Language and Linguistics
Ashok R. Kelkar




Johnson had said that he could repeat a complete

chapter of the “The Natural History of Iceland”

from the Danish of Horrebow, the whole of

which was exactly thus:-“CHAP,LXXII.

Concerning snakes. There are no snakes to

be met with throughout the whole Island”

Boswell, Life of Johnson, at 13 April 1778.


For an area that can be named with Justice the cradle of linguistic science and at the same time a museum of languages (diachronically as well as synchronically speaking).South Asia presents a rather depressing picture when one surveys the current trends there in language studies generally and in general linguistics specifically – only slightly less depressing than the late V.S.Sukthankar (1941) found it to be in addressing the Philology section of the 10th All India Oriental Conference. “We read with pardonable pride” he says, “the ecomiums lavished by foreign scholars on the great grammar of Pānini and we are complacent enough not to realize that these very ecomiums are at the same time the most crushing indictment of his unworthy descendants, who have shamefully neglected the study of this important subject”- and while saying this, he has both “medieval and modern times” in mind (pp.595,596).

The great divide between ancient and modern times in this field as in many others in South Asia is of course the coming of scholarly contact with the West. The classical period in ancient times that saw the rise of linguistic science is undoubtedly the one associated with Pānini, his predecessors, successors and collaterals –among these last, one must not forget to include the author of Tŏlkappiyam, founder of the Tamil grammatical tradition. In this connection it is customary to speak of the munitrayam – Pānini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali. Sukthankar rightly questions this – great as the achievement of the latter two is as expositors of Pānini, it remains essentially derivative. The brilliance of Pānini’s achievement in the field of descriptive grammar – Chomsky (1965), p.v) willingly credits him with “a fragment of …a ‘generative grammar’ in essentially the contemporary sense of this term” – should not blind us to the not inconsiderable gains in other field of linguistics. Articulatory phonetics still owes some of it’s technical terms – some disguised as loan translators – to the Šiksās and the pratiŠākhyas. On more than one occasion, modern investigations have vindicated the ancient Indians observations over against their modern critics like Whitney. Etymology or nirukta was largely speculative and fragmentary in those pioneer attempts. One must not forget, however, that some of these etymologies were in reality thinly disguised attempts at semantic dissection and must be evaluated as such. Moving to Prakrit as opposed to Sanskrit etymology, the picture is more creditable – the Prakrit grammarians did take the first momentous step in historical and comparative linguistics, namely, recognizing sets of systematic phonemic correspondence between historically related languages.  Curiously enough, we have no theoretical treatises that will ground these practical achievements onto a system of generalizations. ( I say curiously because the picture is quite the opposite in certain other fields- the ancient Indians, for example, produced some brilliant treatments of poetics, but there is no literary criticism of specific texts worth the name.) The nearest one comes to general linguistics is in some treatises on the philosophy of language-notably Bhartrhari’s Vākyapadiya, an exposition of the sphota theory of language-and in semantic discussion on the powers of words(ŠabdaŠaktiö) by logicians of the Nyāya school and by the students of poetics. All in all, it was not nobody should be credited with being the first to have a particular linguistic insight until after one has made sure that no Indian has anticipated him centuries earlier. Only, one must not forget that one may have to dig out tons of inferior commentarial ore before coming across such nuggets of gold.


The first scholarly contact with the modern west took the shape of western antiquarians seeking the help of a Hindu pandit or a muslim maulavi in exploring the rich treasures of traditional learning. This remained (and unfortunately still remains) an unequal and therefore limited encounter. But the antiquarian bias thus given to language studies in modern India is still with us. We have to wait for the first university trained generation of Indian scholars to come up and play in the deliberations of the Asiatic Societies of Bengal and Bombay and receive their training in the universities of Germany, England, and France. Indian antiquary was founded in Bombay in 1872 as “a journal of oriental research in archeology, epigraphy, ethnology, geography, history, folklore, languages, literature, numismatics, philosophy, religion etc.”  Linguistic studies –or philogical studies as they were then called- were to remain so tucked away in Indology throughout the first period (1877-1919) of South Asian linguistics, which opens with the inauguration of the Wilson Philological Lecture series at the University of Bombay by the Indo- Aryanist R.G.Bhandarkar, the Indian co-founder with the John Beames, A.F. Rudolf Hoernle, and Bishop Robert Caldwell of the modern study of South Asian Languages. Although there were Indian sanskritists in the modern sense before him – Ram Mohan Roy, the father of Modern Indian Awakening for example, if no other- Bhandarkar was the first Indian to study modern philosophy. The complexion of linguistic studies was decidedly historical: the focus was on phonology and morphology:; the horizon was exclusively Indo-European, if not Indo-Iranian, if not Indo-Aryan, if not limited to Sanskrit. This state of affairs was to continue more or less unchanged in the next period also; Sukthankar (1941, p.598) had good cause to continue to animadvert on his generation which was “so conservative- that it never occurs to any one of us to study any language outside our special, hallowed system of languages”. Hindus would have no interest ordinarily in Arabic and Persian; Muslims in Sanskrit; North Indians in Dravidian; non-Parsis in old and middle Iranian. The so called adivasi languages would be left to missionaries and European officers; interest in languages outside South Asia- even in Greek and Latin and Tibetan and Chinese-would be minimal.

