# International Journal of American Linguistics/Volume 1/Introductory

International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1917), pp. 1-8.
INTRODUCTORY
The International Journal of American Linguistics will be devoted to the study of American aboriginal languages. It seems fitting to state briefly a few of the problems that confront us in this field of research.
It is not necessary to set forth the fragmentary character of our knowledge of the languages spoken by the American aborigines. This has been well done for North America by Dr. Pliny Earle Goddard, and it is not saying too much if we claim that for most of the native languages of Central and South America the field is practically terra incognita. We have vocabularies; but, excepting the old missionary grammars, there is very little systematic work. Even where we have grammars, we have no bodies of aboriginal texts.
The methods of collection have been considerably improved of late years, but nevertheless much remains to be done. While until about 1880 investigators confined themselves to the collection of vocabularies and brief grammatical notes, it has become more and more evident that large masses of texts are needed in order to elucidate the structure of the languages.
The labors of Stephen R. Riggs, James Owen Dorsey, and Albert S. Gatchet marked a new era in the development of linguistic work. Besides these, should be mentioned the “Library of Aboriginal Literature,” edited and published by Daniel G. Brinton, which contains largely older material of a similar character. During the following decades, texts were published on a quite extended scale, but largely brought together by the same methods. They were obtained by dictation from a few informants, and taken down verbatim by the recorder. In later years the example of James Owen Drsey, who published texts written by natives, has been adapted to the recording of aboriginal literature; and quite a number of collections of folk-lore have been published in Indian languages, the originals of which have been written by the natives themselves.
Marked differences in stylistic character exist between tales thus recrded and those written by investigators who are not in perfect command of the language, who often have to acquire it by means of the collected text material. The slowness of dictation that is necessary for recording texts makes it difficult for the narrator to employ that freedom of diction that belongs to the well-told tale, and consequently an unnatural simplicity of syntax prevails in most of the dictated texts. When, on the other hand, a native has once acquired ease in the use of the written language, the stylistic form becomes more natural, and refinements of expression are found that are often lost in slow dictation.
Nevertheless the writing of single individuals cannot replace the dictated record, because the individual characteristics of the writer become too prominent, and may give a false impression in regard to syntactic and stylistic traits; even the variability of grammatical form may be obscured by the one-sidedness of such records. Whenever it is possible to train several writers, many of these difficulties may be overcome. Where a native alphabet exists, as among the Cherokee, Fox, and Cree, and where for this reason many persons write with ease, a serviceable variety of stylistic and syntactic expression may be secured. Excellent examples of native texts recorded naïvely by ​natives are contained in the Eskimo publications printed in Greenland, which are devoted both to topics of daily interest and to ancient folk-lore. Similar conditions prevail in the Cherokee material collected by James Mooney, and in some of the daily papers printed in aboriginal languages. Even when good written records are available, control by means of the spoken language is necessary, because the expression of the written language may differ considerably from the spoken form.
Up to this time too little attention has been paid to the variety of expression and to the careful preservation of diction. We have rather been interested in the preservation of fundamental forms. Fortunately, many of the recorded texts contain, at least to some extent, stereotyped conversation and other formulas, as well as poetical parts, which give a certain insight into certain stylistic peculiarities, although they can seldom be taken as examples of the spoken language.
An added difficulty in the use of texts written by natives is that most are written by Indians who have had a modern school education. It may be observed in all parts of America that the native languages are being modified by the influence of European languages, not only in vocabulary, but also in phonetics and grammar. The far-reaching influence of these causes may be observed in a most striking manner in modern Mexican and other Central American languages, that have been under Spanish influence for centuries, and which not only have lost large parts of their vocabularies, that have disappeared with the ancient ideas, but which have also developed a new syntax, and, in part at least, new morphological forms. Modifications of this type are common in those regions where the intercourse between Indian and white is intimate, and particularly where the children are segregated from the parents. On the Pacific coast, for instance, the articulation of the glottalized fortis loses much of its strength, old words disappear, and new syntactical forms develop. Even the old facility of composition of stems tends to disappear. It is therefore necessary to obtain text material also from the older generation, because it is required for the study of the recent development of the languages.
