonsensical. [25:49] Not at all. [25:51] The task of a language scientist is also to draw attention to these epistemological stances, since they have a deep influence on his or her work, and this is, I think, the best way to understand our job, too, and a nice way to actualize what Saussure felt himself – right? – about the urge to show what linguists are doing while doing their own job. [26:13] And this is why I don’t particularly like the label of ‘historiography of linguistics.’ [26:18] I do prefer something like ‘comparative epistemology’ because this is actually what we do. [26:24] So I hope to have answered your question, James. [26:27] Thank you once again, and see you next time. [26:30] JMc: Yeah, that was great. [26:33] Thanks very much. [26:33] LC: Thanks. [26:34] JMc: That was excellent. [26:34] LC: Thanks. [26:34]

In this insightful conversation, Noam Chomsky, a pivotal figure in linguistics known for his groundbreaking theories on generative grammar, reflects on the emergence of this revolutionary framework. He critiques the behaviorist approach and explores key psychological experiments that reshaped cognitive theories. Chomsky shares intriguing anecdotes from his early academic journey, exchanging political influences for educational choices, alongside personal stories that reveal his relationships in academia. The discussion highlights the cultural shifts that fostered modern linguistic thought.

In this interview, we talk to Christopher Hutton about linguistic scholarship under National Socialism and how this relates to linguistics today. Download | Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts References for Episode 22 Primary Sources Boas, Franz (1911), Handbook of American Indian languages, vol. 1, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40, Washington: Government Print Office. Boas, Franz (1911), The mind of primitive man, New York: Macmillan. Fishman, Joshua (1964), Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry, Linguistics 2: 32–70. Kloss, Heinz (1941), Brüder vor den Toren des Reiches. Vom volksdeutschen Schicksal, Berlin: Hochmuth. Mühlhausen, Ludwig (1939), Zehn irische Volkserzählungen aus Süd-Donegal, mit Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft für Keltische Studien, Heft 3, Halle: Niemeyer. Philipson, Robert (1992), Linguistic imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sapir, Edward (1949), Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality, Los Angeles: University of California Press. Schmidt-Rohr, Georg (1932), Die Sprache als Bildnerin der Völker. Eine Wesens- und Lebenskunde der Volkstümer, Jena: Diederichs. Schmidt-Rohr, Georg (1933), Mutter Sprache, Jena: Eugen Diederichs. Weinreich, Max (1946), Hitler’s professors: The part of scholarship in Germany’s crimes against the Jewish people, New York: Yiddish Scientific Institute – Yivo. Weinreich, Uriel (1953), Languages in contact: Findings and problems, New York: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York. Weisgerber, Johann Leo (1939), Die volkhaften Kräfte der Muttersprache, 2nd edition, Frankfurt: Diesterweg. Secondary Sources Burleigh, Michael (1988), Germany turns eastwards: A study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hutton, Christopher (1999), Linguistics and the Third Reich: Mother-tongue fascism, race and the science of language, London: Routledge. Hutton, Christopher (2005), Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, racial anthropology and genetics in the dialect of Volk, Cambridge: Polity. Knobloch, Clemens (2005), Volkhafte Sprachforschung, Tübingen: Niemeyer. Transcript [Music] JMc: Hi, I’m James McElvenny, and you’re listening to the History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences Podcast, online at hiphilangsci.net. [00:19] There you can find links and references to all the literature we discuss. [00:23] In the most recent episodes, which have focused on central Europe in the first half of the 20th century, we’ve met a number of figures who were forced into exile by the rise of fascism. [00:33] In this episode, we turn our attention to those who stayed and found a place for themselves and their scholarship under the new regimes. [00:42] We also take a moment to consider the parallels between this period and today. [00:46] To guide us through these topics, we’re joined by Christopher Hutton, Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Hong Kong. [00:55] So, Chris, you’ve written extensively on the place of language study and anthropology in the so-called Third Reich. [01:02] Your publications on this topic include the 1999 book Linguistics in the Third Reich and the 2005 Race in the Third Reich. [01:12] Can you tell us what the main themes of Nazi language study were? [01:16] How did these themes differ from language study in the democratic countries of the time? [01:20] CH: I think you have to start in the ’20s and ’30s. [01:25] I mean, remember that Germany is really the centre of linguistics internationally, I would say — I mean, certainly historical linguistics — and then you have… [01:33] So you have quite a lot of continuity with international linguistics, but there is, I think, one, a particular feature, which is the centrality of this concept of Volk. [01:43] This is very different from, say, French or Anglo-American linguistics. [01:48] And then you have these ideas about mother tongue and discussions of bilingualism, language islands, Sprachinselforschung. [01:58] I think there is a contrast with what’s going on in France, and in the UK, and the US. [02:04] Of course, you do have in the US the Boasian tradition – Humboldt, Boas – but it’s focused mainly on indigenous cultures of North America, so it has this kind of niche, and in there, it’s a sort of rescue operation in some ways, and in some politically liberal. [02:20] Boas himself counts as a liberal, although there is a more complicated story there, actually. [02:26] If you think of Saussure’s langue, a concept — whatever you make of it — which is very free of some of the ideology that sticks to the German concepts of Volk and then language community and so on, it seems almost Cartesian in its abstractness, and I think that is very significant. [02:45] Saussure does have a reception in Germany, and, you know, there is structural linguistics, but it tends to be, the idea tends to be that, well, the conceptual structure of the language should have some basis in history, tradition, and so