Linguistic Society of America

The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen; Anwar S. Dil

Review by: J. V. Neustupný
Language, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1975), pp. 236-242
Published by: Linguistic Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/413169 .
Accessed: 10/01/2013 13:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:53:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
236 LANGUAGE,VOLUME51, NUMBER 1 (1975)

separate dialects, registers, or FUNCTIONALLYDIFFERENTIATEDLANGUAGEVARIETIESOF WHATEVER

KIND' (92). The concept is spreadso thin that new, specializedterms will be requiredto describe
the HIL diglossia (as in Egypt, Greece, and Switzerland)with which Ferguson was originally
concerned.We are thus caught in a vicious circle of burgeoning,and often shallow, terminology.
A special section entitled 'Linguistics: the science of code description ... and more' has been
retainedfrom Fishman 1970, where it was section one of the text; it now appearsas an appendix
with the subtitle 'Addendum for non-linguists'. Both this and the 23-item 'linguistic reading
list' (249-50) remain unchanged from 1968, the year the manuscript was completed. The
material is uneven and outdated. It should have been omitted, or else strongly revised and
brought up to date.
F has remediedthe problem to some extent by writing a second addendum'for linguists', in
which he sets up SOL as an alternativeto Chomskyanlinguistics. Generativesemanticsreceives
cautious praise: 'It is, of course, necessary to appreciateand to master both areas of concern
[SOL and generativesemantics].I personallydoubt that one is more correct than the other, or,
without specifyingthe exact problem to be answered,that one is basicallymore useful than the
other. As long as both are DATAoriented, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating' (214).
This addendum is sketchy but suggestive.

The book is printed in a pleasing, easy-to-read format. The numerous tables and
diagrams are also well-printed and easy to follow. This is, then, a suitable intro-
ductory text provided the instructor supplies explanations to supplement F's
terminology and general social science orientation. The book should also be supple-
mented by down-to-earth selections from the new SOL readers, as F himself
suggests (p. x).
I believe that this is the best SOL textbook written to date. The field as it exists
at present owes much to Fishman. What we should now hope for is a more clear-cut
taxonomy of SOL, a reduction of terminological juggling, and the establishment of
a more permanent set of theories and research techniques.

REFERENCES
A. 1970. Sociolinguistics: a brief introduction. Rowley, Mass.:
JOSHUA
FISHMAN,
Newbury House.
- (ed.) 1971. Advances in the sociology of language, vol. 1. The Hague: Mouton.
LABOV,WILLIAM.1971. The study of language in its social context. In Fishman 1971,
152-216. [Originally published in Studium Generale 23.30-87, 1970.]
SEBEOK,THOMAS A. (ed.) MS. Current trends in linguistics, vol. 12. The Hague: Mouton.

The ecology of language: Essays by EINAR HAUGEN. Selected and introduced by

Anwar S. Dil. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972. Pp. xiv, 366. $10.00.
Reviewed by J. V. NEUSTUPNY,Monash University, Australia
The study of linguistics has traditionally been the object of less intensive attention
than the study of language. Although it would be neither illegitimate nor unuseful
to follow this practice and to discuss Haugen's Ecology of language as a piece of
evidence about LANGUAGE, I wish to consider this book primarilyas testimony about
the science of LINGUISTICS. During the 40 years of his activity, Haugen has developed
a sociolinguistic system of considerable independence and complexity, a system

This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:53:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEWS 237