On account of the difficulties and expense involved in the collection of texts, collectors have not only hesitated to obtain similar material from different individuals, but they have also confined themselves largely to the collections of native traditions. In some cases, native poetry has been included in the collections. Albert Gatschet recognized the need of varied material and collected texts on diverse topics in his studies of the Klamath, and J. Owen Dorsey published a collection of letters. The contents of the Eskimo publications and the native newspapers previously referred to also form a notable exception to this rule. Among later collectors, Drs. Goddard and Sapir have given particular attention to the collection of texts of varied contents. On the whole, however, the available material gives a one-sided presentation of linguistic data, because we have hardly any records of daily occurrences, every-day conversation, descriptions of industries, customs, and the like. For these reasons the vocabularies yielded by texts are one-sided and incomplete.
Notwithstanding the progress that during the last few decades has been made in the character of the material recorded, both as regards the accuracy of phonetic transcription and the character of the matter recorded, there is ample room for improvements of method.
With the extent of our knowledge of native languages, the problems of our inquiry have also assumed wider and greater interest. It is quite natural that the first task of the investigator was the registering and the rough classification of languages. It appeared very soon that languages are more or less closely related, and that comparison of brief ​vocabularies was sufficient to bring out the most striking relationships. The classification of North American languages, that we owe to Major J. W. Powell, which will form the basis of all future work, was made by this method. Further progress on these lines is beset with great difficulties, that are common to America and to those continents in which we cannot trace the development of languages by means of historical documents. The results of the historical and comparative studies of Indo-European languages show very clearly that languages that have sprung from the same source may become so distinct, that, without documents illustrating their historical development, relationships are difficult to discover; so much so, that in some cases this task might even be impossible. We are therefore permitted to assume that similar divergences have developed in American languages, and that quite a number of languages that appear distinct may in a remote period have had a common origin.
Here lies one of the most difficult problems of research, and one in which the greatest critical caution is necessary, if we wish to avoid the pitfalls that are besetting the path of scientific inquiry. The method of investigation has to take into account possibilities of linguistic growth, in regard to which generalized data are not available. Modern languages have developed by differentiation. In so far as this is true, the establishment of a genealogical series must be the aim of inquiry. On the other hand, languages may influence one another to such an extent, that, beyond a certain point, the genealogical question has no meaning, because it would lead back to several sources and to an arbitrary selection of one or another as the single ancestral type. Our knowledge of linguistic processes is sufficiently wide to show that lexicographic borrowing may proceed to such an extent, that the substance of a language may be materially changed. As long, however, as the inner form remains unchanged, our judgment is determined, not by the provenience of the vocabulary, but by that of the form. In most Indian languages etymological processes are so transparent, that borrowing of whole words will be easily detected; and, on the whole, the diffusion of words over diverse groups does not present serious difficulties, provided the borrowed material does not undergo radical phonetic changes.
The matter is different when we ask ourselves in how far phonetics and morphological features may have been borrowed. In these cases our experience does not permit us to give a definite answer. The system of sounds of a language is certainly unstable; but in how far inner forces and in how far foreign influence mould its forms, is a question not always easy to answer. In America we can discern various areas that have common phonetic characteristics; like the areas of prevalence of nasalization of vowels, of glottalized fortes, of superabundant development of laterals, of absence of bi-labials or of labio-dental spirants, or of trills. These areas do not coincide with any morphological groupings, and are apparently geographically well defined. If we are dealing here with phenomena of late assimilation, a disturbing element is introduced that will make it more difficult to assign a language to a definite genealogical line, much more so than is the case in the borrowing of words. The conditions favoring such phonetic influence must have been much more numerous in primitive America than they were in the later development of European languages. The number of individuals speaking any given American dialect is small. Many women of foreign parentage lived in each tribe, and their speech influenced the pronunciation of the young; so that phonetic changes may have come about easily.
