April 30, 1929

Mrs. D. H. Morris
19 E. 70th Street
New York City

Dear Mrs. Morris:

I thank you heartily for your splendid
letter in reply to my recommendations. I keenly
regretted that I felt it necessary to present
views, some of which might grate on you; and now I
am touched by your very generous reaction to them.
I am also sorry that I have again been guilty of
causing you to sit until late hours of the night.

I am grateful for your assurances of agree-
ment, but still am apprehensive of divergence of
views in the future, and consequent embarrassment as
a member of your Committee. In the past, both the
issues and my own ideas have not been clear, and I
have been drifting. But now the situation has
changed. There is much in my recommendations which
your letter does not touch. Nor what it touches
upon removes my fears. For example, if there are in
what you call the "purposes of I.A.L.A." points with
which even the investigators are not familiar and
which must therefore necessitate the editing of
their work, then I do not see that we agree that the
first circle of research is theoretical in nature
and individual in method. Also, I can not see that
Mr. Collinson's work done in the first circle con-
taining references to Esperanto and Ido only can be
considered as in any way indicating the character of
the work in the second circle. Probably you did not
mean that any of his work should actually fall within

Mrs. D. H. Morris

Page 2.

the second circle, but I fail to see that even its
general nature may be said to resemble that of this
circle.

If the second circle is to be attempted,
it should be done by neutral persons, or else by
advocates of <u>all</u> the IIs to be studied, and not by
partisans however willing to be impartial; we
students of historical sources are witnessing daily
the fundamental difference of this kind. If these
requisites of the second circle could not be met,
its purpose would be defeated from the outset; and
it should not be attempted at all.

Indeed, your faith has so far maintained
the morale of our work, which otherwise might have
discouraged many of us. I am frank to say that I
am one of them, so far as our linguistic research
is concerned. It has been of a quality worthy of
the distinguished workers, but, toward the proper
object of I.A.L.A., the last two or three years
do not seem to have seen a single forward step
taken. My faith is for the future. The research
which was begun some years ago is for me an earnest
of this hope.

What I would submit to some Gentlemen is
the identical recommendations which I sent to you
(except my letter which accompanied them); the
purpose of this desired act is to put on record my
personal views at this juncture. They are strictly
personal, and no one else and no body of persons
are responsible for them. Some time ago I ventured
to present my personal views that one should aim at
a synthesis of only occidental languages as ones
immediate object. That was addressed Generally to

Mrs. D. H. Morris

Page 3.

the world; my present desire is to have some friends
within our Association consider my recommendations
and also to understand my own position on the
Committee, with a place on which you have honored
me. I think this is the moment to address them;
later, I fear, it would be more awkward. Still, if
you advise me against this step, I should be will-
ing to endure any misunderstandings which might
arise. But I should then regret that I had not made
them see what I had recommended.

Very sincerely yours,

YALE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

K. Asakawa

NEW HAVEN, CONN.

May 7, 1929

Professor Marc Bloch
University of Strasbourg
Strasbourg, Germany

Dear Sir:

I am taking the liberty to have a copy of
my recently published book "The Documents of Iriki"
sent to the editors of the *Annales d'Histoire Eco-
nomique et Sociale*. I should feel greatly honored
if you considered my humble work worthy of a notice
in the *Annales*. Being a long-time admirer of your
comparative point of view regarding institutions,
I feel that perhaps my pioneer work on Japanese
feudalism might evoke a sympathetic interest in
you, if it would in any scholar.

I am also sending to you reprints of two
of my recent articles, which also touch on institu-
tions.

It is nearly thirty years since I began my
study of European institutions; and I have now for
several years conducted, at Yale University Grad-
uate School, courses of instruction in European
feudalism. This venture into the Occidental field
I have carried on in parallel with my original in-
vestigations of Japanese feudalism. The comparison
of the two systems is, as you may well imagine, ex-
tremely illuminating, and also continually challenges
me with questions of comparison within the Occident-
al system itself, -- between the French, English,
German, and Italian institutions. In this special

K. Asakawa

NEW HAVEN, CONN.

Professor Marc Bloch

May 7, 1929.

pursuit, your various works, dear Sir, have been
of inestimable value and stimulus to me. In very
few other scholars I have found so much zeal for
comparison and so abundant information as in you.

I have often wondered if you would be will-
ing to have me come to Strasbourg to work with you
for a half-year or a year. I am not yet in a po-
sition to say definitely when I may be able to
come and what special topic I should propose to
study under your direction; but I should be anxious
to know if you would feel disposed to welcome such
a visitor, and what facility the University of
Strasbourg and its Library would offer to him.

With high esteem, I am

Yours sincerely,

KA:F

To K.A. from A.V.M.

Concerning mechanics for making copies of "On Linguistic Research".

1) May name of author be put at beginning instead of at end? Thus:

ON LINGUISTIC RESEARCH

by K. Asakawa

2) Throughout manuscript, may "IALA" be used instead of "the IALA"?

3) Enclosed copy "A" is made line for line to correspond with original sent to A.V.M. It is in larger type which explains necessity for having almost no margin. This does not look pretty.

Eight copies can be typed at once on paper like enclosed sample, "B",
and be clear if large type is used. In small type, usually only four
copies at once are clear. For all multiple typing beyond three copies,
large type is apt to be more satisfactory, but four copies in small type are
not out of the question.

Which of the following schemes of copying does K A desire? (Please
answer on this sheet. Scratch out schemes not desired. Clack scheme desired
or State another scheme.)

(a) Line for line like original:

i. large type, almost no margin, 8 copies at once.

ii. small type, pretty margin, 2 sets each of 4 at once.

(b) Not line for line like original, large type, pretty margin, 8 at once.

(c)

A

# ON LINGUISTIC RESEARCH

## Introduction.

Since our linguistic research is fairly under way, I take this opportunity to formulate some of my opinions and recommendations regarding researches in the immediate future.

The views which I venture to present below are based upon the following considerations:-

1. that the researches recently conducted have tended in a certain definite direction, and would therefore yield the best fruit if they were allowed to continue in the same direction;

2. that, in view of this same condition, it seems best to proceed in the future in concentric circles of research, the studies now in progress forming the outermost circle, and the researches hereafter to be made constituting narrower circles which should gradually close in upon the central goal of the IALA,

3. that, while all the circles should subserve the one final end, each circle should have its definite ends, and look toward producing results which should possess more or less independent value of their own,---------- so independent that these results would be of use to future investigators whether within or without our Association; and

4. that, speaking more specifically, the trend which the present studies have indicated enables us to earmark clearly the character of research at least in two circles, namely, the present outer circle and the next narrower circle; it being understood that the second circle may either follow the completion of the first or be attacked simultaneously in parallel with it.

### The first and second circles.

The first circle should be, as Professors Collinson and Sapir's work has

- 2 -

tended to become, a general study of man's activity in its linguistic aspects; the second circle should be a specific study of certain definite national and international languages. The object of the first study is Language; that of the second, languages. The first is the more general and philosophical; the second, the more linguistic and practical, and decidedly nearer to the central purpose of the Association.

To be more specific, the principles, problems, and suggestions developed in the first study will in the second study be demonstrated, and supplemented, by a detailed examination and criticism of definitely selected languages with a view to aiding the finding of the best synthesis.

It is needless to say that in both circles human languages will be the only source-material for study and the only material out of which data for illustrations can be chosen. But the process of using languages for these two main purposes will be very different in the two circles. The first circle may consider any or all of the languages of man in its investigations, and draw upon all or any of them for purposes of illustration; the second circle, on the contrary, will begin by determining (A) a certain fixed number of <u>occidental</u> languages, and (B) <u>all</u> of the synthetic languages which have proven their practicability; and will at every step study, and present the case of, <u>every one</u> of the languages thus chosen, according a scrupulously even justice to all, and avoiding a random choice of material.

From what has been said, is it not obvious that the more distinctly the proper objects and methods of the two circles are held in constant view, the clearer and more valuable will be the results of each study; and that, on the contrary, the confusion of the objects or the methods, either in the first or in the second circle, will inevitably lead to unsatisfactory results? Let us imagine a few cases of confusion.