on. [03:00] So it’s very different from the Saussurean structuralism, which, if you take it puristically, is entirely synchronic, and language history is… [03:09] There is no real narrative you can make of the history of a language, in a sort of ideological “The story of language X.” [03:16] So I think there is a kind of continental sensibility because of the effect of World War I on the state boundaries, and there is a level of insecurity and uncertainty which, you know, doesn’t apply in the US and the UK, so I think that really, really makes a big difference. [03:37] I think, because German linguistics falls largely under Germanistik, which was an extremely conservative discipline, the people in Germanistik on the whole were on the right. [03:49] They didn’t necessarily become true Nazis, but they were certainly on the völkisch side, you know, as opposed to, say, sociology in Germany. [03:56] JMc: Can I just ask about what you said about Boas, that there’s a connection there with the German tradition but that Boas’ work was focused on American indigenous languages? [04:05] Do you think that there’s still a connection there, though, with how the Germans, the sort of German nationalists in Nazi Germany conceived of themselves? [04:15] Because if you go back into the 19th century, there’s a lot of sympathy, especially in German pop culture, you know, with the plight of indigenous people in America, like if you think of the novels of Karl May, for example. [04:27] There’s also this sort of German scholars’ fascination with like Tacitus’s descriptions of the Germanen and so on as a sort of indigenous people on the edge of civilization. [04:39] CH: I think it’s a very, very good point. [04:41] I mean, maybe you can look at it this way. [04:44] There’s hostility to the Anglo-American model of a state, as well as to the French model, and so these are seen as assimilatory and lacking a kind of organic basis, so they’re capitalist, you know, and based in law, you know, in some kind of Common Law, which is an individualistic system and promotes, in a way, a social movement and also sees property as something, as a resource to be exploited. [05:12] So I think, yes, I think that’s a really good point, and although Boas, you know, being Jewish and also politically liberal, ends up attacking the Nazis, there are parallels there, and you could put it under hostility to modernity, in a way. [05:25] I mean, Sapir has some of the same point, you know, the ideal, the Native American fishing in that tranquil way, free of the pressures of the modern industrialized world, the timetable, and so on. [05:37] I mean, it’s an attractive image to everybody, but I think this form of Romantic primitivism or whatever was very powerful in Germany, and it also spills over into Celtic studies, you know, and the affinity to Celtic music, culture, again, in opposition to this hostile Common Law English state, you know, colonial settler state which then threatens to obliterate diversity, you know. [06:05] It’s true that Common Law gobbles up diversity — look at Australia — because of the terra nullius doctrine, although once you’re inside the Common Law it may protect you, but if you’re faced with it coming at you, it’s actually really brutal. [06:17] I mean, they’d had a point, I think. [06:19] JMc: So on this point of Celtic studies, one of the major areas of applied linguistics that thrived under the National Socialist regime because it aligned very well with the regime’s interests was the issue of minority language rights. [06:33] This was very prominent in Celtic studies, as you mentioned. [06:37] So, first of all, in Germanistik, there was the issue of Auslandsdeutsche, so that is German speakers who were living outside the political boundaries of Germany — so predominantly in Eastern Europe, but also in migrant communities in North America, in the United States — but the issue of minority language rights was also deployed against the enemies of Nazi Germany — and this is where Celtic studies comes in — in alleged solidarity with oppressed ethnic groups such as the Bretons in France, the Welsh and the Highland Scots in Britain, and the Irish in Ireland. [07:10] So the Republic of Ireland was already an independent country by this stage, but the historical tensions between the Celtic-speaking Irish and the English colonial regime were still there, and Ireland itself was, of course, neutral in World War II. [07:25] But was this scholarship in Germanistik and Celtic studies really entwined with the Nazi ideology, or was it just an opportunistic appeal to the interests of the regime in order to secure funding and political support? [07:38] CH: Well, I think the affinity was sincere. [07:41] I mean, I think… There’s a guy called Ludwig Mühlhausen, there’s Leo Weisgerber, and there’s other figures, I think, Willy Krogmann. [07:50] So they really… I think they had very deep affinities to this Celtic culture, and they were very hostile to what the British had done or were doing in Ireland. [08:01] So I think there is a sincere element to it. [08:05] I think there is also an opportunistic element if you look at Heinz Kloss who was also, who was much more concerned with Germans, overseas Germans, or Germans outside the Reich, but he did get a lot of funding, [08:17] he had these independent research institutes. [08:20] Another way to look at this question is to look at the east, actually. [08:22] Michael Burleigh wrote a brilliant book called Germany Turns Eastwards, and it’s about the scholarship of the Slavic east, mainly Slavic east. [08:32] What you can see there, I think, is a mixture, in policy terms, of getting people on board — so appropriating, assimilating — and also kind of settler colonial ambitions. [08:43] So, you know, some Ukrainians are working with the Nazis, and then you have the Latvian SS, you have collaboration, but in the long run, I guess there was a plan, for the whole of Europe, a mixture of ethnic states in the west and settler colonialism in the east. [09:00] And how exactly that would have worked is unclear, but some people… [09:03] [Alfred] Rosenberg was saying to Hitler, you know, “The Ukrainians hate Stalin.” [09:06] But Hitler was, you know, not, you know… Because Rosenberg was from the east. [09:11] And I think Hitler was, on the other hand, much more insistent on a kind of scorched earth policy because of this settler ambition. [09:18] But they did have a European plan, and I think