On the Present State of Indo-European Linguistics

Abstract

For more than a generation now the bulk of scientific linguistic publication in America has been devoted to descriptive linguistics and the vast majority of the last generation of students of linguistics have devoted themselves largely to that field. The larger measure of scientific advance has accompanied the larger measure of devotion. That is to be expected. There have, of course, been notable exceptions. But I believe the facts will bear me out in my observation that these notable exceptions have been due to the continued labors of an older generation of scholars. And likewise abroad, again with notable exceptions, the 19th-century brand of linguistic science has in recent years been neglected by the younger scholars in favor of the pursuit of other aspects of language study. As evidence for this, one may point to the content of a few of the newer journals such as the Swedish Studia Linguistica: Revue de linguistique g6ndrale et comparde (1947), the Dutch Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics (1948), and the announced English Archivum Linguisticum: A Review of Comparative Philology and General Linguistics. Only the new Austrian journal Die Sprache: Zeitschrift ffir Sprachwissenschaft would seem, from the table of contents of the first volume as announced, to follow the older pattern. These observations being true, the Indo-Europeanists trained in their discipline in more recent years are given cause to hesitate a moment and ponder on the present status of their science and consider the possibilities of its further development. Is comparative Indo-European grammar a closed chapter of linguistic research? Is a younger scholar dealing with an old problem of IndoEuropean phonology an anachronism, 'a voice from the nineties', as I heard it put once on such an occasion? Should we discourage our students from entering upon the controversies of fifty or seventy-five years ago in favor of their taking up the newer, richer, and more quickly remunerative branches of language study which have been the center of attention for over a generation now? These are questions to be seriously considered by graduate teachers, and I have considered them seriously and at length. My answer is in the negative, and instead I would invite students of definite linguistic ability to review with me some of the old problems that have remained with us through the years but which have never been sufficiently investigated or on which new light may now be thrown by additional evidence not available a generation or two ago. First of all, I would mention that stepchild of linguistic science: syntax. I believe that if we really confess to the truth, the reason that comparative syntax has been so neglected in recent years is not that it is unfruitful of positive results, but rather that most comparatists have been incompetent to attack the problems involved, and that incompetence is born of plain lack of the thorough mastery of the syntax of a sufficient number of the older Indo-European lan-