            The next period (1919-54), which may be conveniently dated from the publication of Jules Blotch’s La Formation de la langue marathe, shows improvement in one important respect. The rather wholly, vaguely romantic synthesis represented by Max Müller’s lecture on the science of language(1862-66), so pleasing to the new- found Indian national consciousness in it’s idolization of Sanskrit, finally lost it’s grip. The Juggrammatikers’ revolution finally caught up with South Asian Linguistics. Around 1919, a number of things happened. The University of Calcutta founded a chair for Comparative Philology in 1913; I.J.S Taraporewala was the first Indian to be appointed to it (in 1917). In 1921 the University of London awarded a young Indian, Suniti Kumar Chatterji, D.Litt for his work on the The origin and development of the Bengali language done at the newly founded School of Oriental Studies. Chatterji held the Calcutta professorship from 1922 to 1952 and put India on the International map of linguistics to follow. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute was founded at Poona in1917 and was the venue in 1919 of the first Oriental conference. P.D Gune’s Introduction to comparative philology was first  published in 1918 and was to be the staple English reading of generations of young Indian philologists along with A.C.Woolners Introduction to Prakrit (1917) Otto Jespersons’s Language (1922),    Joseph Vendryes’s  Le language (1921, English translation 1931), and I.J.S.Taraporewala’s Elements of the  science language(1931). Jules Bloch, L.P Tessitori,R.L.Turner in the West and Chatterji, Siddeswar Varma, Baburam Saksena, Dhirendra Varma, L.V.Ramaswamy Aiyar, Balakrishna Ghosh, Muhammad Shahidullah, in India represent the next generation in South Asian linguistics. Sir George Abraham Grierson- representing a fine tradition of administrators turned scholors- completed his monumental LSI (1903-28) in this period with the assistance of Sten Konow. It began to show it’s impact- the teeming non-literary dialects of “cultivated languages” and the “uncultivated languages” finally came into their own. The Reverend T.Grahame Bailey and Chatterji introduced the International Phonetic Alphabet to the philologists (respectively in A Panjabi phonetic reader 1914; and in A Brief sketch of Bengali phonetics 1921). Finally, we must note the accentuating of a trend that was already present in the first period and even earlier. The rise of modern literatures in the regional languages in the 19th century, the standardization of anew prose medium (the ancient literatures being predominantly in verse), the practical needs of the European officers and the missionaries, the growing importance of the regional consciousness- all of these converged to make the need felt for standard grammars and dictionaries. These were necessarily bilingual at first (grammars in English, the dictionary glosses in English); later grammars written in the respective languages and* later unilingual dictionaries remained on the whole innocent of linguistics of any brand till the next period. The dates of these broadly reflect the uneven time-spread of the British conquest, of regional cultural developments, and of the weaning away from English. (The dates of the influential text books on linguistics in the regional languages may also be compared with these.)