it did include a more natural ethnic ecology of Western Europe which would have been, I presume, ethnic states under Nazi sort of tutelage, so sort of patron states or… [09:32] I don’t know. [09:33] I think they didn’t know themselves, really. [09:36] And certainly, Leo Weisgerber was active in Brittany. [09:39] There was an attempt to use Flemish nationalism. [09:42] Certainly from the academics, I think they were sincerely interested because they distrust basically the modern state, nation-state form, because it’s not organic, but I think there is an overriding cynicism, you know, in the higher levels of the Nazi Party. [09:55] It wouldn’t have been a great deal for them in the end. [09:58] The ruthlessness of it is so, is such that the kind of autonomy they would have got would have been very, very thin. [10:05] So again, I think the idea of drawing clean lines is this, is underlying all of this, and the back to the sort of organic state, but they don’t have the intellectual answers, actually. [10:18] And then there’s the overriding technocratic thing of — which becomes stronger and stronger as the war goes on — of just brutal, you need a powerful military, and you need to… [10:27] You can’t, you know, this sort of re-engineering project is secondary, I think, at a certain point, you know, because it’s a brutal battle for survival. [10:35] But the academics, I think a lot of them are sincerely invested in these projects, so back to your original question, especially with the Celts, I think, yeah. [10:45] I think there’s a lot of affinities, and the academic links went back way before the war, and they still continue, actually. [10:51] There’s still a Celtic Romanticism in Germany. [10:54] It’s nothing like it was, but I noticed that when I lived in Germany, you know, there’s a kind of a… [11:01] There is this Romantic attachment to a particular form of Celtic imagery and way of being as opposed to the kind of hard capitalist modernity of England or the US. [11:14] So I think that ethos remains — stripped, I should add, of its nasty toxic elements. [11:22] JMc: Okay, so that brings us to the present. [11:25] So minority language rights are, of course, a major issue in mainstream linguistics today, but the focus today is perhaps on indigenous languages in places that have been subject to settler colonialism such as North and South America and Australia, so that sort of project that Boas was engaged in back in these days. [11:42] But also in Britain and France, the rights of speakers of Celtic languages are very much on the agenda and have managed to win some government support, and even in Germany, some small minorities such as the Sorbs in the Lausitz, in Brandenburg and Saxony, who speak a Slavic language, have been able to gain official support. [12:02] But today, minority language rights are usually considered a progressive issue, an effort to counteract the deleterious effects of colonialism and the aggressive spread of hegemonic cultures. [12:15] So how can an issue like this have such different, even diametrically opposed, political associations in different historical contexts? [12:23] CH: I think one of the keys to this is that the language minority politics of Europe between the wars and into the war is about territory. [12:35] So if you… [12:37] So the whole tension underlying it is, “Whose territory is this?” [12:41] And basically — back to the organic state — if you want to consolidate and survive and not to lose parts of your Volk, then it seems that you need political power in those regions in order to protect that. [12:56] So, obviously, the Germans are hurting because they’ve lost a lot of territory and a lot of their speakers are now citizens of other states, so the whole issue is explosive at the level where people are going to be killed with this, to, in a way, to bring about this kind of ideal state, you’re going to have to move people or kill them. [13:15] So it’s very different from the sort of post-war US where it’s about, an argument about cultural space or about legitimacy or, you know, access to social mobility, and so there’s no underlying murderous potential to that. [13:31] There’s a lot of social tension around it. [13:33] So I think that’s one difference. [13:36] I think that sociolinguistics has suffered from a sort of single model of this, so if you say “mother tongue language rights”, everyone goes, “Great,” rather than, really… [13:47] You know, language politics should include politics, so if you look at the politics of these states, and then it becomes a much more muddled and complicated story, so, you know, I always thought, you know… [14:00] [Robert] Philipson would go around the world telling everyone to use their mother tongues, but they did it in English, of course, and in a way, it was a one-size-fits-all solution emanating from northern Europe. [14:10] So my problem, in a way, is that we don’t look enough at the actual politics, the real governmental system, the structures, the resourcing, and all the effects that we’re, so people can praise, you know, pat themselves on the back for saying, “I support language rights,” but they don’t actually cost it in any way, politically or economically. [14:29] Maybe it’s the problem with the identity left now that it’s not interested in economics. [14:35] Somehow it lost… [14:37] You know, when I was growing up or when I was young, Marxists and leftists would talk about economics all the time. [14:42] Now, they only talk about identity, and it seems to me this is a problem for sociolinguistics. [14:48] I think it’s good, you know, it’s obviously progressive and better… [14:53] You know, if you have a, like say Welsh. [14:54] Well, Welsh is now enjoying a degree of, quite a strong degree of official recognition, and that’s great. [15:00] I don’t see any problem, and I think this can keep going further. [15:05] I mean, every Welsh, every speaker of Welsh is a native speaker of English as well, so it’s a very unusual situation, and I think that’s really beneficial to the kind of possibilities of this situation. [15:18] But in other situations, people are on the, you know, on the edge of these modern states, like in South America. [15:24] I don’t know. [15:26] I mean, it’s very easy to sit here and go, “They should keep their languages and cultures,” but modernity is a brutal… [15:32] I mean, the Welsh are in modernity, and then, you know, whereas for, say, in Brazil or these Amazonian peoples, getting