First, as to confusion of aims. Suppose the work in the first circle pursued the objects of the second circle as well, that would divide the attention

- 3 -

and the energy of the researcher in two widely different fields which could hardly be compassed without a very protracted study; his burden and responsibility would be excessive, and his results, after long labors, would not be likely to be adequate in either field. How might he hope both to analyze and to synthesize to his own satisfaction in so colossal an undertaking? How could he, on the synthetic side of his task, manage to come to practical conclusions from miscellaneous, utterly dissimilar languages of the world? Some of them may be legitimately used at random for analytical ends, but most of them are too poorly known for purposes of synthesis. He must not be asked thus to chase two birds at once. I am sure that his work will possess the greater value, when he is allowed to give the less heed to the practical problems of synthesis and to keep the more closely to the philosophy of Language; it is sufficient, it is desirable, that he should not compromise the quality of his work, by dallying with questions of immediate practicality. As for the evils of confused aims in the second circle, it is enough, in order to visualize them, to remember that the languages used in this research will be strictly limited in number and in kind. Clearly they form an utterly insufficient material for any consideration of the philosophy or the psychology of human Language in general.

Next, let us consider confusion of methods. If, in the first circle, illustrations were consistently chosen from only one IL and only two or three national languages, that would be doing very partially and very lamely what should be done thoroughly in the second circle; and would, moreover, give the impression that we were poorly equipped, or, still worse, failing to realize the great intellectual and moral responsibility that we have assumed. Likewise, if, in the second circle of research, we used only one IL or used more than one but with attention unevenly divided between them, similar charges would be levelled against us, and the alienation of good

- 4 -

will from us, not only of the advocates of the neglected ILs, but also of neutral persons, who in reality constitute the very object of our whole service, would be certain and fatal. Also, again in the second circle, if we explored at random all sorts of languages in the world, either as source-material or as illustrations, the result would have no value whatever either to the outside world or for our own purpose, for it would be unscientific and amateurish, and totally unfit as material for any solid constructive work.

To this suggested delimitation of research in the two circles, I wish to add a few remarks regarding each circle.

## The first circle.

If we decide that the object of this circle should be Foundations of Language and nothing else, then it seems to me that the turn which the researches have so far taken is a most fortunate one. They are a series of mutually harmonious but distinctly individualized studies by two gifted scholars. It is true that they are intended to be parts of a large whole, but it is a felicitous event that the two gentlemen have brought to bear upon the parts which they have divided between themselves their independent and distinctive trainings and points of view. I cannot help feeling that their researches have proven so distinguished precisely by reason of the freedom with which their individualities have been enabled to express themselves. The very dissimilarity of the various studies which they have made and will make should redound to the greater pride of the Association. I make bold to say that the more individual and personal their studies which we shall publish, the greater will be their value, and the more strongly they will appeal to the interest and sympathy of neutral scholars. It would be a way to show our respect for the scholars and our appreciation of their work, to publish their papers precisely as they are, without the least attempt to give them an editorial unity; they

- 5 -

should, as they do, speak for themselves. The Association endorses the quality
of their works; and the two gentlemen are individually responsible for the views
which will be published under their names and in their own words.

The second circle.

I have already suggested that the second circle should be a detailed com-
parative study, for the practical purposes of the IALA, of as many Occidental
languages and as many ILs as possible. Its character is already indicated in
part by the linguistic research which had been begun before the work of Messrs.
Sapir and Collinson was started in its present form. To what has been said in
regard to this circle, I now desire to add two points.

First, we cannot forget for a moment that our educational research and our
linguistic research are distinct from each other, not only in object, but also
in method. In the educational research, the IALA will feel obliged to utilize
only such IL of which we can command facilities for teaching and experimenting.
Such IL has been Esperanto; but now it is likely that some other ILs will be
available for similar purposes to a greater or lesser extent. As a matter of
fact, one of them proposes to begin public meetings and elementary instruction,
and has even shown a disposition to co-operate with us; another or other ILs
may evince the same willingness when they are fully convinced of the justice of
the IALA. Quite clearly it is the duty, and the privilege, of the Association
by all means to avail itself of opportunities to encourage and participate in
the extension of the educational facilities of these ILs. In short, our educa-
tional research is limited by circumstances which we cannot always control, but
should be extended as opportunities increase; we should be on the alert and be
eager to discover them. All effort in this direction, it is clear, will be of
immediate and substantial value for our own work.

The question is quite otherwise with our linguistic research, as distin-

- 6 -

guished from the educational, for nothing prevents an intensive study of the
ILs whose educational facilities are still undeveloped. And this is an inade-
quate statement of the situation, for a thorough comparative study of ILs is
for us a matter not so much of possibility, as of natural, obvious, and ines-
capable obligation. Nothing can be plainer than that it is morally incumbent
upon the IALA to make such impartial and exhaustive study one of its prime
objects of linguistic research. There is no reason and no defense for not
doing what we have to do and what every one expects us to do as the first matter
of course. From a purely utilitarian point of view, also, it requires little
vision to foresee that any negligence in this primary task would largely if
not fundamentally defeat the very purpose for which the IALA has been organized;
at best its labors would be wofully incomplete, and its recommendations would
be of very restricted value and unacceptable for the world at large. In this
matter, I wish strongly to appeal to the IALA's sense of proportion. Its
primary task should be done primarily and with both hands, or the IALA were a
truant and a failure.

The last point I wish to make bears directly on this linguistic research
of ILs; namely, that they should be studied, not only in detail in their com-
ponent elements, but also as wholes, as syntheses. One cannot judge the
character of a language, whether national or international, fragmentarily by
its parts only; its vitality, its inner life, its genius and spirit, must be
studied with sympathetic appreciation. When one has examined and compared the
technique with which the various ILs have met the different aspects of the
linguistic needs of man, there still remains the great question as to their
relative capacity to harmonize with the national languages, their relative
elasticity enabling them to grow with the expansion of the latter, and their
relative vitality pulsing with the vigorous, changing life of the modern
world.

I summarize my recommendations: a clear demarkation of the first and the
second circles of linguistic research; the individual, monographic character
of the first circle; the rigorous science and the scrupulous impartiality of
the second circle; and, again in the second circle, insofar as it concerns ILs,
a comparative examination of their constituent parts and a sympathetic appraisal
of their powers as organic wholes.

K. Asakawa

Yale University

April 1929

INTERNATIONAL AUXILIARY LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION

IN THE UNITED STATES, INC.

GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

JOHN J. CARTY
FREDERICK G. COTTRELL
MRS. JAMES S. CUSHMAN
JOHN H. FINLEY
JAMES G. HARBORD
CLARENCE H. HOWARD
MRS. JAMES LEES LAIDLAW
WILLIAM LAWRENCE
SIDNEY E. MEZES
ARTHUR E. MORGAN
MRS. DAVE H. MORRIS
SAMUEL W. STRATTON

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
525 WEST 120 ST., NEW YORK CITY

CABLE ADDRESS: INTALA NEW YORK

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY HERBERT N. SHENTON
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, SYRACUSE, N. Y.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EARLE B. BABCOCK, PRESIDENT
JOHN J. CARTY, VICE-PRESIDENT
HERBERT N. SHENTON, SECRETARY
DAVE H. MORRIS, TREASURER

— LE ROY E. BOWMAN
— FREDERICK G. COTTRELL
— STEPHEN P. DUGGAN

— HARRY E. EDMONDS
— JOHN H. FINLEY

— ALFRED N. GOLDSMITH
— HENRY GODDARD LEACH

— SIDNEY E. MEZES
— PAUL MONROE

— FREDERICK H. OSBORN

19 East 70 St.
New York City
June 26,1929.

Professor K. Asakawa
2141 Yale Station
New Haven, Conn.

My dear Professor Asakawa:

I have given a great deal of thought to everything you have written me and have regretted that it has not been possible any sooner to take time to put down at least some of the thoughts.

The question which puzzled me was one of method: What is the best kind and form of information to send out to the friends to whom Professor Asakawa would like his paper to go, so that they may have an informed background? I came to the conclusion that a brief report of the present status of IALA's linguistic research would be the simplest and most effective way of enabling them to appreciate the problems so ably set forth in your paper. At last I have completed such report, - written at many odd moments during the past few weeks, and I take pleasure in enclosing it herewith.

Enclosed you will also find a memorandum concerning mechanics for making copies of your paper, which I beg you to answer at your convenience, together with copy "A" of your paper.

Another enclosure is a draft of letter which it would seem appropriate for me to send to our friends with your paper and my report. I beg you to do anything you want with this draft, adding, deleting or otherwise changing as you may think best.

You suggested that your paper be sent to Messrs. Cottrell, Morgan and Shenton. Are there any others? I would suggest adding Messrs. Stratton and Thorndike. Would you concur?

