On Bloomfield on Meaning

Abstract

Historians of linguistics have failed to achieve a comprehensive perspective of Leonard Bloomfield's work. Discussion has centered on the misunderstanding among later linguists over Bloomfield's views on meaning. Neither Bloomfield's own attempt at setting the record straight nor the attempts of his defenders and disciples succeeded entirely. This paper begins by examining intrinsic flaws of presentation and argument in the latter and then proceeds to survey Bloomfield's little-discussed treatment of diachronic semantics. There emerges from Bloomfield's work, taken as a whole, a dichotomy, if not an outright paradox, which reflects divergent formative and professional influences in his career.