into modernity will destroy their cultures. [15:44] I don’t see any easy point of view from here. [15:48] Again, another huge block of states are the Leninist states or the former Leninist states, you know, which is, you know, a vast percentage of the world population – so China, Vietnam, Laos, Burma to a degree, and even India, in a funny way – where you have official minority classifications centrally organized, and the politics of that are very, very different from the minority policies of that from, say, the US. [16:17] Both Uriel Weinrich and [Joshua] Fishman in the ’50s and ’60s have a whole list of Nazis in their references. [16:24] I mean, not one or two, maybe 20 or 25. [16:28] So how is that possible? [16:30] You know, and Weinrich’s Languages in Contact, if you look in the bibliography, there’s a bunch of really nasty, toxic people there, you know, some of whom, one of whom was executed for war crimes. [16:42] So how is that possible? [16:44] It’s because, well, one, I think in Fishman’s case, he just was not interested in the problematic nature of minority politics in the interwar era, and he didn’t understand Kloss, who was his kind of, you know, close collaborator, and he was worried about protecting the program that he had, which was to promote, you know, ethnic revival in the US and globally in the sort of decolonizing world, a kind of rational language politics or language engineering. [17:15] JMc: But maybe, I mean, maybe your average sociolinguist who, so someone like Weinreich or Fishman who would be citing heaps of Nazis, maybe their principle would be, you know, don’t say that they’re hypocritical, [17:26] say rather that they’re apolitical, like that the ideas that they have are separate from the politics that they were used to support. [17:35] CH: Well, my theory with Weinreich was that he was trying to protect the discipline, and he did his fieldwork in Switzerland, so he was in the kind of only bit of Europe which was not damaged [17:45], you know continental Europe which was kind of intact in some sense, and I think he was such a sort of straight guy and a high-minded guy that I think he felt it beneath him to kind of lay into these guys. [17:59] But I pointed out in this article, Max, his father, wrote one of the first books on Nazi scholarship and was scathing in a letter quoted by another scholar about Franz Beranek, who was one of the Germans who worked on Yiddish, you know, so calling him complicit in murder and so on. [18:15] So there is something strange about that, and Fishman, I think, was protecting… [18:21] Or maybe he didn’t know. [18:22] I don’t know whether Weinreich gave him the references. [18:25] He certainly knew about [Georg] Schmidt-Rohr, you know, Schmidt-Rohr’s complicated evolution, because in ’32 Schmidt-Rohr got into political trouble for seemingly suggesting that language could create Volk, and then he kind of reoriented himself to kind of get past the sort of Nordicist attacks on him. [18:45] But he’s no liberal, you know. [18:48] And then Kloss, with Fishman, it’s a funny story, actually. [18:51] I think that all fades away. [18:54] I mean, no one’s… [18:55] After this, I think Fishman, it all kind of dribbles out and he doesn’t cite any more German sources. Again, noting that, because German language sources were the key to the history of linguistics, I mean, until the Second World War, right? [19:08] So in a way, it’s mapping the end of German dominance and the rise of the US as the preeminent linguistics power, I guess, yeah. [19:18] JMc: What a claim to fame, preeminent linguistics power. [19:23] It’s not quite as impressive as being, you know, the greatest military power or economic power. [19:27] CH: True, but, I mean, I think… [19:28] Yeah, but it goes together a little bit because look at the US university system, and then because of the ’60s expansion, it really took off, and sociolinguistics has a kind of virgin birth, I think, in the ’60s, they kind of, as if there never was a European background, you know. [19:47] There’s something slightly odd about it, and Kloss is there in those, one or two of those meetings, you know, with [Dell] Hymes and all these, [John J.] Gumperz, all these figures. [19:55] And there’s the, because there’s the Empire, the British Empire, which was a key place for linguistics research, and then there’s, you know, Central and Eastern Europe. [20:05] You know, the massive amount of literature on the ethnic politics of eastern, but then sociolinguistics comes along, it’s a very US thing. [20:12] It’s like, “We’re going forward,” technocratic, and then rights and equality, and so it kind of sets itself going, I think, often without really looking back. [20:24] JMc: Okay. [20:26] Oh, that’s probably a good note to end the interview on, so thank you very much for your answers to those questions. [20:31] CH: Okay, thanks very much. [20:33] JMc: Okay. [20:34] CH: It was good fun. [20:34] I enjoyed that. [20:35] [Music]

In this episode, we look at psychologist Karl Bühler’s (1879–1963) Organon model of communication and observe its influence on the linguists Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1890–1938) and Roman Jakobson (1896–1982), who were associated with the Prague Circle. Download | Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts References for Episode 21 Primary Sources Bühler, Karl (1927), Die Krise der Psychologie, Jena: Fischer. Bühler, Karl (1931), ‘Phonetik und Phonologie’, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4, 22–53. MPI PuRe (last page of scan missing) Bühler, Karl (1933), Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften, Frankfurt: Klostermann.(English trans., The Axiomatization of the Language Sciences, in Innis 1982.) Bühler, Karl (1934), Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache, Jena: Fischer. MPI PuRe: 1965 edition(English trans.: 2011, Theory of Language, trans. Donald Fraser Goodwin, ed. Achim Eschbach, Amsterdam: Benjamins.) Bühler, Karl (1960), Das Gestaltprinzip im Leben des Menschen und der Tiere, Bern: Huber. Durnovo, Nikolaj, Bohuslav Havránek, Roman Jakobson, Vilém Mathesius, Jan Mukařovský, Nikolai Trubetzkoy, & Bohumil Trnka (1929), ‘Thèses présentées au Premier Congrès des philologues slaves’, in Mélanges linguistiques dédiés au Premier Congrès des Philologues Slaves, pp. 5–29. Praha: Jednota Československých Matematiků a Fysiků. BnF Gallica(English trans. by Marta K. Johnson, 1978, ‘Manifesto’, in Recycling the Prague Linguistic Circle, ed. Marta K. Johson, pp. 1–31. Anne Arbor: Karoma.) Gardiner, Alan Henderson (1932), Theory of Speech and Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. archive.org Jakobson, Roman (1981 [1960]), ‘Poetry and grammar’, in Selected Writings: Roman Jakobson, vol. III, Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry, 18–51, The Hague: Mouton.