       The holding, in 1954, of the first separate meeting on the Linguistic Society of India (founded in 1928 at the 5th Indian Oriental Conference at Lahore) marks the beginning of the contemporary phase in South Asian Linguistics. The coming of independence to India in1947 transformed the very complexion of scholarly contact between Indians and the rest of the world. The 1953 conference of linguists and Indian educationists presided over by Sir Ralph Turner at Deccan College, Poona expressed the need for an intensive training programme in India for young linguists who could then take up a fresh linguistic survey of the country based on first-hand field study. The Language Project (1954-59) at Deccan College made this desideratum a reality; since 1960, the summer school of Linguistics have continued under other auspices. Indian linguistics was finally ready to catch up with the Saussure-Sapir-Bloomfield revolution in linguistics. The newly founded Linguistic Research Group of Pakistan under the energetic stewardship of Anwar S.Dil held the First Pakistan Conference of Linguists at Lahore in 1962.Ceylon is feeling the impact of the new linguistics. The newly founded Tribhuvan Unversity at Kathmandu, NeÖpal has provision for Indology and linguistics. Though universities in this area have been accepting dissertations on linguistic subjects for a long time, Calcutta was still the only South Asian university center in 1954 offering a regular course in the subject. There are now over 15 universities that offer some course in linguistics. Linguistics has been put back on the map of Indian scholarship. There is also a practical motivation for this study- the so called language problems of South Asia, especially the need for expanding, updating, and diversifying language teaching facilities. The danger of unscholarly motives like regional or national chauvinism creeping into language studies is very real but is probably not a serious threat. A welcome feature of the present situation is that linguistics has started attracting recruits from fields other than language teaching, literature, and cultural history. In addition, there are research groups interested in language at the science institutes at Bombay and Bangalore.


We are now ready to take an overview of the organization of South Asian linguistic studies which will enable one to place a given work against its institutional background.


At one extreme are facilities organized by foreigners primarily fro their own use either in their own countries or on south Asian soil. London, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Paris, G Öttingen, Heidelberg, Berlin, Rome, Leningrad, Pennsylvania, Yale, Wisconsin, Chicago, Cornell, Berkeley, Texas, Tokyo are some of the important university centers. The Netherlands,  Portugal, Norway, China, Munda Language project of the University of Chicago, Ecole francaise d’Extrême-Orient, South Asia Institute of Heidelberg that also operated in India. South Asians of course have benefited considerably from these foreign efforts.


Nearer home are works written for the benefit of European officials in colonial India and Ceylon and of Christian clergy, missionaries, and Bible translators a coming from the west. The role of missionaries centers like Serampore, Tinnelvelly, Mangalore , Madras, Goa, Ranchi is notable. We owe the works of Caldwell, H.Gundert, Ferdinand Kittel, and A.H.Arden on Dravidian languages in the first phase to this activity. Foreign agencies for klpromoting English, French, or German language studies in South Asia also belong here.


On a more disinterested plane is the scholarly activity of British and, later, Indian officials in the various governmental agencies like the Linguistic Survey of India, the Anthropologicl Survey of India, the Census of India, the Tribal departments in Maharashtra, Madhyapradesh (and the Central provinces and Berar), Bihar, Orissa, and Assam. Many British administrators and army officers also carried on scholarly activity as an act of supererogation.


Indian scholarly agencies with a clearly international orientation – involving the use of English in publication outlets and the association of visiting foreign scholars for example- are the universities a departments of philology or linguistics and associated research institutes (for example, Calcutta, Poona, Annamalai, Agra, Saugor, Osmania, Delhi, Kerala universities; Deccan college); endowed lecture series (notably Wilson philological lectures at Bombay); specific projects (Sanskrit dictionary at Deccan College, Sinhalese dictionary at Colombo); department of foreign and classical languages and literatures; the Oriental and Indological research institutions (fro example Pune, Baroda, Madras Hoshiarpur institutes; Asiatic Societies of Bengal (At Calcutta), of Pakistan (at Dacca) and of Bombay; Bharatiya vidya Bhavan); and the agencies associate with Hindu, Buddhist, Jain Islamic, and Zoroastrian studies. Arya Samaj and other reformist movements have promoted and influenced humanistic studies. Arya Samaj and the reformist movements have promoted and influenced humanistic studies. Then we must not forget scholarly forums like the Linguistic Society of India, the All-India Oriental Conference, or more local bodies like the linguistic circle of Delhi, the Philological society of Calcutta.


The crop of language problems have naturally given rise to numerous governmental and non-governmental agencies like the language promotion departments (Central Hindi Directorate at Delhi, Panjabi Language Department at Patiala, the three central institutes of English, Hindi, and Sanskrit; agencies tackling the problem of teaching Hindi and other modern Indian languages to Indians as second languages (Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samithi, Wardha; Maharashtra Rashtrabhasha Sabha, Poona; Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras; Antarbharati, Poona; and others); agencies tackling the problem of teaching English(apart from the Central Institute of English there are other bodies at Bombay, Allahabad etc, Dacca was center where Michael West worked); and the various terminology-producing bodies attached to the Government and the universities and Independent ones like the late Dr.Raghu Vira’s International Academy of Indian Culture (at Nagpur, later Delhi). Although foreign cooperation has had a part to play in some of them, these agencies are obviously oriented towards specific local needs.