which has played a substantial part in the development of contemporary socio-

linguistics and post-structural linguistics in general.
1. EL covers the history of H's sociolinguistic thought since 1938, the publication
date of his essay 'Language and immigration'. In his 'Author's postscript' (340-43)
H classifies his own contribution to sociolinguistics into two chronological periods,
each characterized by a different topical range. The first period (1938 till the mid-
fifties) was concerned with bilingualism and borrowing. The subsequent period is
predominantly one of building up a theory of language problems and of laying
foundations for international linguistics ('Semicommunication', 'National and
international languages').
1.1. FIRSTPERIOD.In the first period fall the type of studies which I propose to call 'Socio-
linguistics I'. As a whole these are a by-product of structurallinguistics, an offshoot which de
facto attacks structuralism,notably the rule of limitation to langue and to the study of a single
variety of langue. None of the linguistic studies of this type appeared in Joos 1957, and their
entire scope was not displayed until Hymes 1964.
The full play of determinantswhich made H participatein this type of sociolinguisticswould
need more data for complete clarification.Some are, however, obvious: his interestin literature,
philology and language teaching-all documented in Dil's 'Bibliography of Einar Haugen's
works' (344-66)-and of course the fact that H himself is bilingual, which led directly to his
studies in linguistic borrowing, and finally to his Norwegianlanguage in America (1953) and
Bilingualism in the Americas (1956).
1.2. TRANSITION.The two books named represent, in many respects, a transitional phase
between the two main periods of H's sociolinguistics. Only the first work is representedin EL
(ch. 4, 'The confusion of tongues'). Although the importance of the book, and the role which
H's teaching and publications on American Norwegian played in the development of bilingual
studies, should by no means be underestimated,I would suggest that TheNorwegianlanguagein
Americastands ratherbefore, and Bilingualismin the Americasafter, the commencementof H's
second period of sociolinguistic investigations. His vision of further expansion of bilingualism
studies into an interdisciplinaryeffort,transcendingtraditionallinguisticinterests,appearsmuch
more vigorously in 1956 than in 1953. Also, the theoretical framework of Bilingualismin the
Americasshows a differenceof more than a mere three years; H's definition of 'bilingualism'
has furtherbroadenedto cover all degrees of proficiencyand all types of what have later been
called 'varieties'; the concepts of 'native', 'colonial', 'immigrant', and 'creolized' languages
have been established; psycholinguistic problems of 'the bilingual individual' and 'ethno-
linguistic' problems of the 'bilingual community' are recorded; and the difference between
language as a symbol and language as an instrumentis postulated.
Perhapsthe most decisivefactor in this developmentwas the changedatmospherein American
and world linguistics,just ripe to switch over from structuralismto 'post-structural' linguistics.
By 'post-structural', I mean a new developmental stage of linguistics which has succeeded
structural linguistics in the wider sense of the word (not only Bloomfieldian descriptive lin-
guistics), while denying, in accordance with the new social situation of the fifties and sixties,
the validity of the basic characteristicfeaturesof linguisticstructuralism:limitationof linguistics
to the study of grammaticalcompetence (usually with the exclusion of semantics), one-sided
emphasison the referentialfunction of language,lack of interestin linguisticvariation,emphasis
on independenceof languagefrom other social and naturalfacts, staticismand strict application
of two-valued logic, the requirements of the independence of linguistics from other meta-
theoretical systems and mutual independence of various levels of language description (e.g.
phonology and syntax), and acceptanceof arbitrarydescription.With regardto the chronology
of the first post-structuraltrends in sociolinguistics, it should be mentioned that Weinreich's
Languagesin contactappearedin 1953; and the first bibliographicalitems for S. Ervin, J. Gum-
perz, J. Fishman, W. Lambert, W. Mackey, and others are recorded in Bilingualism in the
Americas.

This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:53:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 51, NUMBER 1 (1975)

The post-structuralstage of linguistics has not, so far, produced an integrated paradigm.