(An abridged version with the title ‘The speech event and the functions of language’ is reproduced in Jakobson 1990, pp. 69–79.) Jakobson, Roman (1990 [1960]), ‘Linguistics and Communication Theory’, in Jakobson (1990), pp. 489–497. Martinet, André (1980 [1949]), Éléments de linguistique générale, Paris: Armin Colin. archive.org Shannon, Claude & Warren Weaver (1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. MPI PuRe: 1964 edition Trubetzkoy, Nikolai (1939), Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague.(English trans. by Christiane A.M. Baltaxe, 1969, Principles of Phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press. archive.org) Secondary Sources Ash, Mitchell G. (1995), Gestalt psychology in German culture, 1890–1967: Holism and the quest for objectivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benetka, Gerhard (1995), Psychologie in Wien: Sozial- und Theoriegeschichte des Wiener Psychologischen Instituts 1922–1938, Wien: WUV-Universtätsverlag. Edwards, Paul N. (1997), The Closed World: Computers and the politics of discourse in Cold War America, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Eschbach, Achim, ed. (1984), Bühler-Studien, 2 vols., Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Friedrich, Janette (2004), ‘Les idées phonologiques de Karl Bühler’, Les dossiers de HEL No. 2, ed. Janette Friedrich & Didier Samain, Paris: SHESL. https://shesl.org/index.php/dossiers2-karl_buhler/ Friedrich, Janette, ed. (2018), Karl Bühlers Krise der Psychologie: Positionen, Bezüge und Kontroversen in Wien der 1920er/30er Jahre, Cham: Springer. Geoghegan, Bernard Dionysius (2011), ‘From information theory to French theory: Jakobson, Lévi-Strauss and the cybernetic apparatus’, Critical Enquiry 38: 96–126. Innis, Robert E. (1982), Karl Bühler, semiotic foundations of language theory, New York: Plenum Press. Jakobson, Roman (1990), On Language, ed. Linda R. Waugh & Monique Monville-Burston, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Ungeheuer, Gerold (2004 [1967]), ‘Die kybernetische Grundlage der Sprachtheorie von Karl Bühler’, in Sprache und Kommunikation, ed. Karin Kolb & H. Walter Schmitz, 128–146, Münster: Nodus. Van de Walle, Jürgen (2008), ‘Roman Jakobson, cybernetics and information theory: a critical assessment’, Folia Linguistica Historica 29: 87–128.

In this interview, we continue the theme of the previous episode and talk to Jacqueline Léon about John Rupert Firth (1890–1960), Bronisław Malinowski (1884–1942) and the London School. Download | Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts References for Episode 20 Primary Sources Archives Firth : John Rupert Firth collection, PP MS75, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Brown, K. & Law V. (eds.), 2002, Linguistics in Britain: Personal Histories, Oxford: Publications of the Philological Society. Firth, J. R. 1930. Speech. London: Benn’s Sixpenny Library. Firth, J. R. 1957 [1935]. “The technique of semantics”, in Papers in Linguistics (1934–1951). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 7–33. Firth, J. R. 1970 [1937]. The Tongues of Men. London: Oxford University Press, Firth, J. R. 1957 [1950]. “Personality and language in society”, in Papers in Linguistics (1934–1951). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–189. Firth, J. R. 1957 [1951]. “General Linguistics and Descriptive Grammar”, in Papers in Linguistics (1934–1951), pp. 216–228. Firth, J. R. 1968 [1956]. “Descriptive linguistics and the study of English”, in Palmer F. R. (ed.), pp. 96–113. Firth, J. R. 1968 [1957a].“Ethnographic analysis and language with reference to Malinowski’s views”, in Palmer F. R. (ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth (1952–59). London and Bloomington: Longman and Indiana University Press, pp. 137–67. Firth, J. R. [posthumus manuscript 1]. Conference on University training and research in the use of English as a second / foreign language, British Council 15–17 December 1960 [J. R. Firth collection, SOAS, London, PP MS 75, box 2] Firth, J. R. [posthumus manuscript 2]. October 1960 Commonwealth Conference of the teaching of English as a second language, Makerere, Uganda, January 1961 [J. R. Firth collection, SOAS, London, Personal File]. Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. 1972. Directions in sociolinguistics, The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston. Halliday, M. A. K. 1966. “General linguistics and its application to language teaching”, in M. A. K. Halliday and A. McIntosh (eds.), Patterns of Language: Papers in General, Descriptive and Applied Linguistics. London: Longman, pp. 1–41. Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh A. & Strevens P. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London, Longmans. Hymes, D. 1964. Language in Culture and Society. A reader in Linguistics and Anthropology. New York: Harper & Row. Malinowski, B. 1923. “The problem of meaning in primitive languages”, Supplement to Ogden C. K. & Richards I. A., The Meaning of Meaning. A study of the influence of Language upon Thought and of the science of symbolism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 296–337. Malinowski, B. 1935. Coral Gardens and their Magic, The Language of Magic and Gardening, vol. II. London: Allen & Unwin. Malinowski, B. 1937. “The Dilemma of Contemporary Linguistics,” review of: Infant Speech: a Study of the Beginnings of Language, by M. M. Lewis, Nature 140: 172–173. Mitchell T. F. 1975. Principles of Firthian Linguistics. London: Longman. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. 