Still more difficult is the problem presented by the distribution of morphological traits. Even with our imperfect knowledge of American languages, it may be recognized that certain morphological types have a ​wide continuous distribution. This is true of morphological processes as well as of particular psychological aspects of American languages. Thus the incorporation of the, nominal object, which in former times was considered one of the most characteristic features of American languages, is confined to certain areas, while it is foreign to others. The tendency to qualify generalized verbal terms by means of elements which express instrumentality is characteristic of some areas. The occurrence of various specific elements that define locality of an action, as affecting objects like “hand,” “house,” “water,” “fire,” or other special nominal concepts, is characteristic of other regions. Classification of actions or of nouns according to the form of the actor or of the object also belong to several groups of languages. Nominal cases are present in some languages, absent in others. In a similar way we find present in some regions, absent in others, processes like that of reduplication or of vocalic or consonantic modification of stems.
Attempts to classify languages from these distinct points of view do not lead to very satisfactory results. Not only would the purely morphological classifications be contradictory, but in many cases where a close morphological agreement exists, it remains highly unsatisfactory to co-ordinate vocabularies and the phonetic equivalents of similar morphological ideas. On the basis of Indo-European experience, we should be very much inclined to seek for a common origin for all those languages that have a far-reaching morphological similarity; but it must be acknowledged, that, when the results of classifications based on different linguistic phenomena conflict, we must recognize the possibility of the occurrence of morphological assimilation. The problem is analogous to that of the relation between Finnish and Indo-European languages, which Sweet assumed as established, while the observed relations may also be due to other causes.
Owing to the fundamental importance of these questions for the solution of the problem of the historical relationship between American languages, it seems particularly important to attempt to carry through these classifications without prejudging the question as to the genealogical position of the various groups. It is quite inconceivable that similarities such as exist between Quilleyute, Kwakiutl, and Salish, should be due to a mere accident, or that the morphological similarities of Californian languages, which Kroeber and Dixon have pointed out, should not be due to a definite cause. The experience of Aryan studies might induce us to agree that these must be members of single linguistic stocks; but this assumption leaves fundamental differences unaccounted for, and neglects the possibility of morphological assimilation, so that at the present time the conclusion does not seem convincing. We ought to inquire, first of all, into the possibility of mutual influences, which will be revealed, in part at least, by lack of correspondence between lexicographic, phonetic, and detailed morphological classifications.
We do not mean to say that the investigation may not satisfactorily prove certain genealogical relationships; but what should be emphasized is, that, in the present state of our knowledge of primitive languages, it is not safe to disregard the possibility of a complex origin of linguistic groups, which would limit the applicability of the term “linguistic family” in the sense in which we are accustomed to use it. It is certainly desirable, and necessary, to investigate minutely and carefully all suggestive analogies. The proof of genetic relationship, however, can be considered as given, only when the number of unexplained distinct elements is not over-large, and when the contradictory classifications, to which reference has been made before, have been satisfactorily accounted for. ​It is quite evident, that, owing to the lack of knowledge of the historical development of American languages, convincing proof of genealogical relationship may be impossible to obtain, even where such relation exists; so that, from both a practical and a theoretical point of view, the solution of the problems of genetic relationship presents a large number of attractive problems.
Considering the complexity of this question, and the doubts that we entertain in regard to some of the principles to be followed in our inquiry, it seems probable that a safer basis will be reached by following out dialectic studies. Very little work of this kind has been done on our continent. James Owen Dorsey was able to point out a few phenomena pertaining to the inter-relation of Siouan dialects. Similar points have been made in regard to the Salish languages and in a few other cases, but no penetrating systematic attempt has been made to clear up the processes of differentiation by which modern American dialects have developed. It is fortunate for the prosecution of this study that quite a number of linguistic families in America are broken up into numerous strongly divergent dialects, the study of which will help us the more in the investigation of the relations between distinct languages, the more markedly they are differentiated. Siouan, Algonquin, Muskhogean, Salishan, Shoshonian, Wakashan, Caddoan, are languages of this type. They present examples of divergence of phonetic character, of differences in structure and vocabulary, that will bring us face to face with the problem of the origin of these divergent elements.
The more detailed study of American languages promises rich returns in the fields of the mechanical processes of linguistic development and of the psychological problems presented by languages of different types. In many American languages the etymological processes are so transparent, that the mechanism of phonetic adaptation stands out with great clearness. Contact-phenomena, and types of sound-harmony that affect more remote parts of words, occur with great frequency. Phonetic shifts between related dialects are easily observed, so that we can accumulate a large mass of material which will help to solve the question in how far certain phonetic processes may be of more or less universal occurrence.
