Linguistic Society of America

Linguistics and Philology Author(s): George Melville Bolling Source: Language, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Mar., 1929), pp. 27-32 Published by: Linguistic Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/408995 . Accessed: 02/09/2011 10:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.

http://www.jstor.org

LINGUISTICS AND PHILOLOGY

GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

[Discussion of the terms 'linguistics' and 'philology' as used in American

English.]

To the recently renewed discussion' of the terms 'linguistics' and 'philology'something may perhapsbe added. The problemis not to stake out theoreticalclaims to portionsof the field of scholarship,2 but to recognizecertain actually existing types of scholarlyactivity simply and apply to them labels in such a way as to minimizethe riskof misunderstanding. Three such stimuli seem to me to be present in our environment,and I shall endeavorto suggest them without wishing to insist upon the desirabilityof the verbaldescriptionsemployed. A. The study of man's speech-habits. B. The study of what his speech-habitshave enabled man to accomplish,that is the study of civilizationas a whole.3 C. The establishmentand interpretationof the texts of such documents as need that treatment. To B Sturtevant-Kentdecline to react on the ground that 'no one scholarcan cover so large a field'. The objectionis true but not to the point. It assumesthat our effortsmust be individualisticrather than cooperative. If the issue wereto be raisedat all, it shouldratherbe :Can a libraryto cover so large a field ever be accumulated? Even then the answer'No' must be given, if we have in mind a librarythat can answer all possiblequestions. The same, however,is true of A and C as well; and the fact need not troubleus. Ourstudiesare aspirations; that their
logy', Classical Weekly22. 9-13; Holger Pedersen in a review of the publications of the Linguistic Society, Litteris 5. 148-59 (1928). 2 For that reason I shall not discuss the 'relationship' between philology and linguistics. Viewed concretely it would mean the relationship as it exists in some individual or group, and that is ever-shifting. a For I would go beyond Sturtevant-Kent and say that all, not practically all, civilization is the result of language. 27

1E. H. Sturtevant and R. G. Kent, 'Linguistic Science and Classical Philo-

28

GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING

ideals are unattainableis a guaranteeof their permanence, may best and be regardedas a merit. The unwearyingquest of Truth is better than the possessionof Truth herself.3a What concernsus is the presenceor absence of an ideal, not its attainability; and a serviceabletest is the existence or lack of corresponding to organizations4 aid and coordinate our efforts. To A corresponds the LINGUISTIC SOCIETY AMERICA. Here a of tendencyto subdivisionhas hardlyas yet set in. This is due of courseto the relative youth of the science,to the precariousness its hold in this of country, and not to any smallnessof the field. The ModernLanguage Association,in spite of its name, belongsunderanotherheading,so that the real exceptionsseemto be American Speech(1925 on) and the International Journal of American Linguistics (1917 on). The exceptions are,

as exceptionsshould be, significant: one is an internationalenterprise, and both deal with problems that ought to be of peculiarconcernto dwellersin this country. to Councilof Learned Societies Corresponding B we have the American Devoted to Humanistic Studies. Here consciousnessof unity came late (1919),and we may note as symptomaticthe cumbersome title as contrastedwith that of its counterpart the AmericanAssociation for of the Advancement Science. The reason for this is clear: B comprises mass of material;the workershave attacked it eclectian overwhelming cally and their eclecticisms are reflected in the earlierorganizations. Even so, the breadth of their interestsis the noteworthything. Thus the AmericanPhilologicalAssociationstarted with an interest in language, but long ago this began to shift 'to the fields of literatureand interpretation,to ancient life in general, and in particularto art and archaeology'.' If nevertheless,archaeologyseems inadequatelyrepresented in this organization,it must be remembered that the Association has an interlocking membershipand holds joint meetings with the Institute of America. The latter too is far fromlimiting Archaeological its interestsas narrowlyas its name might suggest. Witness the broad
The sentiment is Lessing's. In homelier form is the English saying: Always to court and never to wed Is the happiest life that ever was led. shall limit myself to this country; and as I am thinking of pure, not applied, I4 science, organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English, the American Association of Teachers of Spanish, the American Association of Teachers of Italian do not come into consideration. 6 F. G. Moore, 'A History of the Association', TAPA 50. 14 (1919).