1974. “A simplest systematics from the organization of turn taking for conversation”, Language 50: 696-735. Sweet, H. 1891–98. A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sweet, H. 1891. The Practical Study of languages: A guide for teachers and learners. Oxford : Oxford University Press. (Reprinted in 1964 by R. Mackin.) Secondary Sources Howatt A. P. R. 1984. History of English Language Teaching [2nd edition, 2004]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Léon, J. 2007. “From Linguistic Events and Restricted Languages to Registers. Firthian legacy and Corpus Linguistics”, The Bulletin of the Henry Sweet Society for the History of Linguistic Ideas 49: 5–26. Léon J. 2008. “Empirical traditions of computer-based methods. Firth’s restricted languages and Harris’ sublanguages”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 18.2: 259–274. Léon J. 2011. “De la linguistique descriptive à la linguistique appliquée dans la tradition britannique. Sweet, Firth et Halliday”, Histoire Epistémologie Langage 33.1: 69–81. Léon J. 2019. “Les sources britanniques de l’ethnographie de la communication et de l’analyse de conversation. Bronislaw Malinowski et John Rupert Firth”, Linha d’Agua 32.1: 23–38. Palmer, F. R. 1994. “Firth and the London School”, The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Asher (ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 1257–1260. Rebori, V. 2002. “The legacy of J.R. Firth. A report on recent research”, Historiographia Linguistica 29.1–2:165–190. Stubbs, M. 1992. “InstitutionaI Linguistics: Language and Institutions, Linguistics and Sociology”, in Pütz, M. (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 189–21. Transcript by Luca Dinu [Music] JMc: Hi, [00:10] I’m James McElvenny, and you’re listening to the History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences Podcast, online at hiphilangsci.net. [00:18] In the previous episode, we became acquainted with the functionalist approach to language research of the London School of linguistics, whose institutional figurehead was John Rupert Firth, and which had many links outside disciplinary linguistics, perhaps most notably to the ethnographic work of Bronisław Malinowski. [00:38] Today, we explore this topic in more detail with Jacqueline Léon, from the CNRS Laboratory for the History of Linguistic Theories in Paris. [00:49] Jacqueline is the author of numerous papers and books on the London School and on British and American linguistics more broadly. [00:56] References to her most relevant publications on these topics, and to all the other literature we discuss, can be found, as always, up on the podcast page at hiphilangsci.net. [01:07] In the previous episode, we talked at length about the notion of “context of situation”. [01:13] You’ve argued, Jacqueline, that this concept represents a kind of anticipation of ideas that were later reinvented or rediscovered under the rubrics of ethnography of communication and conversation analysis. [01:26] What exactly are the common points between Firthian linguistics and these later approaches? [01:32] And are there direct historical connections between them or were the later ideas developed independently? [01:38] JL: One can say that there is a direct connection between Firth and Malinowski’s ideas and ethnography of communication, since its pioneers, Dell Hymes and John Gumperz, consider Malinowski and Firth among the notable sources of the field. [01:58] In his introductory book to ethnographic communication, Language in Culture and Society, published in 1964, Hymes reproduces the second part of Firth’s text “The technique of semantics” of 1935 under the title of “Sociological linguistics”. [02:22] Remember that, in that text, Firth starts to elaborate the notion of context of situation in the wake of Malinowski. [02:31] In the same book, Hymes also reproduces a text by Malinowski of 1937 called “The Dilemma of Contemporary Linguistics”. [02:43] Later, in their introductory book Directions in Sociolinguistics, The Ethnography of Communication, published in 1972, Hymes and Gumperz underline what dialectology and variation studies owe to Firth, in particular with the notions of context of situation, speech community, and verbal repertories, and how their notion of frame comes from the functional categories of the context of situation. [03:18] They also claim their affiliation to Firth’s article “Personality and language in society”, published in 1950. [03:27] As to conversation analysis, the connection is less direct: Sacks and Schegloff, the pioneers of conversation analysis, never quote Firth or Malinowski. [03:40] However, they both refer to Hymes, and Sacks is one of the authors of Directions in Sociolinguistics, edited by Hymes and Gumperz in 1972, so that one can claim that they were acquainted with Firth’s and Malinowski’s works. [04:00] Now, let’s look into this in more details. [04:04] In the previous episode, you, James, talked about Malinowski’s and Firth’s context of situation and their conception of language as a mode of action. [04:16] In Coral Gardens and their Magic, Malinowski’s context of situation includes not only linguistic context but also gestures, looks, facial expressions and perceptual context. [04:34] More broadly, context of situation is identified with the cultural context comprising all the people participating in the activity, as well as the physical and social environment. [04:50] In other words, context of situation is the nonverbal matrix of speech event. [04:57] Malinowski gives words the power to act, that is to say, long before Austin’s How to Do Things with Words (published in 1955 then 1962), he says, Malinowski, “words in their first and essential sense do, act, produce and realize.” [05:22] As to Firth, as early as 1935, in “The technique of semantics”, he emphasizes the importance of conversation for the study of language. [05:37] I quote: “Conversation is much more of a roughly prescribed ritual than most people think. [05:44] Once someone speaks to you, you are in a relatively determined context and you are not free just to say what you please. [05:54] … Neither linguists nor psychologists have begun the study of conversation; but it is here that we shall find the key to a better understanding of what language really is and how it works.” [06:09] End of quotation. [06:11] In this text, Firth presents a linguistic treatment of the context of situation. [06:18] He groups the contexts by type of use and by genres. [06:22] First: common, colloquial, slang, literary, technical, scientific, conversational, dialectal. [06:31] Two: speaking, hearing, writing, reading. [06:35] Three (sort of registers; we’ll see that later): familiar, colloquial, and more formal speech. [06:42] Four: the languages of the schools, the law, the Church, and the specialized forms of speech. [06:49] These categories are the premises of what he will develop with restricted languages from 1945. [06:58] To these types of monological uses, Firth adds those created by the interactions between several people where the function of phatic communion identified by Malinowski is at work. [07:14] The examples he gives are acts of ordinary conversation, such as addresses, greetings, mutual recognition, etc., or belong to institutions like the Church, the tribunal, the administration, where words are deeds. [07:32] I quote again Firth: “In more detail we may notice such common situations as: (a) Address: ‘Simpson!’ ‘Look here, Jones’, ‘My dear boy’, ‘Now, my man’, ‘Excuse me, madam’. [07:47] (b) Greetings, farewells, or mutual recognition of status and relationship on contact, adjustment of relations after contact, breaking off relations, renewal of relations, change of relations. [08:02] (c) Situations in which words, often conventionally fixed by law or custom, serve to bind people to a line of action or to free them from certain customary duties in order to impose others. [08:19] In Churches, Law Courts, Offices, such situations are commonplace.” [08:26] End of quotation. [08:29] However, the notion of situation, and the classification of these situations, seemed to him insufficient to account for language as action. [08:40] Instead, he proposes linguistic functions reduced to linguistic expressions: he speaks of the language of agreement, of disagreement, encouragement, approval, condemnation; the action of wishing, blessing, cursing, boasting; the language of challenge, flattery, seduction, compliments, blame, propaganda and persuasion. [09:06] Here, we can recognize the first objects studied by the first conversation analysts in their research on talk-in-interaction, that is, greetings, compliments, agreement and disagreement, etc. [09:20] In The Tongues of Men, published in 1937, two years after “The technique of semantics”, appears what was later formalized as turn-taking organization and action sequences by the conversation analysts. [09:39] Firth evokes the mutual expectations aroused in the interlocutors as well as the limited range of possibilities of responses to a given turn. [09:52] As for the notions relating to language variation, which will prove to be very important for ethnographers of communication, they were developed by Firth from 1950. [10:03] James, you have already mentioned specialized languages and Firth’s personal experience of teaching Japanese to pilots during the Second World War. [10:12] These specialized languages will become restricted languages a few years later. [10:20] For Firth, even restricted languages are affected by variation and context. [10:26] Even in the restricted languages of meteo [weather] or mathematics, which can nevertheless be regarded as extremely constrained, there are dramatic variations according to the languages and to the continents where they are used. [10:42] In Firth’s last paper, of 1959, we come across the idea of repertory, according to which each person is in command of a varied repertory of language roles, of a constellation of restricted languages. [11:00] The notion of repertory was developed by ethnographers of communication as crucial for the study of variation. [11:08] With this ultimate paper, where restricted languages refer to speakers’ repertories of their own, it can be claimed that Firth gave the outline of the notion of register later developed by his followers, especially Michael Halliday, Angus McIntosh and Paul Strevens in their book The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, published in 1964. [11:36] At first, they worked out the notion of register to address the issue of language variety in connection with foreign language teaching. [11:46] Linguistic variety should be studied through two distinct notions, dialect and register, to account for linguistic events (Firth’s term to designate the linguistic activity of people in situations). [12:04] They oppose dialect (that is, variety according to user; that is, varieties in the sense that each speaker uses one variety and uses it all the time) to register (that is, variety according to use; that is, in the sense that each speaker has a range of varieties and chooses between them at different times). [12:32] The category of “register” refers to the type of language selected by a speaker as appropriate to different types of situations. [12:44] Within this framework, restricted languages are referred as specific, constrained types of registers which, I quote, “employ only a limited number of formal items and patterns.” [13:00] It should be added that the authors (that is, Halliday et al.) refer to Ferguson and Gumperz’s work on Linguistic diversity in South Asia, Weinreich’s Languages in Contact and Quirk’s Use of English, in addition to Firth’s work, so that it should be said that registers had not been the direct successors of restricted languages. [13:29] They have been established on Firthian views already revisited by Hymes and Gumperz, and then by Halliday and his colleagues. [13:41] In conclusion, one can claim that Firth’s context of situation, linguistic events, restricted languages, and repertories raised crucial issues for early sociolinguistics. [13:56] JMc: So Firthian linguistics would seem to have a very pragmatic and applied character. [14:02] What’s the relationship of Firthian theory to what the British call “applied linguistics”? [14:07] And how does this relate to the Firthian notion of “restricted languages”, which you just mentioned in your answer to the previous question? [14:16] JL: To answer this question, I must recall that there is a specific tradition of applied linguistics coming from British empiricism, which, since the 19th century, has been resting on the articulation between theory, practice and applications based on technological innovations. [14:39] Firth played an important role in the development of practical and applied linguistics, which became institutionalized only after his death, in the 1950–60s, with two pioneering trends, in the US and in Britain. [14:59] Michael Halliday, one of his most famous pupils, was one of the founders of the AILA (Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée) in 1964, and of BAAL, the British Association for Applied Linguistics, in 1967. [15:18] Henry Sweet was probably the 19th-century linguist who best exemplified the establishment of close links between application and linguistics. [15:29] Firth was a big admirer of Sweet (in particular, he