Remotely related to this problem is the question that was touched upon by Gatschet, in how far the frequent occurrence of similar sounds for expressing related ideas (like the personal pronouns) may be due to obscure psychological causes rather than to genetic relationship. Undoubtedly, many hitherto unexpected types of processes will reveal themselves in the pursuit of these studies.
The variety of American languages is so great, that they will be of high value for the solution of many fundamental psychological problems.
The unconsciously formed categories found in human speech have not been sufficiently exploited for the investigation of the categories into which the whole range of human experience is forced. Here, again, the clearness of etymological processes in many American languages is a great help to our investigation.
The isolation of formal elements and of stems, or of co-ordinate stems, whichever the case may be, is easily performed, and the meaning of every part of an expression is determined much more readily than in the innumerable fossilized forms of Indo-European languages.
Lexicographic differentiation corresponds to the morphological differentiation of languages. Where ideas are expressed by means of separate stems or by subordinate elements, generalized stems will be found that express a certain action regardless of the instrument with which it has been performed; while, in languages that are not provided with these formal elements, a number of separate words ​will take the place of the modified general stem. In languages that possess a full equipment of adverbial and locative formative elements, generalized words of motion may be qualified by their use; while, wherever these elements are absent, new stems must take their place. The same is true of grammatical elements that designate form or substance. Where these occur, the languages may lack words expressing predicative ideas relating to objects of different form and consisting of different substances (like our words “to lie,” “to sit,” “to stand,” “to tear,” “to break”).
A lexicographic analysis based on these principles of classification promises important results, but requires a much more accurate knowledge of the meaning of stems than is available in most cases.
No less interesting are the categories of thought that find expression in grammatical form. The older grammars, although many of them contain excellent material, do not clearly present these points of difference, because they are modelled strictly on the Latin scheme, which obscures the characteristic psychological categories of Indian languages. Thus the idea of plurality is not often developed in the same sense as in Latin, but expresses rather the idea of distribution or of collectivity. The category of gender is rare, and nominal cases are not common. In the pronoun we find often a much more rigid adherence to the series of three persons than the one that we apply, in so far as the distinction is carried through in the pronominal plural and in the demonstrative. Furthermore, new ideas—such as visibility, or position in regard to the speaker in the six principal directions (up, down, right, left, front, back), or tense—are added to the concept of the demonstrative pronouns. In the numeral the varied bases of numeral systems find expression. In the verb the category of tense may be almost suppressed or may be exuberantly developed. Modes may include many ideas that we express by means of adverbs, or they may be absent. The distinction between verb and noun may be different from ours. In short, an enormous variety of forms illustrates the multifarious ways in which language seizes upon one or another feature as an essential of expression of thought.
Besides the greater or lesser development of categories that are parallel to our own, many new ones appear. The groups of ideas selected for expression by formative elements are quite distinctive, and they belong to the most important features in the characterization of each language. In some cases they are poorly developed, but most American languages possess an astonishing number of formative elements of this type.
In some cases their number is so great, that the very idea of subordination of one element of a word under another one loses its significance; and we are in doubt whether we shall designate one group as subordinate elements, or whether we shall speak of the composition of co-ordinate elements. While in some languages, as in Algonquin or Kutenai, this may be a matter of arbitrary definition, it involves a problem of great theoretical interest; namely, the question whether formative elements have developed from independent words, as has been proved to be the case with many formal suffixes of European languages.
The objectivating tendency of our mind makes the thought congenial, that part of a word the significance of which we can determine by analysis must also have objectively an independent existence; but there is certainly no a priori reason that compels us to make this assumption. It must be proved to be true by empirical evidence. Although the history of American languages is not known, and therefore cannot furnish any direct evidence for or against this theory, the study of the etymological processes will throw light upon this problem, because in many cases the very phonetic weakness of the constituent elements, their internal ​changes, and the transparency of the method of composition, make it clear that we are performing here an analytical process, that does not need to have as its counterpart the synthesis of independent elements. The same question may also be raised in regard to phonetic modifications of the stem, which may be secondary, and due to the influence of changing accents in composition or to vanished component elements, while they may also be primary phenomena.
This problem is in a way identical with the whole question of the relation between word and sentence. Here also American languages may furnish us with much important material that emphasizes the view that the unit of human speech as we know it is the sentence, not the word.
The problems treated in a linguistic journal must include also the literary forms of native production. Indian oratory has long been famous, but the number of recorded speeches from which we can judge their oratorical devices is exceedingly small. There is no doubt whatever that definite stylistic forms exist that are utilized to impress the hearer; but we do not know what they are. As yet, nobody has attempted a careful analysis of the style of narrative art as practised by the various tribes. The crudeness of most records presents a serious obstacle for this study, which, however, should be taken up seriously. We can study the general structure of the narrative, the style of composition, of motives, their character and sequence; but the formal stylistic devices for obtaining effects are not so easily determined.
Notwithstanding the unsatisfactory character of the available material, we do find cases in which we may at least obtain a glimpse of the intent of the narrator. In many cases metaphorical expressions occur that indicate a vigorous imagination. Not much material of this character is available, but what little we have demonstrates that the type of metaphor used in different parts of the continent shows characteristic differences. It would be interesting to know in how far these expressions have become purely formal without actual meaning, and in how far they reflect an active imagination.
Evidence is not missing which shows that the sentence is built up with a view of stressing certain ideas or words by means of position, repetition, or other devices for securing emphasis. There are curious differences in the tendency to fill the discourse with brief allusions to current ideas difficult to understand for any one who is not versed in the whole culture of the people, and the enjoyment of diffuse, detailed description. Collectors of texts are fully aware that in the art of narrative there are artists and bunglers in every primitive tribe, as well as among ourselves. At present there is hardly any material available that will allow us to characterize the tribal characteristics of the art of narrative.
The most promising material for the study of certain aspects of artistic expression are the formal elements that appear with great frequency in the tales of all tribes. Most of these are stereotyped to such an extent, that little individual variation is found. Even in poorly recorded tales, written down in translation only, and obtained with the help of inadequate interpreters, the sameness of stereotyped formulas may sometimes be recognized. Conversation in animal tales and in other types of narrative, prayers and incantations, are probably the most important material of this character.
Attention should also be paid to the existing forms of literature. The narrative is of universal occurrence, but other forms show a much more irregular distribution. The psychological basis of the trivial American anecdote is not easily understood. The connotation of meaningless syllables that occur in songs, the frequent use of distorted words in poetry, and the fondness for a secret language, including obsolete, symbolic, or arbitrary ​terms, deserve the most careful attention. Here belong also the peculiar modes of speech of various personages, that are recorded in many tales, and which Dr. Sapir has found so fully developed among the Nootka, and Dr. Frachtenberg among the Quilleyute. The fixity of form of the recitative used by certain animals, to which Dr. Sapir has called attention in his studies of the Paiute, also suggests an interesting line of inquiry.
Equally important is the absence of certain literary forms with which we are familiar. The great dearth of proverbs, of popular snatches, and of riddles, among American aborigines, in contrast to their strong development in Africa and other parts of the Old World, requires attentive study. The general lack of epic poetry, the germs of which are found in a very few regions only, is another feature that promises to clear up certain problems of the early development of literary art. We are able to observe lyric poetry in its simplest forms among all tribes. Indeed, we may say that, even where the slightest vestiges of epic poetry are missing, lyric poetry of one form or another is always present. It may consist of the musical use of meaningless syllables that sustain the song; or it may consist largely of such syllables, with a few interspersed words suggesting certain ideas and certain feelings; or it may rise to the expression of emotions connected with warlike deeds, with religious feeling, love, or even to the praise of the beauties of nature. The records which have been accumulated during the last few years, particularly by students of primitive music, contain a mass of material that can be utilized from this point of view.
Undoubtedly the problems of native poetry have to be taken up in connection with the study of native music, because there is practically no poetry that is not at the same time song. The literary aspects of this subject, however, fall entirely within the scope of a linguistic journal.
Let us hope that the new journal may be able to contribute its share to the solution of all these problems!