For years to come, there is no prospect that linguistic work published in South Asian languages will be read on a large scale outside the particular speech communities, let alone outside South Asia. Work in Hindi may be a partial exception – non-Hindi speaking Indians sometimes publish in Hindi. The work of the regionally oriented bodies have served to counteract the immense and sometimes crippling prestige of Sanskrit. Such are the language of literature departments in the regional languages in universities and colleges; the various Sahitya Parishads and similar bodies (Nagari Pracharini Sabha, Anjuman- I Taraqia Urdu, Vangiya Sahitya Parishad, Maharashtra sahitya Parishad, Srilanka Sahitya Mandalaya, Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academy, Jammu and Kashmir Academy of Arts, Cultures and Languages, Gujrat Vernacular Society, Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad, Tamil Sangam and others); and regionally oriented research enterprises(Bihar Research Society, Kamrup Anusandhan Samiti, Vidarbha Samshodan Mandal, and others) and publishing ventures (like Maharashtra Kosha Mandal, Rajasthan Oriental series, Southern Languages book Trust). It must be mentioned, though, that some of those do publish in English or Hindi.


At the other extreme, away from this network institutions, not all of which will be equally useful to linguistic studies, stand some relatively lonely efforts.I have in mine the work of persons like L.V.Ramaswamy Aiyar, Vishwanath Kashinath Rajwade, Kishoridas Vajpeyi, Vasudevashastri Abahyankar, G.K.Modak Shastri, Sitaram Lalas. The fate of purely traditional pandits and maulavis has on the whole been on of playing third or fourth fiddle. The world will be the loser if individual efforts against heavy odds remain neglected.


In the third or contemporary phase we have become so accustomed to the competition of the rival models of language description that younger linguists are apt to forget the vastly different picture that prevailed when these models did not hold the stage. Of course, South Asian Linguistics does not have it’s exhibits of classical American descriptions, Pike- tagmetics, Lagacre-tagmemics, Harris- transformationalism, Chamsky-generativist presentations, Firthian studies, Halliday-inspired systemic grammars, even glossematic studies. Structuralism has some historical-comparativist work to it’s credit in the Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, and Munda fields. (South Asian linguists have little contribution to make to the Indo-European or even to the Indo-Iranian field).

Dialect comparisons, however and descriptions, however and descriptions of earlier stages preserved in written texts still remain unaffected by structuralism. There have been some frequency counts and information theory has been applied, but glottochronology and computational linguistics are still not in the picture. Out of the hyphenated branches, sociolinguistics has made real headway. The mathematician-Indologist, D.D.Kosambi, has an early critique of Zipf to his credit. In experimental phonetics, one must mention a sizable quantity of London-style kymography and photography and palatography done at London, Edinburgh, Prague, Agra, and Poona; some spectrographic work done mostly abroad; and a whole succession of papers and monographs published by C.R.Shankaran of Poona and his associates centering around the alpha-phoneme and alpha-phonoid theory. Only recently there have been stray papers dealing specifically with linguistic theory- M.A.Mehendrales’s studies in the theory of internal construction, or D.N.Shankar Bhat’s studies in the nature of language change and divergence, for instance. The problem of devising suitable equivalents in Indian languages of technical terms in linguistics found in English has exercised many linguists and non-linguists; and the fruits of their own labors have appeared as dictionaries or glossaries attached to books. 


Most of the book-length treatments of general linguistics that have appeared in South Asia either in English or in south Asian languages in the second hand the third phases(very few before that) are essentially derivative text books trying to cover the whole field then known or to cover a sub-branch like phonetics or semantics. By and large, however one has to infer the general conception of language underlying the mass of specific studies untouched by structuralism in the absence of explicit methodological or theoretical discussions.

The general orientation thus revealed has already been suggested in the historical review of the three periods. For comments on specific text books on general linguistics and its branches written in South Asian languages, other articles in this volume may also be consulted. Some general observations may be made here.

(1)   Surprisingly enough there have not been many significant attempts to relate the work of Pānini or other ancient grammarians to modern linguistics, or to reassess their work, or to make explicit the assumptions underlying it or to apply their methods to contemporary languages. There are no neo-Pānians.

(2)   Expectably the dominant orientation in the first and the second periods was historical. Books purporting to be on general linguistics or semantics. And yet, there is ground for suspecting that the classical historical doctrine of sound change and anology, intrinsic and extrinsic forces, inherited and revived or borrowed traits, language split and partial convergence through borrowing and substratum influence has not really seeped through. Too often there is loose talk of language and dialect mixture without any effort to determine paternity: too often there is a refusal to follow through the implications of a historical finding; too often there is amateur etymologizing; too often there is a failure to distinguish between genuine sound change and sound substitution in tatsama revival. Not too often but often enough to be disturbing, there is an explicit or implicit rejection of the whole historical assumption-one still comes across brave attempts to derive even Arabic or Tamil from Sanskrit. The reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European is suspected to be an attempt to dethrone Sanskrit from natural position as the mother of all languages. Most of the textbooks show a very perfunctory treatment of comparative reconstruction.

(3)   The Indian penchant for synthesis or desire to displease nobody often results in cheerful conflation of disparate or even conflicting elements. A recent grammar of Hindi, to take a relatively trivial example, postulates with the moderns a direct and an oblique case, at the same time recognizing the seven Sanskrit-like cases with their case endings! The more recent text-books or doctoral dissertations will garnish an essentially traditional plan with a sprinkling of allophones and morphemes. There is an all too great readiness to read into ancient lore anticipations of modern ideas.

(4)   A closely related failing is an insufficient sense of context, of logical interrelatedness. Statements of Western and Indian “authorities” will be torn out of context- particularly definitions- only to be piled up irrelevantly to parade the author’s learning or to be commandeered to support his statement. There is no sense of an ongoing discipline with provisional syntheses, palace revolutions, and new theories necessitating a total renovation and reassessment of all the existing ideas. If an American tyro will behaves if there was no linguistics before Chomsky or if a Continental conservative will behave as if there was no linguistics after Brugmann or whoever, the Indian’s sense of continuity (which is not such a bad thing after all) can run away with his sense of methodological rigor. The vague psychologizing about the origin and growth of languages of the first period is carried over into the second period after the Junggrammatikers had made some impact without any sense of incongruity.

(5)   The weakness of such scholarly apparatus as bibliography, index, references has been frequently noted in reviewing South Asian work. The editing of journals and monograph series is lackadaisical- a far cry indeed from the briskness and the meticulous attention to style in all senses of a Bernard Blotch. The stratified power structure of the South Asian academic community hamstrings an editor as it does a would be candid reviewer.

(6)    The general plan of typical South Asian textbook on linguistics can be formalized somewhat as follows:

(i) (a) What is language?

                 (b) What is linguistics?

                 (c) history of linguistics

            (ii)       (a) Articulatory phonetics (basically that of Sanskrit and English)

(b) Phonetic change


(c) Word-building, inflection, word- classes 

(d) Sentence analysis

(e) Semantic change (often with an excursus on ŠabdaŠakti)

(iii)              (a) Origin of language

(b) Growth of a language

(c) Causes of change

(d) Language variation in time, space, and social strata

(e) Structural and genetic classification of languages

(f) Linguistic paleontology (i.e. the reconstruction of pre-history from linguistic evidence) and comparative reconstruction (perfunctory treatment)

(iv)              (a) Indo-European family; centum and satem ; Grimm’s Law and Verner’s


(b) Languages of India

(c) Old, Middle, and New Indo-Aryan

(d) Languages of the world

This scheme is no doubt over-formalized –the four main divisions shown will normally thoroughly interlard each other.


(7)   South Asian linguistics is of course an ambiguous term: it can refer either to work by South Asian linguists or to work about South Asian languages. While the comments so far (from (1) to (6) were directed at the former, the ones that follow (from (7) to (9) are very often applicable also to the work of western scholars on South Asian languages.

The general plan of the description of a language or dialect or a given historical stage of a language preserved in written texts can be formalized somewhat as follows:


(i)     Phonology

*(a) The alphabet: letters and their articulatory classification (sometimes     

        with a capsule introduction to articulatory phonetics)

*(b) Accent and intonation (perfunctory treatment )

*(c) Sandhi rules

(ii)    Word grammar

(a)    Parts of speech

(b)   Survey from nouns to interjections, under each of the following headings: subclasses *categories of inflection *derivation, uses in a sentence of the inflected form including concord and government

(c)    Word building* derived words *reduplicated word* composite words

(iii)  Sentence grammar

(a)    The analysis of a simple sentence (after the logician Alexander Bain’s English grammar)

(b)   Complex and compound sentences

(c)    Word order

(iv)  (a) Orthography (If a written language)

(v)   (b) Punctuation (If a contemporary language)

(b) Versification

(c)  Figures of speech

(e) Etymology (being a capsule history of the language)

An obelisk marks optional elements, an asterisk indicates heavy reliance on the model of Sanskrit. Incidentally, looking at (ii) and (iii) here, it would seem that the so called word-and paradigm model is better termed the paradigm-and use model to bring out it’s partial viability in comparison with item and arrangement and item- and process models.)