mentions having learned his shorthand method at 14) and is in line with Sweet’s “living philology” in several ways: the priority given to phonetics in the description of languages, the attention paid to text and phonetics, the absence of distinction between practical grammar and theoretical grammar, the important place of descriptive grammar, finally, the involvement in language teaching. [16:05] In this last area, Sweet advocated the use of texts written in a simple and direct style, containing only frequent words, instead of learning by heart lists of isolated words or sentences, which was the usual way of teaching languages in his time. [16:28] These texts (which he called “connected coherent texts”) recall the restricted languages that Firth will recommend later for language teaching and also for all kinds of applications, such as translation and the study of collocations. [16:48] Firth developed restricted language in 1956 (in his article entitled “Descriptive linguistics and the study of English”), even if the idea of specialized language appeared as soon as 1950. [17:06] Firth’s major concern was then to set up the crucial status of descriptive linguistics, against Saussurian and Neo-Bloomfieldian structural linguistics. [17:19] Restricted languages were a way to question the monosystemic view of language shared by European structuralists (especially Meillet’s view of language as a one-system whole où tout se tient), and to criticize pointless discussions on metalanguage. [17:40] Restricted languages are at the core of his conception of descriptive linguistics, where practical applications are guided by theory. [17:50] Firth developed restricted languages according to three levels, “language under description”, “language of description”, “language of translation”, each of them determining a step in the description process. [18:10] The language under description is the raw material observed, transcribed in the form of “text” located contextually. [18:20] From a methodological point of view, restricted languages under description should be authentic texts – that is, written texts or the transcription of the raw empirical material. [18:35] They may be materialized in a single text, such as Magna Carta in Medieval Latin, or the American Declaration of Independence. [18:48] The language of description corresponds to linguistic terminology and transcription systems – we must know that Firth rejected metalanguage. [19:00] Finally, the translation language includes the source and target languages, and the definition languages of dictionaries and grammars. [19:15] Firth insists that restricted languages are more suited than general language for carrying out practical purposes, such as teaching languages, translating, or building dictionaries, and, we’ll see, to study collocations. [19:32] Likewise, defined as limited types of a major language, for example subsets of English, contextually situated, they are the privileged object of descriptive linguistics. [19:46] The task of descriptive linguistics, he said, is not to study the language as a whole, but to study restricted, more manageable languages, which should have their own grammar and dictionary, which he called micro-grammar and micro-glossary. [20:05] Firth uses the phrase “the restricted language of X” in order to address the different types of restricted languages: the restricted language of science, technology, sport, defense, industry, aviation, military services, commerce, law and civil administration, politics, literature, etc. [20:25] Firth died in 1960, the year of decolonization in Africa, also called “the year of Africa”. [20:34] His last two texts are posthumous speeches at two congresses, organized respectively by the British Council and the Commonwealth on the teaching of English as a foreign language and as a second language in the former colonies. [20:52] The research on restricted languages initiated by Firth is a central theme addressed in these lectures, under the title “English for special purposes”, and it is the Neo-Firthians, as his followers are sometimes called, including Michael Halliday, who expressed themselves on these questions. [21:16] JMc: Thank you very much for your very detailed answers to these questions. [21:22] JL: Thank you. [21:22] [Music]

John Rupert Firth, a key figure in British linguistics, and Bronisław Malinowski, a famed anthropologist, dive into the evolution of meaning in language. They discuss Firth's 'context of situation' theory and its empirical approach, contrasting it with German perspectives. Malinowski explores 'word magic' and the societal power of language, critiquing colonial biases and emphasizing cultural contexts. Their conversation reflects on how language shapes rational thought, political discourse, and the nuances of effective communication.

H. Walter Schmitz, a scholar in language sciences, dives into the groundbreaking work of Victoria Lady Welby, a trailblazer in semiotics. He explores her practical approach to meaning, her struggle for education as a woman in the late 19th century, and her compelling correspondence with influential thinkers. The conversation delves into the distinctions between sense, meaning, and significance in communication, while comparing Welby’s semiotic theories with those of Charles Peirce, highlighting her enduring impact on modern semiotics.

Philipp Wegener, a key figure in the early development of functional linguistics, shares his groundbreaking ideas on language as a dynamic action rather than a simple reflection of thought. He dives into how language directs attention and shapes communication, emphasizing the importance of shared cultural contexts and consciousness in interpreting meaning. Wegener critiques traditional psychological theories and discusses the intricate relationship between language and psychological understanding, ultimately highlighting the evolution of linguistic concepts.

Chloé Laplantine, a scholar of linguistics and author, delves into the life of pioneering French structuralist Émile Benveniste. She discusses his revolutionary contributions to language theory and critiques of Saussure's structuralism, highlighting the dynamic relationship between language and society. Laplantine also emphasizes the importance of individual experience in linguistic analysis, presenting Benveniste as a transformative figure who reshaped our understanding of linguistic structures and their cultural implications.