Francis J. Whitfield
1 KH
V
SABBATICAL LEAVE FfcOGRAH
la the summer of 1952, whan Professor Louis Hjelaslev, of the University of Copenhagen, as the test in his course on glossematic theory the draft translation that X had prepared of his Catering sprogteoriens gnindlaeggcO.se. At the tine, we worked together to prepare the text as It appeared, in the following year, under the title Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (Memoir ? of Indiana University Publications In Anthropology and Linguistics). As a not simply a translation, but, in some respects, a revision of the original monograph. Subsequent corre- were able to have for intensive work together in i960, efter our participation in the International Congress for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science at Stanford University— led , further revised version of the Prolegomena, published by the University of Wisconsin Press in 1961 and reprinted in 1963*
visiting Indiana University, he used
result of our discussions, this version
spondence - and a few days that
to the preparation of a
I hope that in the costing summer and academic year I shall be able to
devote most of my time to a critical examination of glossematic theory and time in Poland both to become better
practice. 1 would plan to acquainted with the current work of linguists like Leon Zawadowski, whose
with glossematic principles of analysis, and to renew contacts with Polish lexicographical centers. The
published studies have obvious relatl
Kosclussko Foundation Dictionary, of which I am a co-author, is now being prepared for a revised and enlarged edition, and I am particularly interested in revisiting the workshop of the Academy Dictionary, directed by Vitold
Doroszewskl.
2Sabbatical Lea:ve Program F.J. Whitfield
X would spend the academic peer 1964-1965 end, If possible, the following summer In Copenhagen — with occasional abort trips to Poland if these should seen desirable, this would be ny first opportunity to have an extended period of tine in the center etf glossenatlc research. As denning Spaag-H&nssen has pointed out in his report on glossesaatics to the Minth International Congress of linguists (fronds in European and American Linguistics 1930-1960, pp. 128-164), a large mount of the work done by atfelmslev and others in the application of gXossematie theory to specific problems of linguistic analysis has so far home fruit only in provisional, unpublished reports and discussions. If, as X hope, X am to continue to take part in the testing and development of the theory, I need to work and compare results with others actively engaged in the of research. My own work would he both on general, theoretical problems, and on applications in ths analysis and description of Fellah and of Old Church Slavic. (In Old Church Slavic, X have already made sane very modest applications of glossenatlc principles of analysis in the sections on morphology in ay Header.) X have expressed in print (Languase 31.550-554) my dissatisfaction with the erne full-length critical study of glos; X hope that the program X have planned nay enable me to produce a better one as well as to test the theory by particular applications in Slavic descriptive linguistics.
kind
tics that has so far appeared.