(8)   The general plan of the history of a cultivated language (often tagged on to a history of literature and often prefaced with a capsule introduction to linguistics) can be formalized somewhat as follows:

The Origin and Development of the X language

(i)     Origin: place in the family, earliest surviving written records; epochs in the history

(ii)    Vocabulary elements : for example, for  modern Indo-Aryan language: tatsama, tadbhava, desi, and foreign (i.e known cultural borrowings)

(iii)  Phonology: the sound correspondences between contemporary X and the languages listed in (ii), possibly with a reverse index

(iv)   Morphology : derivatives affixes and their etyma, reduplication, composition, inflectional affixes and their etyma; numerals, pronouns, particles and their etyma(morphology usually arranged by parts of speech)

(v)   Dialects

(vi)  Script and orthography


An obelisk marks optional elements.

(9)   The general plan of an entry in a unilingual or bilingual dictionary is somewhat as follows:

(i)     Entry word in the local script

(ii)    Transliteration in Roman or Devanagari

(iii)  Origin tag- Sanskrit, Persian, English etc.

(iv)  Part of speech tag

(v)   Subclass tag- gender of a noun, transitivity of a verb

(vi)  String of glosses (* with some punctuational structuring

(vii) Idioms with glosses

(viii)           Citations from literary texts

(ix)  Etymology

An obelisk marks optional elements.


We have a long way to go. We can begin to adopt the words of Goethe cited by Sukthankar 1941, p.609) by acquiring what we have inherited – from our own past as well as from the rest of the world.








Chomsky, A. Noam, Aspects of the theory of syntax. (Cambridge, Mass, 1965).

Sukthankar, V.S., “The position of linguistic studies in India”. Proceedings of the 10th All India Oriental Conference 593-609 (1941). Deliverd 1940. Reptd Bharātiya vidya 2.23-35 (1942);  Sukthankar memorial edition 2. 386-99 (Bombay: Karnatak, 1945).





This was published in Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 5, Linguistics in South Asia, The Hague: Monton, 1969, p 532-42.



Editor : Thomas A.Seboek

1.Soviet and East European Linguistics

   Associate Editors:Paul L.Garvin, Horace Lunt, Edward Stankiewicz

   Assistant Editor: John R.Kreuger

1963,XII+606 pp.f 70-/$20.00

2.Linguistics in East Asia and South East Asia

Associate Editors: Yuen Ren Chao, Richard B.Noss, Joseph K. Yamagiwa

Assistant Editor: John R.Kreuger

                                                                    1967. XX + 979 pp.f150-$42.00

3.Theoretical Foundations

Associate Editors: Charles A. Ferguson

Assistant Editor:  Albert Valdman

                                                                1966 XII + 537pp. f 60-/$17.15


4.Ibero-American and Caribbean Linguistics

Associate Editors: Robert Lado, Norman A.McQuown, Sol Saporta

Assistant Editor: Yolanda Lastra

                                                               1968. XVIII+660 pp.


5.Linguistics In South West Asia and North Africa

Associate Editors: Charles A. Ferguson,Carleton T.Hodge, Herbert H.Paper

Assistant Editor: John R.Kreuger, Gene M.Schremm


6.Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa

Associate Editors: Jack Berry, Joseph H.Greenberg

Assistant Editor: David W.Crabb,Paul Schachter


7.Linguistics in Oceania

Associate Editors: J.Donald Bowen, Isidore Dyen, George W.Grace,

Stephen Wurm

Assistant Editor: Geoffrey O’Grady


8.Linguistics in Western Europe

Associate Editors: Einar Haugen, Werner Winter

Assistant Editor: Curtis Blaylock


9.Linguistics in North America

Associate Editors: William Bright, Dell Hymes, John Lotz,

                              Albert H.Marckwardt, Jean Paul Vinay


10.Diachronic, Areal, and Typological Linguistics

Associate Editors: Henry M.Hoengiswald, Robert E.Longacre


11.Linguistics and Adjacent Arts and Sciences

Associate Editors: Arthur S.Abramson,Dell Hymes, Herbert rubenstein, Edward stankiewcz

Assistant Editor:Bernard Spolsky


12.Index to Current trends in Linguistics, Vols 1-12,

                              volumes 6-`3 are in preperation