When Dr. Cottrell was in town a few weeks ago, we spoke together about some of IALA's linguistic problems and I told him about your paper. He is eager to read it. He is soon going to Japan, however. If I could get it to him before he sails, he might enjoy it on the steamer.

Increasingly do I feel that your paper has made a real contribution towards the clarification of some of our problems, and my confidence is entirely

Bar Harbor, Maine

Sept. 16, 1929

Dear Professor Asakawa:

Thanks so much for your delightful letters.

I am sending copies of enclosed report to Professors Collinson, Sapir and Shenton. If you think anything should be added, please let me know and I will send supplementary paragraphs.

Enclosed also is Miss Faegre's transcription of the notes you dictated in the third circle.

BAR HARBOR
MAINE

Sept. 20, 1929.

Professor K. Asakawa,
2141 Yale Station,
New Haven, Conn.

Dear Professor Asakawa:

I have your fine letter of September 18th and the five copies
of "Tentative Plan for Second Circle" for which I thank you most heart-
ily. Your lay-out is to me quite convincing and I hope it will prove
so to C, J and S.

May I have your permission to add a tiny insert on page 4, sec-
ond paragraph, first sentence, third line, so that it will read: "em-
ployed in the work done so far for Foundations of Language"? I think
the insertion of these words would make the meaning clearer to those who
have not been with us during our discussions.

With your permission, I should also like to add under the title
on the first page: "By K. Asakawa. September, 1929".

I am beginning to plan more definitely to go to Europe next
spring for a few weeks with the idea of conferring with C and J and hav-
ing, if possible, a working conference lasting one or two weeks with a
number of leaders in different auxilliary language systems who might
participate in the work of the second circle.

I still feel that the first and second circles are equally es-
sential parts to "Foundations of Language", — but this is a mere matter
of detail which can be made entirely clear when we begin to publish and
in no wise affects the carrying out of the work itself of the second
circle as conceived by you. The only possible difference I can now see
in our ideas of having the work executed pertains to the complete elim-
ination from publications of the work of the second circle of any kind
of reference to symbols chosen in the first circle to represent notions
underlying "operators". I seem to foresee very great practical diffi-
culties and necessary duplication of work if such elimination must be
literally carried out. However, this again is a matter of detail which
really cannot be theorised upon in advance and is a question which per-
haps will be ready to be submitted to the proposed interlinguistic con-
ference next spring or possibly it will become cleared up before then
during the progress of Miss Faegre's work this winter. We need not
worry about it now. I only mention it in order to avoid any possible
future misunderstanding.

I am glad you wrote as you did concerning your reasons for not
suggesting changes or offering criticisms of the work done so far in

the first circle of FL. I think I did understand those reasons during
our conversations here but I am very glad to have you state them again
so clearly in your letter.

Regarding your adjectives "uneven" and "heterogeneous", I feel
quite sure that C, S and I would all agree to use them in connection
with the work done so far!!

I am deeply grateful that you pursued the course of courageous
frankness and not what you would have considered the course of modesty.
I am afraid I should have given that latter course a sadder and harsher
name! I cannot repeat too often my gratitude for your frankness and I
know now that I can rely upon it in the future. Such reliance will be
a stronghold for IALA.

In regard to the draft of your section of the Introduction,
please do not put pressure upon yourself now. I see no reason why it
will not be all right to have that work of yours finished at Christmas
time instead of before October first. Of course, it would be all to
the good to have it at the earlier date, but it certainly is not essen-
tial.

Mr. Morris, Alice, and Miss Gordon all join in warm remembrances.

To Mrs. Morris

28. sep. 1929

Dear Mrs. Morris,

I am at last sending you five copies of the draft of my paper of the General Introduction, and also a copy of the balance of the $85.00 which you kindly sent me a little time ago. The account for this is as follows:-

Received $35.00

Spent: travelling, 15.34 and incidental 3.00......... 18.34
typing, 2.75 and 4.50.................. 7.25

25.59

Balance now paid, $9.41

I pressure that it will be some time before my draft is put in a final form, and still longer before it is printed and distributed. It occurs to me that it might be of advantage if copies of the present draft as my views were sent for the personal information of some of our men, instead of my first paper on Linguistic Research which I suggested sending last April. If I did this, the purpose would be different from that of sending the earlier

paper: instead of making them know my position which seemed likely to be different from yours, now I should interest these gentlemen in the vital work which would probably be pursued largely by IALA, and do so more promptly and more intimately than by informing them much later in a more formal way. That might arouse the interest of at least some of them in a personal way and enable them to follow our future work more intelligently, and even in some ways to oversee, help and urge it on. That would be a valuable asset.

Kindly tell me if you would approve of this action, and, if
so, how large a circle of our friends you would suggest that I
might send copies of the draft.

I hope you all have returned to your city home in good
health and spirits, andreg to send you and Mr.Morris my sin-
cere regards.

Always faithfully yours,

TELEPHONE:
UNIVERSITY 8800, EXT. 40

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EARLE B. BABCOCK
PRESIDENT

JOHN J. CARTY
VICE-PRESIDENT

MRS. DAVE H. MORRIS
HONORARY SECRETARY

HERBERT N. SHENTON
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

DAVE H. MORRIS
TREASURER

LE ROY E. BOWMAN
FREDERICK G. COTTRELL
STEPHEN P. DUGGAN
HARRY E. EDMONDS
JOHN H. FINLEY

ALFRED N. GOLDSMITH
HENRY GODDARD LEACH
PAUL MONROE
FREDERICK H. OSBORN
MRS. HAROLD PEABODY

(IALA)
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
525 WEST 120TH ST.
NEW YORK CITY

GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

JOHN J. CARTY
FREDERICK G. COTTRELL
MRS. JAMES S. CUSHMAN
JOHN H. FINLEY
JAMES G. HARBORD
CLARENCE H. HOWARD
MRS. JAMES LEES LAIDLAW
WILLIAM LAWRENCE
SIDNEY E. MEZES
ARTHUR E. MORGAN
SAMUEL W. STRATTON

COMMITTEE ON COOPERATIVE
SERVICE AND RESEARCH

MRS. DAVE H. MORRIS, CHAIRMAN
K. ASAKAWA, VICE-CHAIRMAN

ADVISORY BOARD FOR
LINGUISTIC RESEARCH

WILLIAM E. COLLINSON

OTTO JESPERSEN

EDWARD SAPIR

COMMITTEE ON AUXILIARY
LANGUAGE STUDY

STEPHEN P. DUGGAN, CHAIRMAN

ADVISORY BOARD FOR
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

JAMES P. W. CRAWFORD
ROBERT H. FIFE
MASON D. GRAY
VIVIAN A. C. HENMON
HENRY W. HOLMES
HAYWARD KENISTON
EDWARD L. THORNDIKE

EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

INSTITUT J. J. ROUSSEAU
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
PIERRE BOVET, DIRECTOR

October 1, 1929

Professor K. Asakawa
Department of History
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut

My dear Professor Asakawa:

I have your letter of September 28; your
check for $9.41, being balance of the $35.00 which I
sent you for expenses; and above all, the five copies
of your draft for your part of the "General Introduc-
tion".

It seems to me that this last is very fine
and is exactly what we need as a basis for further
work and for discussion with our other linguistic ad-
visers. There are a few points which I would submit
to you for immediate consideration. As soon as they
are disposed of (which I believe can be done readily,
as they do not seem to present any essential difficulties),
I think it would be fine to have your paper multigraphed
and for you to send it, as you suggest, for the personal
information of some of our men. Before answering your
question as to how large a circle of our friends I
would suggest that you might send copies of the draft
to, I should like to consult with Mr. Morris. This I
shall postpone for a short while, as he is at present
in the midst of a mean grippy attack.

In order to save time in presenting the
points concerning your paper, I have ventured to make
direct notes on your draft and am accompanying the
annotated copy by separate comments with numbers
corresponding to those on the right margin of your
draft. Of course my suggestions are to be treated
by you as you will, — rejected, accepted, or changed.

Professor Asakawa

-2-

Your paper with all the thought of many months (indeed years) behind it I feel to be a most valuable contribution to the guidance of IALA's linguistic research, and I venture to predict that my judgement will be shared by others.

There is a question concerning your April paper "On Linguistic Research"; may I have your permission to send the greater part of it to C, J, and S? I enclose one of my copies treated in the way I should like to send it to them. You will notice that I have simply cut out the parts which have been rendered more or less irrelevant by our Bar Harbor conference & certain matter which has since been clarified. I think there would be value in sending this shortened April paper to C, J, and S in addition to your September draft, as the former contains a number of things, not in the latter, which might often be helpfully referred to among ourselves.

