Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
An essential part of Bloomfield's definition of linguistic forms and constructions is the attachment to them of stimulus-reaction features, which are his definition of meaning. The linguistic scholar is still bedeviled by the many problems involved in talking about meaning, and he still lacks a body of dogma to which he can refer when meaning is talked about. This paper is an attempt to explore one of the problems and to establish a postulate which may be added to Bloomfield's Set of Postulates.
Presidential address, read at the 24th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society in Philadelphia, 28 December 1949.
1 Lg. 2.153–64.
2 Walter Dyk, A Grammar of Wishram (unpublished Yale dissertation, 1933).
3 See my Studies in Vietnamese (Annamese) Grammar, to appear shortly. Other Vietnamese material presented is treated more fully in that work.
3a At this point Y. R. Chao provides me with a footnote alluding to ‘de Broglie's proving that waves and particles are quite equivalent descriptions of the same phenomenon, about the philosophical import of which physicists differ. But most of them regard the difference as only linguistic, until and unless the two descriptions lead to some operationally different results.‘
He has also rewritten the end of the paragraph in the text as follows: ‘To pass on to mathematics, it is well known that this highly abstract discipline does not pretend to be dealing with reality, but only with self-consistent systems of abstract terms in abstract relations capable of one or more interpretations, if any at all. But once there has taken place the initial interpretation, in terms of actual things, of the terms and postulates on which the mathematician bases his deductive system, his combinations thereafter will follow by logical necessity. So long, however, as the mathematician is building up his “pure” mathematics (even though personally he may be interested in finding possible actual interpretations), he can and does to some extent make his constructions as arbitrary as can be, leading to innumerable different arithmetics and geometries.‘ I must in honesty keep this out of the text, since my ignorance in these matters could not have allowed me to write it.
4 The organic chemist exhibits less tolerance for these pairs, varying only in the order of the morphemes, than does the inorganic chemist. Reasons given are that the organic chemist deals with a much greater number of compounds, and such pairs are harder to remember; they therefore are regarded as the mark of a bad nomenclature system. Apparently, soon after it is realized that a section of the nomenclature will abound in such pairs, the method of making up the terms is systematically reformed so as to avoid them. Thus, ethylene dichloride is now usually replaced by dichloroethane, benzene hexobromide by hexobromocyclo-hexane, aminodiphenyl by aminobiphenyl. The term used for the discarded names is trivial, defined as ‘not completely systematic’, though one of my informants thought that he would rather call them ‘bad form’ and reserve trivial for the popular use of chemical terms such as is seen in aspirin, benzene, etc. I am indebted for instruction in these matters to my colleagues in the Department of Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley, especially to Professor William D. Gwinn. All responsibility for the interpretation and use of the information given me is of course mine.
5 Theodor Kluge's works reviewed by Rahder in Lg. 23.181–5.
6 Cf. Bloomfield, Language 201–6 (New York, 1933).
7 Op.cit. 165.
8 Word 5.36–42.
9 E.g. Robert H. Lowie, Social Organization 67 (New York, 1948): ‘... we are warranted in defending a correspondence between social phenomena and the designation of relatives. It would certainly be rash to contend ... that social conditions rigorously determine nomenclature .... But ... we shall constantly discover an interrelation of terminology and structure or custom.‘
10 Language, Culture, and Personality (Sapir Volume) 178 (Menasha, Wis., 1941).
11 Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. 5, Part 2, 25–9 (Calcutta, 1903); Seven Grammars of the Dialects and Sub-dialects of the Bihari Language (Calcutta, 1883–7).
12 Edwin M. Loeb, JAOS 64.113–26 (1944).
13 See Robert F. Spencer, The Annamese Kinship System, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1.284–310 (1945).
14 Discussion with my colleague Mary R. Haas has led me to this analysis of the terms used by husband and wife.
15 To attribute age, with its concomitant status, to a Vietnamese, whether man or woman, is more pleasing than the attribution of youth—the reverse of the usual American situation. It need hardly be pointed out how relative cultural values are.