LINGUISTICS AND PHILOLOGY

29

programs of the schools it has founded and fostered: the American Schools of Classical Studies at Athens and in Rome, the American Schools of OrientalResearchin Jerusalemand in Bagdad. I may cite also the AmericanOrientalSociety which is now seeking, in unionwith the Archaeological Instituteand the Councilof LearnedSocieties,for the foundationof a Schoolof Indo-Iranian Research. The broadoutlookof these endeavorspreventsputtingthem undereitherA or C; and if we are to finda unity withinthem (andthe fact of their organizationconstrains us to seek it), it can be done I think only by regardingthem as eclectically chosenparts of B. Thereseem to be two alternatives. We might with LeonardBloomfield' make 'national culture' rather than human culture our highest unity. But, while it is true that our eclecticismsoften approximateor follow lines of national cleavage ('national'beinginterpreted most liberally), the organizationsnamed reveal a consciousnessof largerunities that forbidsour stoppingat the boundaries nationality. So I should of prefer to regard the study of the culture of any one nation as but a portion of the study of human culture. The secondalternative would be to divide B into two parts, history and philology;but the distinctions attempted seem evanescent,' and it is admitted that they 'are never, and never shouldbe absolute,only relative'. I shouldagreeratherwith Gercke: so wirdam Ende alle Philologieauch Geschichtsforschung, und alle historischeForschungist im Grundestreng philologische Arbeit'. To C, whether we considerit as a whole or have regardto possible (nationalistic) subdivision, there is no corresponding organization. Societies and periodicalsdevoted to the study of certain languagesand literaturesare not to be classed as such; for, as Pedersen points out,
much more than C is included in the study of literature. Work of this

type finds its home in the organizationsmentioned under B, of which it forms,indeed,the core. Fortunately,however,the activity of C as a
' Cf. Birt, 'Kritik u. Hermeneutik', MuellersHdb. d. klass. Altertumswiss. 1. 33.4: 'Der Philologe behandelt das Gewesene, der Historiker das Geschehene'. Also Maurice Bloomfield, 'Philology', Johns Hopkins Alumni Mag. (an unfortunately out-of-the-way place) 14. 5 (1925): 'History draws this picture in outline that may be compared to a pen and ink drawing, philology lays on the colors. History is engaged with what may be called the more external, pragmatic, secular aspects of the human past; philology deals more with its inner, spiritual aspects.' The quotation in the text is from the same page. 8 'Methodik', Einl. in d. Altertumswiss. 12. 35. The whole section 'Die Einheit der philologisch-historischen Methode' will repay close reading.
8 LANGUAGE

1. 41 (1925).

30

GEORGEMELVILLEBOLLING

stimulus is not in question, since both Sturtevant-Kentand Pedersen react to it. We have then the threestimuliA, B, C all presentin ourenvironment; the question is what verbalresponsesto them are to be regardedas the is of most adequate. The answer conditioned, course,by our past. We began with a British heritage: that means calling A 'philology', and to not words. But, responding B and C only with phrases,9 withseparate
when the influence of Germany began to affect our University life, there came in the continental terminology: 'linguistics' for A, 'philology' for

B, and 'philology'in a restrictedsense (philologypar excellence)for C. of The usage, particularly 'philology'as a responseto B, was confinedto certainnarrowcirclesof professed(and, I think, chieflyclassical)philologians, and was there perfectlyfamiliar. To documentthis would be tedious rather than difficult; I may refer to the article by Maurice Oscillations Bloomfield,alreadycited, and may quote also Gildersleeve, Studies13: 'I wouldreiteratethe confession andNutationsof Philological of my faith in the formulaeof my youth, my belief in the widerconception of philologicalwork, in the necessity of bringing all our special investigationsinto relation with the whole body of philologicaltruth, the life of the world, the life of humanity.' I might also allude to the Associationfelt no need to changeits fact that the AmericanPhilological in name with its shift of interests;'philological' its title merely took on insteadthe new meaning. Or, to give one moreexample:whena periodical 'devoted to research in the Languages,Literatures,History, and Life of ClassicalAntiquity' was founded,its editors named it Classical
Philology. The use remained, however, esoteric, the mark of a professional dialect; not even the official terminology of our Universities was affected by it. The most surprising thing to me in the whole discussion