I should also like to have six additional copies of your April paper to be treated in the same way to take to Europe with me and use at discretion. This would mean your sending me nine copies. I understood that you had a sufficient number of copies multigraphed to distribute to the names on IALA's letterhead. If I am mistaken, of course I will just have the number of copies typed which I am asking for.

AVM:RG

19 EAST SEVENTIETH STREET
NEW YORK

October 2, 1929

Professor K. Asakawa
2141 Yale Station
New Haven, Connecticut

My dear Professor Asakawa:

In your letter of September 23d you enlarge upon your plea that within the second circle rubrics be couched to the fullest extent possible in familiar language and that "the special, unfamiliar terms of the first circle" be eliminated in the publications of the second circle. To this I agree in principle and shall do my utmost to bring it about, but I can not guarantee to control all the work that may be turned in by the workers of the second circle. However, if some of them insist on sometimes using, even in manuscripts submitted for publication, rubrics which you can not approve, why should not your pruning hand make substitutes before publication? For, after all, IALA alone must be the final arbiter of what it will publish.

To your plea for rubrics in the second circle being made intelligible to the layman I have never dissented, and I believe neither C nor S will dissent. The question which I had and still have in mind concerning "captions" related to something else, and I see that I did not explain myself clearly. I was thinking of the SIL symbols which will be used in the "dictionary" sections as captions for the "operator notions", e.g. ol (taken from Esperanto) as symbol for "in komp to" ((Eng. (more) than, (so much) as, (equal) to, (different) from, (contemporaneous) with)); kom (taken from Ido, as no separate symbol exists in Esperanto) as symbol for "in the capacity or role of" (English "he acted as chairman", "she appeared as Ophelia").

The tabulation according to a notional scheme which must be included as an essential (perhaps the essential) feature of what you call the first field of the second circle "structural words" (operators), is a mighty task. It seems already certain that the exploration whose results will at last be tabulated can not proceed without the practical use of actual symbols at every turn. I can see how the SIL symbols to be used in the dictionary as "common denominators" for operator notions can be substituted by numbers in the tabulations of the second circle, but I also can see that perhaps it will turn out to be of real use (as a convenient help to quick understanding) to be of joint number and symbol. As this may prove to be the case, I do not think we should shut our minds ahead of time to the possibility of adding another column containing the tentative SIL symbols. Later, when the "Commission" decides upon the detail of the IL which it will recommend to the world, strips might be printed containing the recommended symbols.

Prof. Asakawa

which might be pasted into such column right over the temporary SIL symbols.

You wonder what kind of "duplication" I seek to avoid. I fear
~~I~~ agree with you that there is not much which can be avoided.
Perhaps a lot of it is as inevitable as Fate. What was mostly in my
mind was that a good deal of the material which will appear in the
dictionary seems to be identical with a good deal that is needed for
the tabulations and illustrations of the first field of the second
circle, and I wondered whether such duplication would be worth while.
But I fancy the only thing to do is to work out a dictionary section
completely and then judge. Until at least one little part of the
dictionary is fully complete, it is not possible to state how, or
whether, or to what extent duplication of the ~~work~~ to be done
in the second circle can be avoided.

The enclosures which I mentioned in yesterday's letter
are now ready and herein enclosed.

1. Annotated copy of your "Draft", September, 1929.

2. AVM's comments on same.

3. Cut copy of your paper "On Linguistic Research",
April, 1929.

Yours of September 30th has been received, and the
corrections for which you ask will be made. I have not yet sent
off any of the copies of your "Draft".

Concerning cut copy of "On Linguistic Research", April
1929, note that you had originally hoped that the whole of that
paper would be sent to C and S, I have sent my cut copy to C,
together with your "Tentative Plan for Second Circle, September, 1929",
as it seems quite necessary for him to have these papers in hand without
further delay. I shall not send it to S until hearing from you, as
there is no hurry there.

I realize how busy you are and beg you not to press yourself
in attending to all these communications from me. The only thing that
needs a fairly prompt answer is my question asking your permission to
send cut copies of "On Linguistic Research" as mentioned in my letter of
October 1.

May I beg you to let me know from time to time any expenses

AM:RO

Mrs. Dave H. Morris

Dear Remembrances.

Mr. Morris is testing better and joins me in wishing you
before publication in whatever final form it may take.

I can see now your "Drops" will be immediately helpful to you
after about. We should be ready to do this.

at a time to be expended for such purposes as need and economy for
work for I'll. Would you not like to have it advance you say $50.00
for subwriting on other clerical field which you may be able to in some
of your free time.

October 13, 1929.

Mrs. Dave H. Morris,
19 East 70th Street,
New York.

Dear Mrs. Morris:

If the Foundations of Language included the "second circle"; if the "notions" and SIL rubrics of the former were used in the latter; and if workers in the "circle" did not work under clear instructions given according to its proper aims, —then the boundaries of the "circles" would be surely and quickly overstepped, and consequently there would be no definite "circles", even no need of considering such "circles" at all.

The points suggested by you and briefly repeated above are therefore, from my point of view, of the gravest import. For me to concede them would be, to take an immensely magnified parallel, like the Roman Emperor abandoning the Lakes: floods of fatal troubles would speculately inundate the whole of the Empire, or it would use up its energy in a continued futile effort of defense. The difference here, besides the great disparity in the scale of the issues involved, is, of course, that the fate of the Empire was nearly inherent in its own nature, while our own difficulty is

2

remediable and wholly within our moral control; but there is a
resemblance between the two situations in that a breach in the
frontier would be an immediate cause of disaster, and that da-
fense against invasion would exhaust the defender. To this
state of things would be preferable even the earlier state in
which the "circles" were not marked out, for now they would
not only have no meaning, but also to only a hindrance. If
you insist on your suggestions, I have to beg you to regard
all of my proposals made since April as completely revoked,
and my participation in the work of your Committee terminated.

Since my position now permits no equivocation, I wish,
though gratuitously, to go a step further and point to the
very fountain-source of all difficulties, and invoke your
serious reflection upon it. In doing so, I shall say what
others may not see, or what, if some of them do see, they may
be too wise and too courteous to say; indeed, I shall venture
to assume more liberty towards you than one person is ordinari-
ly entitled to take in regard to another.

The entire work of IALA and its very existence are due to

["The center work of all and the very excellence of the so\nfar untried to date in Europe in any age, is the so\n

your personal support and unremitting labor; but for you, there
would be no IALA. But I believe there is an aspect of your ef-
fort which you have not had the leisure to ponder deeply; and
that aspect seems to me to be most decisive in determining the
destiny of IALA itself. IALA exists because of your wonderful
loyalty, but IALA has made public commitments and is therefore
a public trust; and devotion to a public task should be of a
different order from devotion to one's own property. No one, not
even you, sould seek to infuse personal inclinations into that
part of IALA's work which is impersonal, and is a sacred pub-
lic trust in that form. Personal loyalty is absolutely need-
ed, but personal inclinations should be excluded, for example,
from the domain of pure search for facts. The "second circle"
clearly belongs to that domain; and there should not be in it
the least admixture of personality. Here, loyalty should be
applied to insuring a perfect faith and purity of purpose, —
should be more than loyalty, but self-denial.

Imagine, for a mere illustration, that by any chance Pro-
fessor Sapir or Jespersen did the work of the "second circle"

["The letter, signed by the name of the writer, states that the writer has not received the expected payment for the article. The writer has not received the article and cannot provide a credit for the article. The writer has not received the article and cannot

in accordance with his theories or his taste, or imposed any-
thing upon the work from the same personal motive. The entire
work would be compromised at its source; no matter how high its
intellectual quality, it would not be pure, and could not fulfil
its proper aims. Not only in the "second circle", but at every
point where objectivity is requisite—and that constitutes a
great part of the entire work of IALA's linguistic and educa-
tional research,—the same desire for making a personal impress
upon it would vitiate the work and defeat the public trust.

