There used to be and to some extent still is a feeling among linguists that the psychology of a language is more particularly concerned with its grammatical features, but that its sounds and its phonetic processes belong to a grosser physiological substratum. Thus, we sometimes hear it said that such phonetic processes as the palatalizing of a vowel by a following i or other front vowel (“umlaut”) or the series of shifts in the manner of articulating the old Indo-European stopped consonants which have become celebrated under the name of “Grimm's Law” are merely mechanical processes, consummated by the organs of speech and by the nerves that control them as a set of shifts in relatively simple sensorimotor habits. It is my purpose in this paper, as briefly as may be, to indicate that the sounds and sound processes of speech cannot be properly understood in such simple, mechanical terms.

Students of language do not need to ask Why a linguistic society? but many laymen have asked this question. The answer, to be sure, lies really in our work and in its results; but, for this very reason, it is desirable that our motives be understood.

In my Studies in New Mexican Spanish1 I have already called attention to the existence of certain syllabic consonants in New Mexican Spanish. In the following pages I shall discuss this subject much more in detail.

For those psychologists for whom psychology is a study of the conditions known as the cultural status of the individual, or the anthropological status of the group, the study of the language mechanisms is taking on a new aspect. Language as a form of behavior through which the individual adjusts himself to a social environment, is not the same thing as language as a medium of expression of so-called subjective desires, hopes, and aspirations. As a form of behavior, language represents biological, physiological, and social conditions; as a medium of expression, it assumes the existence of non-physical forces or types of psychical energy whose existence has not been adequately demonstrated. Therefore, when the psychologist finds himself confronted with the request to make a “psychological” explanation, or a “psychological” interpretation of a careful and detailed linguistic investigation, he is unable to add anything and if anything is added it often only obscures the investigation.

The complete publication of the Lydian inscriptions by Buckler has been followed up almost immediately by Sayce with a suggestive article on their decipherment—an article, however, which raises more questions than it settles. The following remarks were prompted by it, but I find it necessary frequently to disagree with Sayce's conclusions. In the transliteration of the Lydian characters I shall follow Sayce, except that I shall represent the sibilants as Buckler does.

The question of the mutual relation of the various privative nominal prefixes characterised by n in the Indo-European languages, as well as of these prefixes to the n-negative particles, has repeatedly been discussed from more than one point of view. Without recapitulating the theories already advanced, which may readily be ascertained from the appended bibliography, the problem may be examined anew in the light of all linguistic evidence now available. The fullest data are found in Greek, then in Italic, Indian, and Iranian; doublets of the type ∗ : ∗ne are rare in Celtic, Teutonic, and Balto-Slavic; they are not found in Armenian, which has only an = ∗ ; and their existence is questionable in Albanian.

1. The Central Algonquian Languages form a group which, together with Eastern Algonquian, constitutes the Eastern-Central branch of the Algonquian stock. While the similarity between the Central Algonquian languages is evident, the exact grouping is doubtful.

The method consisted essentially of joint visual, auditory, and kinesthetic stimulation. The visual stimuli were irregular figures of equal area (6 sq. cm.) and of different colors (red, green, blue, yellow). The auditory stimuli were nonsense syllables, pronounced by the experimenter as the visual stimuli were exposed. The kinesthetic stimuli resulted from the subject's being required to pronounce the nonsense syllables after the experimenter.

Since the appearance of E. K.‘s dedicatory epistle in the first edition of Spenser's The Shepheardes Calendar, many theories have been advanced in explanation of the diction which Spenser used. Most of these have dealt with the influence of renaissance theories of diction on Spenser's language; many have added little to the material contained in E. K.‘s dedicatory epistle; and few have dealt with the details of the language itself. It is not my purpose in this paper to add another study to the list of those dealing with Spenser's relationship to contemporary theories of diction. It is my purpose rather to point out the extent to which Spenser used archaisms and to show that he consciously used a specialized diction for his pastoral poetry.

In a comparison of the linguistic results of Experiments I, II, and III, it will be important to have a measure of the relative difficulty of the learning under each of these three sets of conditions. In Experiments I and II, where the two visual factors of shape and color are exactly correlated with specific and uniformly recurring sound-sequences, it is also possible to compare the rates and degrees of learning of (1) the syllables corresponding to shape and color, and (2) the names corresponding to the 14 figures of the learning series and those corresponding to the 2 figures which occurred only in the recognition series. By correct response is meant a response to a figure substantially identical with the name which was taught to the subject in the learning series, or, in the case of the two figures which did not occur in the learning series, a response showing a correct analysis of the factors of shape and color in accordance with the categories of the linguistic system of the experiment. Many responses have been counted as correct, for the purposes of these comparisons, which deviate phonetically to some extent from the words taught, but which are nevertheless unmistakeable variants of these words.

In order to ascertain whether and to what extent linguistics is entitled to the name of a science, we must remember that in Modern English the term ‘science’ may be understood in two different ways, viz. : (1) in a broad sense, as the equivalent of the German word Wissenschaft, i.e., scholarly knowledge; (2) in a more modern and more technical sense, so as to be applied exclusively to branches of learning concerned with permanent and invariable relations, such as mathematics, chemistry, physics. These and similar sciences, it is claimed, are able to make predictions for the future. If interpreted in this way, the term would not be applicable even to the evolutionary branches of natural science, such as geology and biology. Whether or not we approve of limiting the scope of ‘science’ in this manner, we certainly cannot close our eyes to the fundamental difference as to aims and method between abstract science and the study of natural phenomena from the viewpoint of evolution or progress.

The older Indo-European languages have preserved a considerable number of adjectives in oxytone ú of the type Ved. prthús, Avest. , Gr. πλατus ‘broad’; or Ved. , Goth, þaúrsus; OHG. durri ‘dry.‘ For the most part they express very primary adjectival ideas, to a large extent qualities inherent in concrete objects, showing that they were formed at a very early time. They are generally made from the reduced grade of the root, due to their oxytone accent, but morfological and lexical (semantic) influences have tended occasionally, though not very often, to efface the inter-play between oxytonesis and reduced root-form (Vedic = Gr. , etc.). Adjective function and the position of the accent preserve their distinctive class character to an uncommon degree.