It consists of a numberof trendsand varietiesof linguistics,each of them relativelyindependent,
and each of them falsifying differentstructuralistassumptions. Generativegrammarrepresents
one set of such varieties of post-structurallinguistics, sociolinguistics another. The first and
most vigorous post-structuralvariety of sociolinguistics,which I shall call 'Sociolinguistics II',
reveals obvious connections with the interest in bilingualism within Sociolinguistics I, and
develops from this into a general theory of linguistic variation.1
1.3. SECONDPERIOD.H's work in his second period forms an important component of
SociolinguisticsII. As noted above, his main focus of interest shifts from the generalproblems
of bilingualismto the consideration of language problems-or as he has termed it, to language
planning.
Several features of H's theory of language problems confirm that his work in this period is
not simply an extension of his previous work-though admittedly closely related to it-but
belongs to a new post-structuralvariety of sociolinguistics. The first feature can be seen in
H's programmaticconfidence.It is by the end of the fifties that he openly attacksthe structuralist
policy of 'Leave your language alone', first with some reluctance and apologetic overtones
(1959, revised 1961, EL p. 143), then with full confidence and zeal (1962, EL p. 150).
The second feature which distinguishesH's work in this period from that of SociolinguisticsI
is a conscious striving toward a firm theoreticalframework.In 1953 Aasen's efforts toward the
creation of a new Norwegian language were still referred to by the metaphorical expression
'linguistic revolt' (Haugen 1953:154); but in 1959 H uses for the first time the term'language
planning', for which he subsequentlydevelops his theory. The only major theory of language
problems available in structurallinguistics was the Mathesius-Havranektheory of the Prague
School, which appearedin the thirtiesmostly in Czech. H's theory has not merely been the only
such theory in Americansociolinguistics,but one that has greatlyinfluencedmodernapproaches
to the issue, and has been used as a basis for such projectsas the InternationalResearchProject
on LanguagePlanning Processes (cf. Jernudd1971:492).
Two slightly different models of language planning were written by Haugen in 1964 and
published in 1966: 'Linguistics and language planning' (EL ch. 8), and 'Dialect, language,
nation' (EL ch. 11). The second of these models is also presented in Chapter 1 of H's book
Language conflict and language planning (1966). The first model presents a sequential analysis
into (1) fact-finding(problems),(2) considerationof alternativeplans of action (alternativesand
evaluation), (3) making of decisions (policy), and (4) implementation. It also contains the
discussion of three 'criteria', namely (a) efficiency, (b) rationality, and (c) commonalty. The
second model presentsthe 'criteria' and adds what H later(1969, EL p. 288) called 'procedures':
(i) selection of norm, (ii) codificationof form, (iii) elaboration of function, and (iv) propagation
(acceptanceby the community).In 'Language planning,theory and practice' (1969, EL ch. 14),
a revised version of the sequential analysis is presented together with the 'procedures', while
the 'criteria' recede to the background.It may be of interest to note here that some of these
notions, as H readily acknowledges, have been borrowed from Havranek, Kloss, Ray et al.
This fact however in no way diminishes the uniqueness and strength of H's theory, which
brought all these concepts together and provided them with a suitable data background of
H's work on language planning in Scandinavia.
Finally, it is not merely the presence of a program and a theoretical frameworkthat distin-
guishes H's second sociolinguistic period from Sociolinguistics I. I wish to argue that, in this
period, H's thought is characterizedby a new approachto languageproblems.It is this approach
that most decidedly transcends the limits of structural linguistics and lends H's theory its
post-structuralcharacter.
In defyingthe concept of a self-containedlangue, any theory of languageproblemsis basically
anti-structuralist.But it remains a fact that, even during the period of structurallinguistics, a
1It seems to make sense to group, under the heading of SociolinguisticsII, all sociolinguistic
work pertaining to linguistic variation (Fishman-type, Gumperz-type, Labov-type etc.) In the
same way, I propose that all trends analogous to Hymes' 'ethnography of communication'
should be called 'Sociolinguistics III'.

This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:53:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEWS 239