is the way in whichthe fact that 'philology'hasbeenused as a responseto B both in continental Europe and in this country, is ignoredboth by Pedersenand by Sturtevant-Kent.
The inconveniences attendant upon the habit of calling A 'philology' are familiar and need not be rehearsed; but a recent illustration given by Pedersen will bear repetition. The organizers of the 'premier congrbs

internationalde linguistes'wishedto issue their first circularin English. British English offerednothingbut the manifestlyimpossible'Congress of Philologists',and so the choicewas limitedto French,German,or the
9 The practical difficulty of forming derivatives from such phrases is properly stressed by Pedersen.

LINGUISTICSAND PHILOLOGY

31

good American'First InternationalCongressof Linguists',which was actually chosen. As anotherI may add from a differentsourcea story now going the rounds. A famous British press (it need not here be named) undertookto publisha translationof Pedersen'sSprogvidenskacameto naught. The rock ben;but, most regrettably,the undertaking on which it shatteredwas the insistence of the press that A be called 'philology',even whereit was being explainedthat it was not philology. Se non fossevero, sarebbeben trovato. A recent consequencehas been a tendency in this country to insist that the better response to A is 'linguistics'. The usage has gained ground rapidly; though, as Pedersen shows, even the contributorsto have not followedit withperfectconsistency. TheinconsistLANGUAGE ency, however, is only half as great as Pedersenbelieves; for he had missedthe fine pointsvery neatly madeby Sapir(1.452)andCollitz(2.10) in using philologist not linguist."1 The usage seems likely to become and established,"1 we are all agreed that there is every reason to wish for that outcome. Pedersen seems to think that we have been overcautious in our use, not so much of 'linguistics'itself but of 'linguist' and 'linguistic',especiallyin the morepopularof our writings. He has thus indicateda way in which we can help on the desiredresult: usage alone can establishusage. It will help also, I may add, if continental linguists in writing English will (they do not always as yet) avoid this Briticism. The rest of the problemis moredifficult. The troubleis not that one form is servingas a responseto two stimuli;such a situationis most normal, and of itself need causeno embarrassment. Ratherthe difficultyis that there seems to be no prospectof 'philology'as a responseto B gaining a firmerfoothold. After fifty years there are no signs of it. On the contraryeven those closest to philology (C) avoid the usage: the ArchaeologicalInstitute, for instance, did not name its schoolsSchoolsof Classical or Oriental Philology, nor have we an AmericanCouncil of PhilologicalSocieties. One feels at once that there was no likelihood of such titles being chosen. Not that there was risk of philologybeing confoundedwith linguistics: that contributed no doubt, but the important factor was that the specializedmeaning of philology (C) was
other passages are Esper, MONOGR. 5; Espinosa 3. 201. 1. Official dialects change slowly. If that of our Universities comes to preserve a fossilized meaning of 'philology', the fact may be added to our collections of similar curios.
11

10 The

32

GEORGEMELVILLEBOLLING

prominentenough to renderits use in the broadersense unattractive. That again is a normallinguisticprocess,and it is what seems likely to happenin this case. Pedersen'sattitude may indicate that it is taking place already on the continent;Sturtevantand Kent are moving in the same direction. But then we are left without a responseto B, and that meansthe risk to of becomingirresponsive that stimulus,of losingour broadestoutlook upon the purposeof our studies. It is a risk not to be incurredlightly, and yet there seems to be no alternative;for no substitute for philology for in this sense seems available. History is likewiseover-specialized Humanistand Humanities too the purpose,Anthropology is preempted; are too rich in their connotations,and the latter besidesis handicapped by its ending. Perhapssome one may hit upon the right term. Until he does we must steer our course as best we can between Scylla and Charybdis.