As IALA was first born, its work was largely unprecedented,
and had to be slowly differentiated and organized. As it grew
from infancy, its activities have multiplied, and are spreading
beyond the possibility of any one person maintaining a close
and even touch in all their increasing variety. Control must
be organized and graded, and one's attitudes in it—some
very personal, others less so, still others entirely impersonal
—must be differentiated with careful thought. Else subtle
difficulties would creep in unawares in many places, and in
time cause irreparable injuries. Have you given as much se-

["some standard of inspiration. I have not seen so much\ninspiration as this, except in the name of the most basic\nideals of the human being, not in the abstract, but in the\nspecific. I have not seen any such thing as the abstract\nideals of the human being, and I have not seen any\nspecific things in the abstract. I have seen only\nspecific things in the abstract, and I have seen them\nspecifically in the abstract, and specifically in the\nspecific. I have seen them specifically in the abstract\nand specifically in the specific, and specifically in the\nspecific and specifically in the abstract, and specifically\nin the abstract and specifically in the specific, and\nspecifically in the abstract and specifically in the\nspecific, and specifically in the abstract and specifically\nin the specific, and specifically in the abstract and\nspecifically in the abstract and specifically in the\nspecific, and specifically

rious consideration to this as to other aspects of the manifold
work of IALA?

What I presumed to say to you some time ago regarding editing
touched the fringe of this question, but was of much less moment
than what I have dared to say in this letter, for now I am speaking
of the heart of the question.

I confess that I had been increasingly alarmed by what seemed
to me to be your carrying into the growing work of research the
habits which had been formed by your personal direction during
the simpler state of the life of IALA. I had visioned with fear
the future good work mixed with evils inevitable from the indivi-
dual effort of any person to influence even work which had no rea-
son for existence except for its objectivity. In my small way,
and only in the sphere in which I had a voice, I tried to salvage
work by proposing distinct "circles". And how rudely I did so!
Now I am much ruder, but am at least saying a final word of truth-
ful service, and appealing to the most generous and notle of your
impulses.

Yours very faithfully

["J. M. S. E. T. C. F. W. B. H. W. B. H. W. B. H. W. B. H

October 30, 1929

Dear Prof. Asakawa:

Indeed I do understand the full import of your "last letter" (prior
to your little note of October 25), and feel quite sure that there is a
way out. I am not obstinate. I am sorry it has not been possible for
me to write fully, -nor will it be for a little while longer. Prior
obligations are occupying my time, which I cannot avoid. Do forgive the
delay.

It seems to me that the roots of our difficulties are two-fold. (1)
In the first place there is a difference of valuation of certain features
of work, (la) what seems to me of subsidiary importance seems to you vital,
or (lb) vice-versa. (2) In the second place, there are certain words or
phrases which we seem to use differently.

In matters of type "la" common sense would dictate that I should
concede to you, if you do not change your outlook.

In matters of type "1b" common sense would dictate that you should
concede to me, if I do not change my outlook.

In matters of type "2" we must both have the patience to learn what
the other means. We both know that difficulties of type 2 loom large in
all human affairs. Let us both resolutely set our faces toward the
ideal that in our discussions we persistently seek an understanding of
each other's language.

Prof. Asakawa, Oct. 30, 1929, page 2

A. Points under discussion of type "la", differences in valuation.

(la.1) That "second circle" be not included in Foundations of Language (FL). Personally I am ready to concede this. The final decision cannot rest with me personally. (See 2.1 below.)

(la.2) That SIL rubrics (M distinguishes between "rubric", an explanatory description or instruction, and "symbol", a linguistic device e.g. a word, flexion, affix, etc.) be not included in publications of "second circle". I am ready to concede that SIL be not used in publications of "second circle" either for rubrics or as symbols. This final decision can quite properly rest with me. But I must clearly record that I feel it is a great pity to close the door ahead of time to something which might possibly appeal to many as useful and helpful. I have always felt that nothing of SIL should be in publications of "second circle" except perhaps the symbols. Concerning these I have never felt that they should be used in publications of "second circle" but only that an open mind should be kept toward the possibility of their being there-in used in case it might turn out that such use would facilitate arrangement for publication even as it has been found that their use (as far as it goes) facilitates indexing and filing, as well as reference in conversation, correspondence and linguistic experimentation.

B. Points of type 2, differences in interpretation which need to be cleared up.

(2.1) Foundations of Language. This caption all along has meant to me a covering term which includes all of IALA's linguistic re-

Prof. Asakawa, Oct. 30, 1929, page 3

search in which is the nature of studies prior to what I believe
you mean by the more creative work of "Synthesis" etc.
which will con-
stitute the "third circle" and subsequent circles. Although none
of us had yet attained unto a well ordered outline of work for the
"second circle", that kind of work (comparative study of selected
European languages both national and "artificial") has been in our
minds from the very beginning. You have rendered the invaluable
service, gradually attaining an orderly plan for such comparative
studies. This, as you know, I hailed with delight, and I do not
hesitate to prophecy that C and S will do likewise and probably
also J.

You insist upon narrowing the term "Foundations of Language"
to a definition which includes only the work of the "first circle".

Our different methods of thinking may be illustrated as follows:

Prof. Asakawa, Oct. 30, 1929, page 4

To me personally it makes little difference which of the above schemes of classification is followed. It seems to me the vital thing is that the kinds of work are now clearly differentiated and particularly that definition of the work of the "second circle" is becoming clearer and clearer so that it should be possible to get new and greater numbers of collaborators to work simultaneously in different plans and on different sections of studies without confusion. It was on this definition of work that I was constantly concentrating in following your thinking in Bar Harbor. Although you identified the term FL with "first circle" and the term CS with "second circle", I did not realize that such identification was to you a vital thing. The second vital thing seemed to me that we should agree about the plan of work for the two circles. This we did increasingly day by day and I can see no reason why we should not continue to be able to arrive at agreement in future in possible cases of difficulties arising of either type 1 or 2.

As you feel so intensely opposed to my interpretation of the term FL I am ready to plead for publication according to above scheme A. This will have to be done along two lines. In the first place with my collaborators the chief workers in FL, namely C and S, I have no right personally to make a decision which affects work so carefully and painstakingly laid out in unison. I believe it will be easy to win them, for, although we all had in mind the inclusion of something along the lines of the "second circle" (in Eng., French, Ger., Espo., Ido, Latino., Occ., Novial) we had not arrived at giving that part of the research any thorough thinking but were concentrating on the work in hand. It was only after last spring's

Prof. Asakawa, Oct. 30, 1929, page 5

period of tri-partite collaboration was over that you, with your
dynamic and highly welcomed insistence, forced into the foreground
the thorough consideration of the work of the "second circle". About
the results of this they know, for, as you know, I sent them your
"Tentative Plan for the Second Circle" immediately upon receiving it
from you for the purpose (in Sep.) I am almost certain that neither
of them will have any strong feeling one way or the other regarding
above scheme "A" or "B", and I know they will be influenced by a
united front in you and me in favor of "A". I had thought it would
be much simpler and more satisfactory for you to take up this matter
with S in the Christmas vacation, - and then for me to write to C
and J. But I see now that delay is only irritating, and so I shall
write to C and S as soon as I can get at it (I hope within a fort-
night) and plead for their consent to "A". I have scarcely a doubt
of obtaining it. Then it will I believe be easy to obtain J's.

Did I not seek such consent, I should consider myself untrue
to my trust. It would be as if, having agreed upon a plan for the
"second circle", some proposition should later arise which called
for a modification of some of it and I should consent to such mod-
ification without consulting you!

In the second place I must plead with certain of IALA's
directors, who have given thought to the question of IALA's pub-
lications in series, to allow "A" as two separate series instead of
"B" as one series with two main sub-divisions. I anticipate no
great difficulty here, - but it will take a little time.

Prof. Asakawa, Oct. 30, 1929, page 6

(2.2) "Notions". "Notional basis of presentation". How strange
that these words seem to mean such different things to each
of us! I will try to make clear what they mean to me, and I believe
to C and S, and I should then appreciate your reciprocating!

Linguists approach and handle words from at least three
points of view, namely: form, function, notion ( sometimes instead
of "notion" they prefer to use concept <u>or</u> idea <u>or</u> meaning). J in
"The Philosophy of Grammar" elaborates these approaches. In the
works of many linguists these approaches are taken for granted.
In a dictionary, as a matter of convenience for reference, words
are entered alphabetically according to form and under each form
definitions are given according to notion. In Roget's Thesaurus
words are classified notionally, i.e. in groups bound together by
some common meaning rather than by form. In all of IALA's linguistic
research, from its very inception the primary approach has been
notional, in the sense in which I am using the word. In Miss Eaton's
"Elements of Language", the mss. to which in the past you have
frequently alluded as being the type of linguistic research which
should be pursued and developed by IALA, entries are presented
according to "notions" (there the word "concept" is used). In
your "Draft for a section of the General Introduction to FL" on
page 3, 2nd line from bottom, I suggested for consideration the
insert "and in both circles the basis of presentation of material
studied will be <u>notional</u> to the fullest extent possible". By this
is meant the very simple thing that the main divisions of material
will be according to what I mean by "notions" rather than accord-
ing to alphabetical order. I feel very confident that you and I
have never disagreed about this. How would you express it? We

Prof. Asakawa, Oct. 31, 1929, page 7

both speak of "space words", "time words", "quantity words" and do
not misunderstand. For the first field of the second circle, your
entire suggested scheme of numbering is in its main divisions what
I (and I feel sure C and S would) call a classification according to
a notional scheme. What would you call it? I have no special
predilection for the words "notion" or "notional" and should welcome
another wording from you in the place of my suggested insert above,
or in any other place in your draft which you might prefer and of
course in your own words. The only thing that seems important to
me, so far as an insert in your Draft is concerned is to mention
somewhere and somehow, very simply, the substance of the fact that
in IALA's linguistic research the primary approach in both first and
second circles is
***
(please use your own words!) But if you disapprove of such insert,
let it go. The character of the work when published will speak for
itself.

May I confess that the terror which you show of whatever the
thing may be which the word "notion" means to you when used in con-
nection with the second circle makes me sympathize even more than
ever with your insistance on the importance of having the descriptive
rubrics in the second circle just as untechnical as possible. Per-
haps the linguists' use of "notion" is very technical, and that it
is only because I have become so familiar with it that it seems so
simple and obvious to me! I feel much puzzled and troubled over this
whole matter.

I also suggested another insert: page 3, line 8, under your

Prof. Asakawa, Oct. 31, 1929, page 8

heading "FL", namely: "and general notions". Here again if you
object, please change or cut it out.

You write: "if workers in the "circle" did not work under
clear instructions given according to its proper aims, ____".
Surely I agree to this, and again express what I sincerely and
unswervingly feel, that IALA owes you a debt of gratitude for the
service you are rendering in evolving clearer and clearer instruc-
tions and in patiently explaining just what you mean.

I thank you as a friend for your courage in writing about
what you consider to be "the very fountain-source of all difficulties".
Some day I hope we may talk about this freely.

Most earnestly do I plead with you to give up all thought of
resigning from our committee for at least several years, - until
work in the second circle is under way and all of IALA's research is
much further along. To have you leave on route, when difficulties of
many kinds loom large, would be a disaster. Help direct the second
circle. Let samples be submitted to you from time to time. Allow
me in Europe next spring when difficulties arise in the proposed inter-
linguistic conference (if it takes place) to hold you up as a power
behind the throne (what Mr. Morris delights in calling "the big dog

Prof. Asakawa, Oct. 31, 1929, page 9

in the cellar!) whose approbation must be obtained before the final
word of advance is given for the work of the second circle. Be its
guiding genius. Permit us to rely on your standing by through stress
and storm when they arise, as alas they are bound to.

It seems to me that we are not very far apart in our
thinking,-- it is only clouds that have made it appear so. On the
hilltops in Bar Harbor, when the fog settles down heavily, mountain
climbers cannot see each other,-- they might be miles apart. Only the
call of their voices reaches from each to each, and even that seems un-
cannily distant. All at once the fog dissipates,-- and instead of chasms
between them there is but a little stretch of common ground.

Always faithfully yours,

Mrs. Dave H. Morris

Finished Oct. 31, circumstances having unexpectedly allowed time for
writing fully.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EARLE B. BABCOCK
PRESIDENT

JOHN J. CARTY

DAVE H. MORRIS
TREASURER

LE ROY E. BOWMAN

FREDERICK G. COTTRELL

STEPHEN P. DUGGAN

HARRY E. EDMONDS

JOHN H. FINLEY

ALFRED N. GOLDSMITH

HENRY GODDARD LEACH

PAUL MONROE

FREDERICK H. OSBORN

MRS. HAROLD PEABODY

(IALA)

NEW YORK CITY

GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MRS. JAMES S. CUSHMAN

JOHN H. FINLEY

JAMES G. HARBORD

CLARENCE H. HOWARD

MRS. JAMES LEES LAIDLAW

WILLIAM LAWRENCE

SIDNEY E. MEZES

ARTHUR E. MORGAN

SAMUEL W. STRATTON

MRS. DAVE H. MORRIS, CHAIRMAN

K. ASAKAWA, VICE-CHAIRMAN

WILLIAM E. COLLINSON

OTTO JESPERSEN

EDWARD SAPIR

STEPHEN P. DUGGAN, CHAIRMAN

JAMES P. W. CRAWFORD

ROBERT H. FIFE

MASON D. GRAY

VIVIAN A. C. HENMON

HENRY W. HOLMES

HAYWARD KENISTON

EDWARD L. THORNDIKE

19 East 70th Street
New York City
November 23, 1929

My dear Professor Asakawa,

Best thanks for returning cuttings from C's
letter of 18 Oct. and carbon of my letter of Nov. 12 with your
notations thereon.

I feel badly that I seem to have thrown the
burden upon you of writing a long answer to my last long letter.
I do not want to have you burn the midnight oil just because I
may have been stupid!

From Dr. Sapiр I received a few days ago the
following: "I hereby concur with you and Mr. Asakawa in favoring
plan 'b'', i. e. that the work of the first and second circles be
published as two separate series, the work of the first circle
only to be included under the caption FL. I am delighted and not
surprised. I shall now ascertain C's and J's reactions. May I
predict that they will be the same?

Owing to Dr. Shenton's having been knocked out for
about a month by a hard attack of grippe and consequent lingering
spells of weakness, there was quite a delay in being able to get up
a meeting of the Board of Directors (not of IALA but only just of the
Directors) to consider the calling of such a meeting in Europe next
spring as you and I talked over in Bar Harbor. The Directors' meet-
ing took place only last week Friday, the fifteenth. It was replete
with thought. As it centered around linguistic research, I think you
may be interested in glancing over the enclosed tentative draft of
summary of minutes, and some of the papers which were presented at the
meeting. However, if you have not the time to look them over, do not
bother. I gave a brief picture of the present status of IALA's lingu-
istic research,-- what has been done and what is planned,-- and again I
felt for IALA profoundly grateful to you for your contribution of a
program for the "second circle". Indeed, after prolonged discussion of
a hundred and one items in connection with the possible meeting in
Europe (length of time, personnel, objects, cost, etc. etc.) everyone
gradually came around to the idea that such a meeting might be called

Prof. Asakawa - Nov. 23, 1929--2

specifically for the purpose of furthering the work of "Comparative Studies". Without your conception as an anchor, I doubt but that discussion might have drifted without coming to a decision. Even so, final decision as to whether and when to call the meeting in Europe was left to the Executive Committee with power, and it has not yet acted.

May I very humbly submit two propositions to you? That before you answer at length my letter of 30 October,

**First**, return to me your "Draft for a Section of the General Introduction to FL" just as you would now like to have it mimeographed and to send it out. Herewith is enclosed an extra copy so you may mark it as you will, or return it unchanged if that be your preference. It should not take long to go over the modifications which were submitted by me October 2, and to make any or no changes on the original manuscript in line with them. I covet having you send out your manuscript as soon as possible, and am ready that it go out unchanged if you now so desire. It is entitled "A Draft". You can make any modifications later which you wish to. I no longer feel that "it seems extremely important that our fundamental and difficult ideal of working notionally should be mentioned somewhere in this draft". It is, of course, very important that we learn to know what each means by "notional", but as that seems a mysteriously strange and dark adventure, I can see no advantage in delaying the sending out of your fine draft until we clear up the mystery! And this leads to the

**Second suggestion.** Let there be worked out a few sample pages of something for the "second circle". Like you, "I am discouraged by my failure to make my points in the past". Why do we not try another method, the method of work rather than explanation? Then, if work does not clarify, another stab can be made at explanation! I find that Dr. Thatcher Clark of whom I spoke to you in Bar Harbor (an expert linguist and interlinguist), is sincerely interested, and is ready at any time to advise, criticise and guide the work being executed by Miss Faegre. She is working under my immediate guidance, and goes to him for checking up. I believe that within about a month or so she could have something ready to show you. Would not that reveal better than a hundred explanations just where we hold the same or a different concept of the work to be done, at least in the items treated?

November 29, 1929

Mrs. Dave H. Morris,
19 East 70 Street,
New York City.

Dear Mrs. Morris:

Your full letter of October 30 shows clearly, it seems to me, that the dis-
agreement between you and me is at once very simple and very fundamental. It is
probably because I failed to show how simple it all was, that you do not see how
fundamental it is.

The chief point of my letter was that the direction of the work of IALA be re-
organized in accordance with its public commitments. This would result in entrust-
ing the linguistic, the educational, the financial, and other branches, of the direc-
tion to persons with special training or aptitude in the respective spheres; specially
the linguistic branch, which most concerns us in our correspondence, could be properly
directed only by a person who was at once a well-trained and well-recognized philologist
and widely known as neutral as regards questions of IALs. These branches should be so
organized that their heads would not only be really active, but also be fully respon-
sible for their conduct. Over the college of these directing heads there should be a
clearing office, whose function should be, not to meddle in details in the several
branches, but to coordinate their work and combine its results. If continually in-
terfered with, it is obvious that any person would soon cease to give his best to the
directing of his branch; even if IALA did not lose his service altogether, it could
no longer enjoy his true interest in his work or his sincere regard for itself; it is
this kind of silent demoralization that often leads cooperative enterprises to real
failure under an appearance of promising progress.

If a reorganization were accomplished, such difficulties as are troubling us
would not arise or would be solved of themselves. On the contrary, so long as there

would not arise or would be affected of themselves. On the contrary, so long as there
It is a recognition were accomplished, are difficulties as are troubling us
that arise under an adherence of broadening progress.

the King of silent generalization that often seems cooperative enterprises to rest
no longer exist in his true interest in his work on the indirect method; for itself: it is
directing of the推广 even if IAV did not lose his service altogether, it could
beferred with it in obvious that such a person would soon cease to give his best to the
principles, but to coördinate their work and combine its results. It continuously im-
clesing offices, whose function should be, not to meddle in details in the several
sible for their conduct. Over the college of these directing people there should be a
organised that their ideas would not only be freely active, but also be fully reason-
and widely known as neutral as regards questions of IAV. These principles should be so
directed only by a person who was at once a well-trained and well-recognised bilibili-
tist the linguistic prand, which most consequently is in our correspondence, could be properly
tion to someone with special training or ability in the respective language; especially
int the linguistic, the educational, the financial, and other principles, of the differ-
organized in accordance with its public commitments. This would result in extra-

The chief point of my letter was that the direction of the work of IAV be re-

the language of itself.

properly because I failed to allow him ample time to fill was, that you do not see how
agreement between you and me is of once very ample and very fundamental. If it is

Your further letter of October 20 shows clearly, it seems to me, that the die-

Dear Mrs. Morris:

New York Off.

18 East 20 Street,

Mrs. Dave H. Morris,

November 22, 1933

-2-

is no rational direction, there is manifest danger, not only that friction (probably mostly silent and ominous) would be continual among the people, but also that the avowed good purposes of IALA never would, and could, be realized. I think it more than likely that, already, the same thought is more or less conscious in the minds of many persons in and out of our Association.

This was the chief problem. The circles which I took the liberty to propose might be viewed as my personal suggestion intended as a bridge from the present form of direction to a new one; that is, the circles might be begun now and constitute a smooth transition to the later organization. And in order that the recommended work be started now, it has seemed to me of the very first necessity that the fields of research which are defined and separated should be guarded against all danger of being confused; for work imbued with the spirit of the past would not be a bridge leading to a new shore, but only an extension of the old ground. Indeed, neither the outside world nor any body of scholars could use a material handed to it which was confused or was in any way colored by personalities; and the effort that had been expended in the preparation of material of such nature would have been mostly wasted. If, on the contrary, the circles were pursued separately, the result of work done at least in the second circle would be of distinct value to the world, and one of the necessary equipments of any later organization of IALA. Here the only hope of success lay in independent and impersonal work.

I saw with alarm that the circles would not be the distinct circles which I had proposed, and would not be of a character to save IALA from the perils toward which I believed it was tending. I therefore revoked all ideas of circles; for I should kill keenly regret that I had at all suggested them, if my name were to be in any way associated with altered circles pointing toward the direction from which it had been my very purpose to save research by means of my circles. I did revoke my propositions and did

burden to save reason, p. means of my circles. I did revoke my probations and quit
listed with afterdotted circles pointing toward the direction from which it had been my very
recently regret that I had at all alienated them, it was name were to be in such way aso-
believed it was tending. I therefore revoked all these of circles; for I should not
prohibited, and would not be of a character to save IYIA from the benefit toward which I
I saw with fear that the circles would not be the distinct circles which I had
tried in independent and independent work.

necessity equipments of my later organization of IYIA. Here the only hope of success
rests in the second circle would be of distinct value to the world, and one of the
If, on the contrary, the circles werehraned separately, the result of work done at
expended in the preparation of materials of such nature would have been mosty wasted.
was confused or was in such way colored by personalification; and the effort that had been
the outside world nor any part of scholarship could use a material panded to it which
leding to a new shore, put only an extension of the old ground. Indeed, neither
being confused; ton work impeded with the spirit of the past would not be a bridge
reason which are defined and elaborated should be granted against all danger, or
de attempted now, it has seemed to me of the very little necessity that the fields of
smooth transition to the later organization. And in order that the recommended work
of direction to a new one: that is, the circles might be begun now and conclude a
might be viewed as my personal suggestion intended as a bridge from the present time
that was the outlet, problem. The circles which I took the liberty to propose
mind of many persons in and out of our Association.

more than likely thus, strongly, the same thought is more on less conscious in the
time avowed good purposes of IYIA never would, and could, be realized. I think it
seems mostly silent and ominous) would be continual among the people, put also that
in no rational direction, there is manifest danger, not only that criticism (bro-

-3-

-3-

resign my place on your Committee. But in view of my obvious failure in explanation, I feel that I should make another attempt to clarify some of the points involved.

The chief circle that engages your attention now is the second. The first circle had been begun before it was conceived as a separate circle, and therefore did not have a well defined character; I would leave it to remain as it was and to go on in the same way, but would differentiate a second and later circles from the old comprehensive plan, and propose that these later circles be independent from the first and coordinate with it. Now we shall confine our attention only to the second circle, for the difficulties discussed in your letter of October 30 are all due to a lack of understanding of this circle.

I have not made it clear to you that there is nothing more essential about the second circle than that, as a circle of purely objective comparison, it should be absolutely independent and strictly neutral: independent in its direction, in its work, and in the value of its results; neutral as well in its actual work as in its publications. The very life of this circle is its thoroughly neutral character.

If you would salvage the research work of the Association and carry it to a higher plane, this circle is needed; and it is needed only and solely for its neutral and objective character and for its exclusion of personalities. These issues would be as clear as day, and this task would be pursued as a matter of course, if there were a directing office of research under a philologist who was trained and also impartial; it would be as natural and inevitable for him to order and direct objective comparative studies in this circle as it is for a fish to swim.

Now I wish to show you that the reservations you make in your letter are not a matter of "subsidiary importance" or of "words and phrases we use differently", but, on the contrary, oppose the very nature of the circle and would destroy it from its foundations.

In short, you seem to concede that the term FL be limited to the first circle;

-4-

but you would keep an "open mind" regarding the use of SIL in the work of the
second circle, though not in its publications; and you are puzzled as to "notions".
I shall try to discuss as briefly as possible the three points, FL, SIL, and
"notions":-

FL. You began by calling by this name the work started at Chicago; and you
evidently were inclined to use this same term for the entire future research. Here
are two different things: the work done, and the work to be done. I accepted the
first, namely, the work done: and, seeing that its nature was something like its
name (FL), suggested that its continuation be regarded as the first circle under that
name, and be separated from other circles bearing other names. Now the natural mean-
ing of the words "foundations of language" seems expressive of the work of the first
circle thus marked out, but not appropriate for that of the other circles. Neither
comparative nor synthetic work could be properly called "foundations of language"
("language" in the singular and without any adjective). And it seems to me that
something more than a name is involved here: the use of the term FL for the circles
which are strange to its verbal meaning might also indicate a certain confusion of
thought, and, involve a certain interference with the direction of the second circle
by that of the first. That would be fatal for the second circle. Since you seem to
concede the use of the term FL for the first circle only, further argument seems un-
necessary.

SIL. You argue, that, while SIL should not be used in publications, it would be
inconvenient to exclude it from the actual work of the second circle, and you would
therefore have an open mind about it. Do you not see the serious implications of
your reservation? The danger is twofold. In the first place, SIL is personal and is
not neutral. If you would answer that SIL was not intended for publication, what
would you say of the second danger, namely: the use of SIL by workers would mean

-5-

that the work of the second circle would not be independent, but the same person
would be working or directing the work here who worked in the first circle. Into
the *work*, SIL would bring in its train the "notions" discussed below; the "notions",
once installed, would at once rule the entire work; then it would be said that it
was nearly impossible to recast the results for purposes of *publication*. So the second
circle would end in being an annex to the first. I shall touch on the evils of this
outcome when I discuss the "notions". Here I only beg you to note this question:
Would an independent philologist, if he were directing research, need SIL in the
second circle or have it used by his workers? By SIL, I do not mean such convenient
abbreviations as any worker might devise in his private operations, but specifically
*your* SIL adapted from an IAL.

"Notions". Here are three things which may be distinguished: (1) the word "notions"; (2) the nomenclature, like "operatives", used for various "notions"; and (3) the whole notional principle as the common basis of both the first and the second circles. (1) would be a slight matter but for its connection with (2) and (3). My strong objections to (2) have already been voiced elsewhere; in short, the use of notional terms which were favorite at the moment with only a few persons would be to defeat one of the aims of the circle, namely, the independent value of its results for both specialist and layman. Whoever might gain by thus defeating the worthy aim of the circle would have failed to realize the splendid opportunity which had come within his grasp to serve the world through IALA. Now you seem to be willing to concede more or less about (2), but to insist on (3). But (2) is a lesser evil than (3). The difficulty which (3) would create would exceed by far that of (2); while (2) would, as has been said, prevent the second circle to attain one of its objects, (3) would attack the very *raison d'être* of the circle; namely, its independence from the first circle. It would be but a small comfort if only some notional terms were eschewed, when the notional principle itself was the basis of both circles: a flood-gate would be opened

-6-

from the first to the second; and notional conceptions would control the entire second
circle, and penetrate to all its minute parts. To say that such work would greatly
embarrass later workers in research and would be of little use, if any, to the outside
world, is to point to its smaller vices. The circle itself would have been sacrificed,
and IALA been deprived of an opportunity to arm itself with one of the first weapons
it sorely needed, and driven from its original aim farther than ever before.

I again venture to submit my suggestion as regards the terminology for the second
circle:--- for its main divisions, the time-honored "parts of speech", with all their
faults, should be followed as far as possible; but for the subdivisions in each div-
ision, since their arrangement would not be alphabetical, more or less notional
arrangement might be employed according to need, so long as the order seemed perfectly
logical or natural, but the guiding terms used for the subdivisions should be in as
simple and non-technical words as possible. Such procedure would, it seems to me,
not only invest the results with an independent value for the later workers and the
outside world, but also insure the independent existence and growth of the circle
itself.

At this moment, aside from your concession in regard to the term FL, we seem to
be where we were. If your mind remains the same as it was on October 30, the date
of your letter, I shall see no other course of action open for me but to renew my
renunciation of my place on your Committee and withdraw my proposition of the circles.

This is, however, no longer the whole issue. Here I beg you to recall the pro-
gress and the whole motive of my propositions and objections. My desire has always
been to further the announced purposes of IALA. But it was only by degrees that, as
I followed the actual trend of its career, I was pained to realize that there would
be little likelihood of IALA accomplishing its task; *if* was also by degrees that I
was enabled to formulate a more or less concrete plan to divert the course of research
into a direction which would at least point toward the avowed goal of the Association.

-7-

It was thus that my ideal of circles was evolved. As a transitional measure, I would insist on the principles involved in them, and am committed to them; but it is conceivable that the same principles might be served even better by a better plan devised by a superior mind, which I would welcome with all my heart. But circles, whatever they be, would be only a bridge to a more reasonable organization of the work of IALA as a whole. So long as this fundamental question of the reorganization of direction remains untouched, the transitional steps I propose not only mean little, but are in danger of being diverted from the object of being a transitional measure, and should best be withdrawn altogether before they are tried from a standpoint which is antagonistic to their spirit. And together with my proposed plan I would regretfully withdraw myself. I should leave your Committee with very little hope for IALA ever discharging its assumed obligations to the public. As a matter of fact, also, I am unfortunately in a position in which I can hardly continue to spend time in personal explanations in a cause which, from the manner in which it is conducted, I cannot help regarding as ultimately futile.

I thank you sincerely for your desire for my continued service and for my participation in the direction of the work of the second circle. As regards the former, I have stated my position. That also disposes of the latter; but I may add once again that, not being a linguist, it would not be legitimate for me to have any direct share in special linguistic work. For the name and interest of IALA, this is precisely the sort of thing that I should deplore, much as I would thank you for your consideration in this instance. All I have tried to do has been to suggest on my responsibility a plan of organizing research in broad outlines in conformity with IALA'S clear duties; the research itself should be directed only by specialists who are recognized as such and whose work would inspire respect and confidence.

Faithfully yours,

Butchflyn' home

are recognised as men and whose work would inspire respect and confidence.
IVIA's clear rules: the reason itself should be directed only by specifiers who
reasonability a man of organizing reason in broad outline in conformity with
consideration in this instance. All I have tried to do has been to suggest on my
creativity the sort of thing that I should do before, when so I would thank you for your
advice in specific linguistic work. For the same and interest of IVIA, this is because
that, not being a linguist, it would not be legitimate for me to have any direct
influence on your opinion. That also diabase of the latter: but I may add once again
toation in the direction of the work of the second circle. We require the tower,
I thank you sincerely for your advice for my continued education and for my benefit
not being regarded as ultimately useful.

Some explanations in a cause which, from the manner in which it is conducted, I can-
sentrally in a question in which I can hardly continue to add time in her-
ever discounting its assumed qualifications to the benefit. As a matter of fact, also,
fully withDrawn where. I should leave your committee with very little trouble for IVIA
is antagonistic to their aim. And together with my proposed plan I would request-
and should be withdrawn afterthought, before they are tried from a standpoint which
put are in danger of being quarried from the outset of their a transitionnal measure,
or direction remains unknown, the transitional aspects I probeeae not only mean little,
work of IVIA as a whole. So long as this fundamental question of the reorganization
whatever they do, would be only a bridge to a more reasonable organization of the
viewed as an abration which, when I would welcome with all my pent. But circles,
classable that the same braille might be served even better by a better plan ge-
intiated on the braille involved in them, and am committed to them; put it is con-
It was done just my idea of circles was evolved. As a transitional measure, I would

-3-

Prof. Asakawa, Dec. 30, page 3

a distinguished linguist with a national reputation. Miss Kennon has
promised to drop in on him and sound him out a bit. If we could get
him, it would be splendid. Would you not be willing to come down and
see him with me, and yourself discuss with him your "draft" and your
"Tentative Plan for the Second Circle"? Might it not be a good idea
for you to send him those two papers ahead of time, so he can look them
over at leisure? This could be done as soon as I hear from Miss Kennon
as to whether he is willing and has the time to take some active interest
in our problems.

If we cannot get Prof. Fife, have you any other suggestions as to
whom we may turn? Would Prof. Gerig do? If not, whom do you suggest?
Under any circumstances, may I count on your allowing your two papers
to be given to whomever we may be able to secure for our immediate
temporary directorship? Surely without them, no one could be intelligent
in directing the preparation for MLR !

**General release of**
**"Draft for Introduction"**
**and "Tentative Plan"**

I do earnestly beg you to have your "Draft" mimeographed or multigraphed, to send it to everyone on IALA's letterhead, and to let me have twenty-five extra copies for Europe. Perhaps, as FL may lag a while, you may prefer to give your paper another title. Whatever you call it will be satisfactory to me.

Please also have the "Tentative Plan" mimeographed (say twenty-five copies) so that both papers may be presented at MLR.

I hope you will be able to read between the lines how very troubled I have been about the actual situation of your "chief point" even long before your stern recognition of its "dangerousness". Your recognition is a speeder-up of a long standing determination to change it. I hope that my explanations of some of the reasons which delayed the change (and of course there are others also) that circumstances beyond our control have made an intrisically difficult situation even more difficult. At the same time, I do not wish for a moment to escape from any blame which may justly be mine. Perhaps all this may help you realize how tremendously needed you are and what a catastrophe it would be to have you withdraw at this time. Will you not come and be our guest and let us confer together about reorganization and MLR, on the new basis of agreement, looking forward, ever forward. There are still many obstacles to be overcome and the path is not easy. You have pointed out some possible first steps. Will you not guide us in them?

With profound appreciation for all your thought and help,