certain amount of thought was always given to language problems. Historically speaking, the
more recentapproachesto languageproblemscan be classifiedinto threedevelopmentalstages-
policy, cultivation, and planning;2 these roughly parallel the historical stages of general
linguistic theory (pre-structural,structural, post-structural), and the recent stages of the
developmentof language(early modern,modern, contemporary;cf. Neustupny 1974).Needless
to say, this typology should be viewed as a generalizationof a high order, valid for the majority
of historical cases, but not necessarilyfor all.
The first approach to language treatment, which I have called the POLICYapproach, is
characteristicfor periods of linguisticunificationwhen selection (or creation) of whole varieties
or sectors of language is at stake, and when such selections are politically feasible. This
approach often combines with nationalism in political thought, and with historical or syn-
chronic typologies plus marked activity in school grammar in linguistic thought. The
systems of language treatment in less developed parts of 19th-century Europe, where new
languages were standardizedand new nations formed, are typical examples. The Norwegian
situation of the Knudsen and Aasen era, as presentedby Haugen (EL ch. 6 and Haugen 1966),
belongs here.
The second approach, which I have named the CULTIVATIONapproach, originates usually
after a certain degree of unification is achieved and more microscopic problems become
conspicuous. The new system appeals to individuals rather than to representatives of the
community. Details of morphology, spelling, lexicon, style etc. are discussed. It is the main-
tenance (in the sense of 'servicing') of language that remains politically feasible.
The Americanapproachto languageproblemshas long been an example of a weak cultivation
approach without governmental participation. The slogan 'Leave your language alone'
establishes the monopoly of one single evaluation criterion. Variation in usage continues to
exist, but does not attract attention. As H reminds us, it was not until the 1940 Michigancon-
ference sponsored by the ACLS that the problems of America's multilingualismwere faced by
linguists in an organizedmanner(Haugen 1956:13). It may be of interestto note in this context
that H's own attitudes during the first period also occasionally reveal his inherent cultivation
approach. While dealing with the American situation in this period, he does not direct his
research apparatustoward the problem of language selection (referredto later by Fishman as
maintenanceand shift), but concentrateson a typical cultivation-typeproblem of interference.
His concern seems to be primarilywith the individualbilingual speaker-his deviation from the
accepted standard,and his right to his own usage. The same attitude can be observed also with
regard to the languagesituation in contemporaryNorway. In 1959, H's picture was still one of
two styles of the same language which were coming closer to each other (EL p. 142). This
coincides with the inherent conviction of structural linguists that developed communities do
not sufferfrom policy-type problems, and with their genuine surprisewhenever language riots
occur in the developed world (cf. Zgusta 1962). However, in his 1972 postscriptto EL, H rightly
admits that 'his belief that the two [standards]were only "stylistic norms" has been shaken by
the intransigenceof the combatants' (EL p. 343). I would guess that his admission is not merely
a consequenceof furtherdevelopmentsin Norway, but reflectsa new, thirdapproachto language
problems.
This third approach, which deserves Haugen's favorite term 'language PLANNING', has been
called forth by the same factors which led to the turn toward post-structurallinguistics in
general: renewed visibility of social stratificationwithin communities, emergenceof worldwide
networks, recognition of the utility of science, and optimism with regard to the possibility of
planned intervention into the life of society. Thus, under the planning approach, definition of
language problems widens considerably. Both the problem of selection of varieties and that
of their maintenance('servicing') are discussed. The former trend, which resembles the older
policy approach,is especiallyconspicuous both with regardto the 'developing' and 'developed'

2 This scheme alters somewhat my original suggestions presented at the symposium on

CurrentFrontiers in Linguistic Anthropology, Kyoto 1968 (cf. Neustupny 1970). I am greatly
indebted to B. Jernudd for continuous discussion of the scheme and suggestions toward its
improvement(cf. Jernudd 1973).

This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:53:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 51, NUMBER 1 (1975)

languages. The latter trend, resembling the cultivation approach, is often used for English;
e.g., Labov's type of sociolinguisticsand Bernstein'sinterestin restrictedand elaboratedcodes,
although not always formulated as discussions of language problems, are among the repre-
sentative examples of this trend.
With the three types of systems in mind, it will be obvious that the theoretical approach to
language planning presented by H in the sixties is intrinsicallydifferentfrom the structuralist
attitudes to language problems. It is not only more programmaticand theoretical, but reveals
a considerablybroadenedconcept of problemsin linguisticvariation, and can safely be charac-
terized as a component of the post-structuralSociolinguisticsII.
It should also be noted that two other post-structurallines of thought can be observed in H's
sociolinguistics: one is the already mentioned interest in internationallinguistics. In his paper
'National and international languages', H observes that 'If we transfer this situation to the
international scene, we see that the world as a whole is in much the same state as were the
nations of Europe at the time of the Renaissance and as many new nations are today' (1966,
EL p. 263). This is an interesting idea which deserves more elaboration. The second line of
post-structuralthought can be characterizedas an attempt to integrate, within linguistics, the
facts of linguistic indeterminacy,gradience,and the dynamic characterof language (cf. Bailey,
MS). This idea appears quite early in H's writings: in 1950 he wrote that 'language is probably
not a closed system at all, but a complex congeries of interactingsystems, open at both ends,
namely the past and the future!' (EL p. 74). The same motif recurs with great frequencyin his
papers of the seventies (EL pp. 300, 304, 317, 335).

