Towards a History of Americanist Linguistics

KONRAD KOERNER

University of Ottawa

0.0 Introductory Observations

The past 15 or more years have witnessed the recognition of the history of linguistics as a bona fide academic subject; indeed, given the existence of several journals and monograph series exclusively devoted to the subject, one may well speak of a professionalization of this subfield of linguistics. It is therefore not surprising that the study of American Indian languages, which has a 400-year old history, should become an area of interest to the historian — and historiographer — of linguistics (cf. Auroux and Queixalos 1984). The present paper is a modest attempt at a brief survey of the work that has already been done, together with a few observations of my own. As far as I can see, many of the earlier historical accounts — for instance of Sapir (1911), Goddard (1914), and Kroeber (1939) — were progress reports done on special occasions and for particular purposes, but not genuine histories; those by Wissler (1942), Edgerton (1943), and Stevens (1956, 1957) may be somewhat closer to our endeavours, and more recent accounts (e.g., Miner 1974, Haas 1978, Smith 1979) are definitely closest as they become more specific and detailed. It occurred to me that I could offer a paper at this Conference by referring in particular to the study of Algonquian languages, which were the languages most of the earlier missionaries, travelers, and amateur linguists encountered when they set foot on North American soil, as languages of this stock were widely spread along the East Coast and the North-Central parts of the continent. Indeed, up to the mid-19th century, the Algonquian languages were the most widely studied, with the result that earlier scholars tended to believe that their features were representative of all American Indian languages.

179 180 KONRAD KOERNER

1.0 Phases in the Study of North American Indian Languages

In his brief sketch of the study of Mesoamerican Indian languages of 1983, the late Jorge Alberto Suarez (1927-1985) distinguished three phases in the history of Americanist linguistics; the firstbeginnin g with the arrival of missionaries in New Spain in 1524 and lasting roughly to the end of the 17th century. (Perhaps I should point out that I regard Mexico as a part of North America; it was from there, and with Cortes's conquest during the early 16th century, that European study of Amerindian languages began.) This firstphas e is properly called the period of missionary linguistics. The second phase, according to Suarez (1983:5) began in the 19th century, the 18th century witnessing a considerable decline in the work on American Indian languages, probably as a result of the Enlightenment's preoccupation with philosophical and universal grammar, not to mention its concern for the development of logical systems of communication (cf. Rowe 1974:367). The third phase covers the present century. No doubt, this classification is much too schematic, especially with regard to the last two periods, and probably requires revision and refinement. Indeed, other scholars, e.g., Cowan (1974), distinguish three main traditions according to the place of origin of the missionaries, French, English, and Spanish, as they arrived at different times, in different places, and frequently with different attitudes.

1.1 I will not say much about the missionary period here (for some details, see Suarez 1983:1-5), except to say that it was characterized by the activ­ ities of the Franciscan, Dominican, and Augustinian friars (listing them in chronological order of their arrival in Mexico), whose objective it was to learn enough of the languages of the natives so that they could carry out their missionary work. In order to familiarize themselves with the in­ digenous languages, these missionaries as well as some Jesuits (who, at least in Central and South America, usually concerned themselves with the education of the upper classes only) compiled word lists and developed grammars. Although these Indian languages were quite different from the European languages, the structure of Latin was employed in their analysis (cf. Diimmler-Cote 1987), and Antonio de Nebrija's (1444-1532) grammar of Spanish, firstpublishe d in 1492, though the firstvernacula r grammar in Europe not devoted to either Latin and Greek, served many of them as a model. Nebrija's Gramdiica castellana was however not much different from these traditional grammars, and this fact may have reinforced the missionaries' belief in the adequacy of the categories of the structure of Latin for the description of American Indian languages. (For an account of 17th-century missionary work in the British colonies in North America, see Guice 1987; cf. also Wonderly and Nida 1963, Wolfart 1967, and others.) The missionary period, although in a sense still going on today — wit- AMERICANIST LINGUISTICS 181

ness the work of the Summer Institute of Linguistics — could be said to cover the period from the 16th century down to the beginning of the 19th century. An exact demarcation appears impossible for several reasons: First, a number of 17th- and 18th-century works were reissued (most of them by John Pickering) during the early decades of the 19th century, thus establishing at least a clear link, rather than a break with past achievements in the field, i.e., suggesting continuity rather than discontinuity. Second, a number of these earlier accounts were in fact not written by missionaries but by people of a rather different kind — I am thinking of the word lists, grammatical sketches, and phrase books provided by travelers, merchants, and adventurers, such as the Englishman William Wood (c. 1608-1639), in the early 17th century, the impoverished French baron Louis Armand de Lahontan (1666-C.1715) at the beginning of the 18th century, and the German geologist Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) in the early 19th century. Of course we will notice the important differences between the land-prospecting Wood and the scientific endeavours of Humboldt, who appears to have collected linguistic data largely at the request of his elder brother Wilhelm, and much less because of a personal interest in exotic languages. In short, reference to these men should dispell the idea that all linguistic interest in Amerindian languages before the 19th century came from missionaries. However, it remains true that what these travelers have in common is that their preoccupation with these languages was a side inter­ est only. Wood's (1634:[99]-[103]) word list takes up only five printed pages, and Lahontan's "petit dictionnaire" of "the Algonkine language, which is generally spoken in North America" with its about 300 entries is not much longer, although, as Wolfart (1989) has recently shown, his Algonquian lex­ icon of 1703 was subsequently used by a variety of missionaries and linguists for more than 150 years thereafter. It is a fact however that most grammars and lexicons of American Indian languages produced by missionaries — and there were many — remained unpublished. It seems that only toward the end of the 19th century did major works on Amerindian languages, espe­ cially Algonquian, appear in print (e.g., Cuoq 1886) — with few famous exceptions, notably Roger Williams's (1603-1683) Key of 1643 and John Eliot's grammar of Natick of 1666 (on which below). With regard to the English in North America (on which see Hallowell 1960:23-34) — I am excluding here the missionary work in New France (on which see Hanzeli 1969) — mention should at least be made of the in fact pioneering work of missionaries, besides the two just mentioned, Thomas Mayhew (1592-1682), Experience Mayhew (1673-1758), and Cot­ ton Mather (1663-1728), who produced translations of biblical and other devotional texts into half a dozen different Indian languages, frequently compiling dictionaries or writing grammars of these languages on the way, 182 KONRAD KOERNER though most of these works remained in manuscript. But the most impor­ tant and influential work was no doubt John Eliot's The Indian Grammar Begun of 1666, basically a grammar of the Massachusett language or Nat­ ick modeled after the structure of Latin, though produced on the basis of a thorough acquaintance with the native language and with the help of informants (cf. Miner 1974 for details). This probably firstAmerica n In­ dian grammar written in North America was republished by Pickering in 1822 and received critical attention by later Algonquianists, beginning with (1821-1897), who was to criticize Eliot's efforts to "cast [Natick] into a classical mould" and, as a result, for not recog­ nizing important grammatical features properly (Trumbull 1871:60; Cowan 1984:294-295). Interestingly enough, Wolfart, writing about 100 years after Trumbull, argued that Eliot had attempted to describe the language in its own terms (1967:154; see also Smith 1979:31). The other influential missionary linguist of 17th-century New England was Roger Williams, a close contemporary of Eliot, who had arrived from England about the same time in the Massachusetts colony. However, while Williams was soon banished from the Colony for his unorthodox views — he and a few other clergymen became founders of Providence, Rhode Is­ land — Eliot moved from Boston to Roxbury, where he remained until his death, learning the language of the Indians among whom he worked. While Eliot's work appeared in Boston, Williams's Key into the Language of America of 1643 (reissued by Pickering in 1827), actually a phrase book of Narragansett, was published in London. The book has received due at­ tention by 20th-century Algonquianists (e.g., Haas 1967), and has recently been characterized as a roughly 200-page long phrase book and description of Indian culture which contains respectably large number of words, phrases, and sentences of Narra­ gansett, another extinct Algonquian language [like Massachusett], formerly spoken in Rhode Island and only dialectically different from Massachusett. (Cowan 1984:294)

Hoijer (1973:657) noted that Roger Williams's Key was "so arranged as to be invaluable to travelers among the Indians of nearly all of New England", characterizing it as "the earliest example of . . . anthropological linguis­ tics" because of the ethnographic data supplied by Williams. But as I said earlier, it is not my intention to spend much time with the early phase of Amerindian linguistics in this paper, though it deserves much more atten­ tion than it has hitherto received (cf. Haas 1978:110-112).

1.2 The second phase in the study of Amerindian languages will occupy us more than the first, since it is this period during which the kind of AMERICANIST LINGUISTICS 183 work was undertaken that shaped much of the later research. Characteris­ tically, most of the pioneers of this new stage were no longer missionaries or ecclesiastics, but people of public life such as lawyers and politicians. Several of them were European-born, among them the French Pierre Eti- enne (alias Peter Stephen) Du Ponceau (1760-1844) and the Swiss Albert Gallatin (1761-1849), but there was a growing number of scholars born in North America, the most distinguished of whom was John Pickering (1777- 1846), if we exclude Thomas Jefferson (1743-1828), the third president of the United States, who showed an early interest in the study of American Indian languages and encouraged the work of others in this area, especially during his tenure as president of the American Philosophical Society in (1797-1814). However, their work was by no means a com­ plete break with tradition, though it is true that they attempted to study the American Indian languages on their own terms, and not to impose on them the Latin model. For illustration, I may cite a lecture by a "pastor of a church in New Haven", given at a meeting of the Connecticut Society of Arts and Sciences on 23 October 1787, and which was published in the following year under the title "Observations on the Language of the Muhhekaneew Indians; in which the extent of that language in North-America is shown; its genius is grammatically traced; . . .". This 17-page pamphlet by Jonathan Ed­ wards (1745-1801) is of distinct interest for several reasons, including its serving as an example for the kind of work that preceded that of Du Pon­ ceau, Pickering, and others toward the end of the 18th and in the firstfou r decades of the 19th century, among them the naturalist Benjamin Smith Barton (1766-1815), a member of the American Philosophical Society since 1789, who in 1797 published his New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America, and whose argument in favour of the Asiatic origin of the Indians must have aroused interest in their languages too. In this 1787 paper, Edwards claims that "the languages of the several tribes in New England, of the Delawares, and of Mr. Eliot's bible [i.e., Natick], are radically the same with Mohegan" (1788:5). This is however not merely an assertion on his part, but Edwards demonstrates, through a comparison of some 60 vocabulary items, phrases, and grammatical features that "the languages of the Shawanese and Chippewaus is radically the same with Mo­ hegan" (p. 6), but that "Mohauk, which is the language of the six nations is entirely different from that of the Mohegans" (p. 9). In other words, Ed­ wards identified a number of Algonquian languages as structurally identical, and Mohawk, an Iroquoian language, as unrelated, an observation which is correct. But there is at least one other observation in Edwards' paper, which deserves our special attention, in particular if we realize that it was made before Sir William Jones's famous statement about the relationship 184 KONRAD KOERNER

between Indie and the major European languages was published, and at the other end of the globe. After having provided parallel data from Mohegan and Chippewau (now usually referred to as Ojibwa), Edwards concludes:

It is not to be supposed, that the like coincidence is extended to all the words of those languages. Very many words are totally different. Still the analogy is such as is sufficient to show, that they are mere dialects of the same original language. (Edwards 1788:8; my italics - KK)

This is no doubt an important statement as it suggests to us that the prin­ ciples of comparative linguistics and the establishment of language families did not require Jones's celebrated passage in his Third Anniversary Dis­ course of 2 February 1886 (Jones 1788). However, as in the case of Jones, it required someone to follow up on this hint. Friedrich Schlegel, in his Uber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier of 1808 did it for Jones, and it was none other than John Pickering who republished Edwards' paper in 1823, together with copious notes of his own. Unlike Edwards, who obviously had undertaken field work, Du Ponceau and Pickering relied exclusively on written documents, especially grammars and other accounts by missionaries; moreover, they did not venture much beyond Algonquian, and so it remained a work to be done by later genera­ tions of scholars to establish the various American Indian language families, the most famous of these classifications being John Wesley Powell's (1834- 1902) of 1891, which in recent years has received renewed attention (e.g., Darnell 1971). Indeed, most of the work of Du Ponceau and Pickering was concerned with the preservation of Amerindian language material provided by others. The bulk of Du Ponceau's writings on Amerindian languages stem from the last 25 years of his life, by which time comparative-historical linguistics had made considerable advances in Europe (I am referring to the work of Schlegel, Rask, Bopp, Grimm, and Humboldt of the years 1808- 1822), including the classification and compilation of samples of a great number of North American Indian languages in tome III, part 3 of Adelung and Vater's influential Mithridates of some 250 pages (1816:170-424). Al­ though he had written earlier on Amerindian and by 1816 translated the grammar of the Delaware Indians by the Moravian missionary David Zeis- berger (1721-1803), it was only in 1819, in the firstvolum e of the Trans­ actions of the American Philosophical Society, that his firstpublicatio n appeared (cf. Wissler 1942, for an appraisal of Du Ponceau's American­ ist work). However, it was in this "Report on the General Character and Forms of the Languages of the American Indian" that Du Ponceau intro­ duced (p. xxvii) the term "polysynthetic" into linguistic nomenclature a term that certainly fit fortune as we may see in subsequent typological work, most prominently in Sapir's Language of 1921, chapter six ("Types AMERICANIST LINGUISTICS 185 of Linguistic Structure", 127-156). Similarly, Pickering, who had received a good grounding in classical philology at Harvard, though, professionally, he was a lawyer and, like Du Ponceau, a diplomat for a few years, was a linguist by avocation. He first worked in the classical field in his spare time and published a dictionary of American English in 1814, but it was from 1820 onwards, when he published his Essay on a Uniform Orthography for the Indian Languages that we see him devoting all his attention (outside his many public offices; cf. Edgerton 1943:28n.l7) to the study of American Indian languages, apart from prepar­ ing second and third editions of his Greek-English dictionary in 1829 and 1846. It was soon after the publication of his Essay that Pickering got in touch with Wilhelm von Humboldt through the offices of the young George Bancroft (1800-1891). Bancroft, who had received a doctorate at the Uni­ versity of Gottingen in 1820, had moved to Berlin for further study and made it a point to seek out the famous man, who by that time had retired from public life to devote himself to linguistic study. The correspondence between Pickering and Humboldt continued until the death of the latter; cf. M uller-Vollmer's (1976) edition of Humboldt's letters to Pickering. But instead of turning to empirical research at a time when a large number of Indian languages were still spoken, Pickering, like Du Ponceau (and, un­ derstandably, Humboldt), devoted most of his energies to the preservation of existing materials, beginning with a new edition of John Eliot's Indian Grammar in 1822, followed in 1823 by that of Edwards's 1787 essay already mentioned earlier, Roger Williams's Key into the Language of America in 1827, and two other texts in 1830 and 1833 (cf. Edgerton 1943:27, for de­ tails). V.V. Belyj, in a paper on Du Ponceau as "the father of American philol­ ogy", nevertheless concedes that he was a transitory figure(Bely j 1975:42), a judgement which agrees with Hamill Kenny's assessment of Du Ponceau some 20 years earlier, and in which Kenny (1957:204) includes Pickering too. Indeed, it appears that it required the foundation of learned societies, such as the American Ethnological Society in 1842, and the establishment of research institutions, such as the Smithsonian in 1846 and the Bureau of American Ethnology in 1880, to allow for better coordination of research efforts and scientific advances through improved lines of communication. (It is interesting to note that Pickering must have felt the desirability of such organizations since it was he who founded the American Oriental So­ ciety in 1842.) It appears justified therefore to regard the second phase of Americanist work as stretching from the late 18th century (perhaps taking Edwards's paper of 1787 as a starting point) to the 1840s, when these var­ ious agencies and societies were established and Du Ponceau and Pickering died (in 1844 and 1846, respectively). Indeed, we may say that the third 186 KONRAD KOERNER

phase, beginning in the second half of the 19th century, is characterized by an increase in professionalism in Amerindian linguistics; Du Ponceau and Pickering had remained amateurs in the best sense of the term. Until now, I have said little about the Geneva-born financier and states­ man Albert Gallatin (1761-1849), mentioned at the outset of this paper. His role in the development of Amerindian ethnology has recently been thoroughly treated by Robert Bieder in his book Science Encounters the Indian, 1820-1880 (Bieder 1986:16-54). It was Gallatin whom Powell later (1891:9) called a "Linnaeus of Amerindian linguistics" for his classification of the Indian languages of North America in 1836. His 422-page "Synopsis of the Indian Tribes", published in a volume entitled Archazologia Ameri­ cana and edited by Lewis Cass (1782-1866), governor of Michigan (1812-30) with a life-long interest in Indian culture, constitutes, as Stevens (1957:47) has pointed out, a summation of the work of Du Ponceau, Pickering, and others. Gallatin produced two more lengthy studies, one on the Indians of Central America, including Mexico (Gallatin 1845), the other as a 160-page introduction to Edward Everett Hale's (1822-1909) Indians of North-West America, and Vocabularies to North America (Gallatin 1848). But it is for his classification of North American Indian languages that he is best known. Yet Stevens (1957:47) may be right in saying that Gallatin's work marks "not only the summation of an era in Indian linguistics but the be­ ginning of a new era", if we take note of the fact that he assumed a leading role in the foundation of the American Ethnological Society and subsidized the publication of the firsttw o volumes of its Transactions (1845-47). In­ deed, Gallatin was its firstpresident , and because of his poor health, most meetings were held at his house (cf. Bieder 1986:43-44). Considering these facts, we might find it difficult to clearly divide the history of Amerindian linguistics into periods and to draw sharp dividing lines between the sec­ ond and third phase of its development. However, it is probably the move away from the gentleman scholar to the professional in matters Amerindian during the 1880s and 1890s that can best be offered as the beginning of the new era. 1.3 In this paper, I can be brief as regards the third important phase in the study of American Indian languages, largely because much more historio- graphical work has been done on it (albeit not yet in an organized fashion). There has been a tendency to regard the foundation of the American An­ thropological Association in 1879 and, especially, the arrival of (1858-1942) on the Continent several years later as the beginning of the new phase, though "transition" may be a more apt term (cf. Darnell 1970). But there is a danger in downplaying the important work on Amerindian language and culture undertaken by others, many of them American-born: I am thinking in particular of Daniel Garrison Brinton (1837-1899) and AMERICANIST LINGUISTICS 187

John Wesley Powell (1834-1902) as the prime movers, though the work of James Constantine Pilling (1846-1895), of the Swiss-born Albert Samuel Gatschet (1832-1907), and of Horatio Emmons Hale (1817-1896) derserves particular mention as well. Indeed, as Gruber (1967) suggests, Boas did not create an intellectual tradition in North American ethnology or ethnog­ raphy, but joined a well-established, ongoing but changing enterprise when he came to the United States in 1886. However, Boas soon began to play an important institutional role in the reorganization of American anthropology (cf. Stocking 1968:281-85, for details) and, although largely self-trained in the study of Amerindian languages, contributed significantly to the profes- sionalization of the field by producing a considerable number of students who largely shaped ethnological research in North America. On the anthro­ pological side, we may refer to Albert Louis Kroeber (1876-1960), Boas's first doctoral candidate at Columbia in 1901, Robert Harry Lowie (1883— 1957), Ruth Fulton Benedict (1887-1948), and to Margaret Mead (1901- 1978), to mention just a few; on the linguistic side, the name of Edward Sapir (1884-1939) appears to overshadow many other important American­ ists: I am thinking in particular of Truman Michelson (1879-1938), a close contemporary of Sapir's (see Hockett 1987). Furthermore, I might list, at the risk of engaging in academic name dropping, a host of students of Sapir's (and a few, especially Harry Hoijer (1904-1976), of Kroeber) who made the study of American Indian languages their prime objective, e.g., CF. Voegelin (1906-1986), whom Kroeber had sent to Sapir for completion of his training, Morris Swadesh (1909-1967), Mary R. Haas (b. 1910), Stanley S. Newman (1905-1984). However, in all this we should not forget to mention the important work on American In­ dian languages, in particular those belonging to the Algonquian stock such as Fox, Menominee, Ojibwa, and Plains Cree, done by Leonard Bloom- field (1887-1949) who, at least in this field, was nobody's student, but who, being trained in Indo-European linguistics, successfully introduced the historical-comparative method into the study of the indigenous languages (e.g., Bloomfield 1925; cf. also Sapir's (1931) appraisal of Bloomfield's work in this field).

2.0 Concluding Remarks What has been said above, is rather preliminary. Indeed, I believe several scholars attending this meeting are much more knowledgeable, not only with regard to actual work on American Indian languages, but also where the history of the subject is concerned. So I feel I must ask them for their forbearance: I promise to do more — and more substantial — work in this area in years to come, as I feel that it is in this field that the true 188 KONRAD KOERNER

Americanist tradition, and, to no small degree, the linguistics tradition in North America will be found.

REFERENCES Adelung, Johann Christoph 1816 Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde mit dem Voter Unser als Sprachprobe in bey nahe filnf hundert Sprachen und Mundarten. Johann Vater, ed. Berlin: Voss. Auroux, Sylvain, and Francisco Queixalos, eds. 1984 Pour une histoire de la linguistique amercaine en France. Amerindia, numero special, 6. Barton, Benjamin Smith 1797 New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America. Philadelphia: John Bioren. Belyj, Vilen V. 1975 P.S. Duponceau — The Father of American Philology: His Con­ tribution to the Development of Americanistics. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 28:41- 49. Bieder, Robert E. 1986 Science Encounters the Indian, 1820-1880. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Bloomfield, Leonard 1925 On the Sound-System of Central Algonquian. Language 1:130-156. Boas, Franz 1911 Introduction. Handbook of American Indian Languages. Pp. 1-83 in Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40. Washington. Brinton, Daniel Garrison 1885 The Philosophic Grammar of American Languages. Philadelphia: McCalla and Stavely. 1891 The American Race: A Linguistic Classification and Ethnographic Description of the Native Tribes of North and South America. New York: Hodges. Cotton, Josiah 1829 Vocabulary of the Massachusetts (or Natick) Indian Language. John Pickering, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: E.W. Metcalf. Cowan, William 1974 Native Languages of North America: The European Response. Amer­ ican Indian Culture and Research Journal 1(2):3-10. 1974 John Eliot's Indian Grammar. Pp. 293-299 in Materiaux pour une histoire des theories linguistiques. Sylvain Auroux et al., eds. Lille: Universite de Lille III. AMERICANIST LINGUISTICS 189

Cuoq, Abbe Jean-Andre 1886 Lexique de la langue algonquine. Montreal: J. Champleau. Darnell, Regna 1970 The Emergence of Academic Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 6:80-92. 1971 The Powell Classification of American Indian Languages. Papers in Linguistics 4:71-100. Diimmler-Cote, Christiane 1987 Die Beschreibung kolumbianischer Indianersprachen am Modell la- teinischer Grammatiken. Pp. 45-64 in Die Fruhgeschichte der ro- manischen Philologie: Von Dante bis Diez. Hans-Josef Niederehe and Brigitte Schlieben-Lange, eds. Tubingen: G. Narr. DuPonceau, Peter Stephen 1819 Report on the General Character and Forms of the Languages of the American Indian. Transactions of the American Philosphical Society l:xvii-xlvi. Philadelphia. 1822 Notes and Observations on Eliot's Indian Grammar. Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 2nd series, 9:243-246. Edgerton, Franklin 1943 Notes on Early American Work in Linguistics. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 73(l):25-34. Edwards, Jonathan 1788 Observations on the Language of the Muhhekaneew Indians. New Haven: Josiah Meigs. Eliot, John 1822 The Indian Grammar Begun. Massachusetts Historical Society Col­ lections, 2nd series, vol. 9:247-312. [1666] Gallatin, Albert 1836 Synopsis of the Indians within the United States East of the Rocky Mountains and in the British and Russian Possessions in North America. Archaeologica Americana 2:1—422. 1848 Introduction to Hale's Indians of North-West America and Vocabu­ laries of North America. Transactions of the American Ethnological Society 2:xxiii-clxxxviii. Gatschet, Albert Samuel 1973 Narragansett Vocabulary Collected in 1879. International Journal of American Linguistics 39:14. Goddard, Pliny Earle 1914 The Present Condition of Our Knowledge of North American Lan­ guages. American Anthropologist 16:555-601. Gruber, Jacob 1967 and the Development of American Anthropology. Pro­ ceedings of the American Philosophical Society N.S. 3:5-37. 190 KONRAD KOERNER

Guice, Stephen A. . 1987 Early New England Missionary Linguistics. Pp. 223-232 in Papers in the History of Linguistics: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences. Hans Aarsleff et al, eds. Amsterdamm: John Benjamins. Haas, Mary R. 1978 The Study of American Indian Languages: A Brief Historical Sketch. Pp. 110-129 in Language, Culture and History. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hale, Horatio E. 1883 Indian Migrations, as Evidenced by Language, Part I: Huron-Cherokee Stock. American Anthropologist 5:18-28. Hallowell, A.Irving 1960 The Beginnings of Anthropology in America. Pp. 1-90 in Selected Papers From the American Anthropologist, 1888-1920 Frederica de Laguna, ed. New York: Harper and Row. Hanzeli, Victor E. 1969 Missionary Linguistics in New France. The Hague: Mouton. Hockett, Charles F. 1987 Letters from Bloomfield to Michelson and Sapir. Pp. 39-60 in Leonard Bloomfield: Essays on his Life and Work. Robert A. Hall, Jr., ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hoijer, Harry 1973 History of American Indian Linguistics. Pp. 657-676 in Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 10. Thomas A. Sebeok, ed. The Hague: Mouton. Jones, Sir William 1788 The Third Anniversary Discourse. Asiatick Researches 1:515-531. Kenny, Hamill 1957 The Founders of Amerindian Linguistics. American Speech 32:204- 205. Kroeber, A.L. 1939 An Outline of the History of American Indian Linguistics. American Council of Learned Societies Bulletin 29:116-120. Lahontan, Louis Armand de Lom d'Arce, baron de 1703 Memoires de I'Amerique septentrionale. La Haye: Freres l'Honore. Miner, Kenneth L. 1974 John Eliot of Massachusetts and the Beginnings of American Lin­ guistics. Historiographia Linguistica 1:169-183. Mfiller-Vollmer, Kur t 1976 Wilhelm von Humboldt und der Anfang der amerikanischen Sprach- wissenschaft: Die Briefe an John Pickering. Pp. 259-334 in Univer- salismus und Wissenschaft im Werk und Wirken der Bruder Hum­ boldt. Klaus Hammacher, ed. Frankfurt/Main: V. Klostermann. AMERICANIST LINGUISTICS 191

Pickering, John 1818 On the Adoption of a Uniform Orthography for the Indian Lan­ guages of North America. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Memoirs 4:319-360. Pilling, James Constantine 1973 Bibliographies of the Languages of the North American Indians. 3 vols. New York: AMS Press.[1887-1894] Powell, John Wesley, ed. 1891 Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico. Pp. 1-142 in Bureau of American Ethnology, Seventh Annual Report. Wash­ ington. Rasles, Sebastian 1833 A Dictionary of the Abnaki Language, in North America. With Introductory Memoir and Notes by John Pickering. Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, N.S. 1:370-574. Sapir, Edward 1911 An Anthropological Survey of Canada. Science N.S. 34:789-793.

1921 Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

1931 The Concept of Phonetic Law as Tested in Primitive Languages by Leonard Bloomfield. Pp. 297-306 in Methods in Social Science: A Case Book. Stuart A. Rice, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, Raoul N. 1979 The Interest in Language and Languages in Colonial and Federal America. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 123:29- 46. Stevens, Cj 1956 Soul Savers, Grammarians, and the Red Man. American Speech 31:40-51. 1957 The Rediscovery of the Indian Languages: A Survey. American Speech 32:43-48. Stocking, George W., Jr. 1968 Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropol­ ogy. New York: The Free Press. Suarez, Jorge A. 1983 Mesoamerican Indian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press. Trumbull, James Hammond 1871 On the Best Method of Studying the American Languages. Transac­ tions of the American Philological Association of 1869-70 1:55-79. Williams, Roger 1643 A Key into the Language of America. London: Gregory Dexter. 192 KONRAD KOERNER

Wissler, Clark 1942 The American Indian and the American Philosophical Society. Pro­ ceedings of the American Philosophical Society 86(l):189-204. Wolfart, H. Christoph 1967 Notes on the Early History of American Indian Linguistics. Folia Linguistica 1:153-171. 1989 Lahontan's Bestseller (1703). Historiographia Linguistica 16:1-28. Wonderly, William L., and Eugene A. Nida 1963 Linguistics and Christian Missions. Anthropological Linguistics5:104- 144. Wood, William 1634 New Englands Prospect. London: Printed by Thomas Cotes for Iohn Bellamie. Zeisberger, David 1830 A Grammar of the Language of the Lenni Lenape, or Delaware, Indians. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society N.S. 3:65-2511.