2. In the preceding section, attention was directed primarily toward H's socio-
linguistic thought. Thought, however, is only one of several components of meta-
linguistic systems. It is not difficult to identify at least four other types of
components: inquiry, communicative idiom, application, and the social system of
the discipline.
H's influencein sociolinguisticsderivesnot only from his thought, but also from his system of
inquiry. Structuralistinquiry was based on the informant system. The study of bilingualism,
however,led H quite earlyto the recognitionthat'we cannot limitourselvesto the intensivestudy
of one or two importantinformantswith the reasonableinsurancethat these will be typical of
the community as a whole' (1953:319-20). Within post-structuralsociolinguistics, which is
interested in variation and hence marked by an intensive call for empirical and data-oriented
studies, H's American Norwegian surveys, his accounts of the Norwegian language treatment,
his obvious knowledge of the language policies of other Europeanlanguages, his Scandinavian
semi-communicationstudies-all these have considerablysupported the prestige of his theo-
retical work.
The discipline of linguistics, considered as communication about language, is one of the
aspects which most readilyescapes attention in metalinguisticaccounts. As linguists, we possess
within our over-all system of communicative competence one or more systems of rules for
transcribingour linguistic thought into messages, and messages back into thought. Unless we
employ the addressee'sMETALINGUISTIC IDIOM, it is most probable that our messages will either
not be acceptedat all or that they will be misunderstood,howeverclose our and our addressee's
thought may be. A metalinguisticidiom has basically the same structureas any other linguistic
variety: there are rules which assign elements of the social situation in which a message is
produced to elements of communicative competence, and elements which transform these
'underlying structures' into 'surface structures'. The specific rules of metalinguistic idioms
which have monopolized the attention of linguistsare terminologysystems.But there are others,
such as variety rules (in which variety is a paper written?), setting rules (time of publication,
journal, publisher), channel rules (spoken or written, printed or mimeographed), personnel
(author's or reader'scharacteristics),message-formrules (structuring,form of references),and
of course other semantic rules (which topics and terms representthe elements of thought, etc.)
Some of the inter- and intra-communityvariation in metalinguisticidioms is certainly related

This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:53:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEWS 241

to variation in linguistic thought; i.e., there are, among others, pre-structural,structural,and

post-structuralidioms. Some of the variation, however, is definitelyonly a differenceof 'style'
and should not be over-emphasized.3
H's sociolinguisticidiom is basically a variety of the Americanidiom of his period. However,
it is characterizedby a considerablevariationrange; thus comparehis 'Problems of bilingualism'
(1950, EL ch. 3), writtenin a ratherfree style, with the strictly descriptivistform of 'The analysis
of linguistic borrowing' (1950, EL ch. 4). The contrast is sharpenedboth by the identical date
of publication and the topical overlappingof both papers. To what extent have H's American
contemporaries-to say nothing of their European colleagues-been able and/or prepared to
vary their idiom with varyingaudiences? It is necessaryto see this 'bilingualism' in connection
also with H's wide reading. His bibliographiesare exceptionallyrich, and can in that respect be
compared to those of U. Weinreich.
Among the 17 paperscollected in EL, only chapters 1, 2, 5 (extractedfrom Haugen 1953), and
9 do not seem to be orally presented papers. This shows another significant feature, viz. the
growing importance of the oral medium, which somewhat precedes the beginnings of post-
structural linguistics. For contemporary American linguists, the existence of oral linguistics
may appear as an almost natural feature of their idiom; but on closer inspection it appears to
be quite recent, and is still subject to considerablegeographicalconstraints.
H has been responsible for launching quite a number of new sociolinguistic terms. He says
of himself: 'I discovered that I had been a sociolinguist all my life. But even so, the emphasis
is on the root of the word, the linguist' (EL p. 342-3); and this emphasis on the linguist is true
of his terminology as well. No wonder that those sociolinguists who put the emphasis on the
first element of the word-and they seem to be in the majority-occasionally find that H's
usage, e.g. his application of the word 'planning' to the situation in Norway, does not coincide
with its use in social sciences (Jernudd& Das Gupta 1971).
3. I have claimed above that it was Haugen who first developed a theory of
language problems within the framework of Sociolinguistics II. At present we are
witnessing a trend toward integration of various sociolinguistic and generative
linguistic varieties into a single paradigm. It is, I hope, not unfair to H to mention
here briefly at least three additional features of the future integrated theory of
language problems,4 features which can be expected to result from the influence of
other post-structural metalinguistic trends and varieties.
First, the future theories of language problems will requireincorporation not only
of the rules of language treatment (policy, cultivation, planning, etc.), but of all
similar rules. One major type comprises rules for simple processes of correction
(e.g. re-issuing a miscomprehended utterance), which are not governed by such
highly organized systems as those of language treatment. Another major type of
solution of language problems is systems of language teaching. The whole area of
language problems must be mapped, and all components accommodated within
the integrated theory.
Second, it will not suffice to collate all these components and place them side by
side with the grammatical rules of language. The various systems for solution of
language problems must be accommodated within a single theory, and this theory
must be connected with existing grammatical theories of language. Note that H's
theory of language planning was an addition to grammar, but did not form an
integral whole with it. It seems to me that this requirement can be satisfied if we
3 A typical negative reaction of an intolerant'cannibal' linguist to a foreign idiom relegates
variationsto incoherencein thought: topics which do not agreewith one's own idiom supposedly
originate in misunderstandingof the role of linguistics.
4 An excellent survey of new developmentsin the discipline is available in Rubin 1973.

This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:53:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 51, NUMBER 1 (1975)

reformulate 'language problems' as the occurrence of an 'inadequacy' marker

which may activate certain rules of 'correction', 'treatment' or the like, operating
along with or subsequent to generative rules of language. Language planning then
can be treated as one extreme case of a linguistic process known to us in forms such
as Labov's hypercorrection, speaker's correction of his lexical selection, request for
clarification, correction of children's speech, translation of a book, a foreign-
language teaching class, or an act of literary criticism.
Third, there is the requirement of encompassing, within the theory of language
problems, not merely grammatical competence but the entire communicative
competence of language users. H's theory, although in some respects overstepping
the boundaries of 'grammatical linguistics', is basically centered on grammar,
lexicon, and phonology. It does not pay sufficient attention to language problems
of communicative settings, networks, topics, channels etc. The right of an individual
to his language, the establishment of the language of drama, communication of
social distance among participants, speech particularism, and many other 'micro-
linguistic' problems (cf. Neustupny 1974) constitute salient language problems
which must be fully accounted for within a post-structural theory of language
problems.
Even when these and other changes in the theories of language problems may
take place, Haugen's contribution will remain of basic value-the more so as his
contributions to the progress of linguistics seem to be still increasing.
REFERENCES
BAILEY,C.-J. N. MS.Contributions of the study of variation to the framework of the
new linguistics.
HAUGEN,E. 1953. The Norwegian language in America. 2 vols. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
1956. Bilingualism in the Americas: a bibliography and a research guide.
University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press.
- --. 1966. Language conflict and language planning: the case of modern Norwegian.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
HYMES,DELL(ed.) 1964. Language in culture and society. New York: Harper & Row.
JERNUDD,B. 1971. Review of Haugen 1966. Lg. 47.490-93.
. 1973. Language planning as a type of language treatment. Language planning:
current issues and research, ed. by J. Rubin & R. Shuy, 11-23. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
, and J. DAS GUPTA.1971. Towards a theory of language planning. Can language
be planned?, ed. by J. Rubin & B. H. Jernudd, 195-215. Honolulu: University
Press of Hawaii.
Joos, MARTIN(ed.) 1957. Readings in linguistics. New York: ACLS.
NEUSTUPNY,J. V. 1970. Basic types of treatment of language problems. Linguistic
Communications, Monash University, 1.77-98.
. 1974. The modernization of the Japanese system of communication. Language in
Society 3. 33-50.
RUBIN, J. 1973. Language planning: discussion of some current issues. Language
planning: current issues and research, ed. by J. Rubin & R. Shuy, 1-10. Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
WEINREICH, URIEL.1953. Languages in contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New
York.
ZGUSTA,L. 1962. Simeon Potter's Modern Linguistics: some remarks. Archiv Orientalni
30.156-65.

This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:53:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions