ffoorr

NNoorrddiicc

CCeennttrree

‘‘TThhee BBiirrtthh ooff AApppplliieedd LLiinngguuiissttiiccss::

TThhee AAnngglloo--SSccaannddiinnaavviiaann SScchhooooll aass

““DDiissccoouurrssee CCoommmmuunniittyy””’’

AAnnddrreeww RR.. LLiinnnn

hhttttpp::////wwwwww..nnoorrddiicc--ssttuuddiieess..ggrroouupp..sshheeff..aacc..uukk

Arts

erve-

Sheff

ield.

co.uk

SSttuuddiieess

HL 35:3 (2008): Article

The Birth of Applied Linguistics:The Anglo-Scandinavian school as‘discourse community’*

Andrew R. LinnUniversity of Sheffield

1. IntroductionThis article has two principal aims. The first

is to argue that there was a distinctive andindependent movement in linguistics in thedecades around the turn of the 20th century,referred to as the Anglo-Scandinavian School,and that it was here that modern appliedlinguistics was established. Several members ofthis School have been studied quite extensively,e.g., Jespersen (Juul & Nielsen 1989), Storm(Juul 2002; Linn 2004a), and Sweet (twomonographs on Sweet are in preparation byAtherton and MacMahon, respectively), but therelationships between them and the commonvision of language study they shared has not beenthoroughly investigated.1 It has been argued thatHenry Sweet (1845–1912), committed as he wasto the study of ‘living language’, can be creditedwith establishing what would later come to becalled applied linguistics (e.g., Howatt &Widdowson 2004: 198–207), but Sweet was not alone scholar. He was rather part of an active andinternational circle of linguists, whocorresponded with each other, visited each other,and championed a new approach to languagestudy, rooted in phonetics, but committed to thestudy of the ‘living language’ in a range of ‘real-world’ contexts. It is not hard to argue that, forexample, Johan Storm (1836–1920) and HenrySweet espoused a common cause and shared acommon philosophy in their linguistic work, soto test the coherence of the School, and to askwhether the historiographical case can really bemade, we are choosing for the present purposesto analyse the movement from the point of viewof Johan August Lundell (1851–1940), one of thegroup’s less high-profile members.

The second and related aim is a

historiographical rather than a historical one, andit concerns the notion of a school in the history oflinguistics. Members of the Anglo-ScandinavianSchool saw themselves as belonging to a‘school’, and the term has been used bysubsequent historiographers. However, it is aproblematic one, and I have already used‘movement’, ‘circle’ and ‘group’ as alternatives,without interrogating that usage and asking whatthe use of these terms implies, whether they areindeed interchangeable, and whether or not it isjustifiable to make the claim that this or thatgroup in the history of language study deservesthe label ‘school’, ‘circle’, ‘movement’, oranything else. I will be suggesting that the notionof ‘discourse community’ (see section 2.2) wouldin fact be a more fruitful one to understand thenature of a group like the Anglo-Scandinaviansand to explain the dynamic which underpinsintellectual history.

The present study grew out of two visits toUppsala in 2007, funded by the British Academyand the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters,History and Antiquities (Kungl.Vitterhetsakademien), to study Lundell’s papers.2

Some of the letters to and from Lundell havebeen catalogued and placed in separate, labelledfolders, but the majority are stored, uncatalogued,with all his other papers in a series of largecardboard boxes (Uppsala UniversitetsbibliotekNC 679–695). The boxes have been givengeneral descriptions, such as “Biografica”,“Slavica”, or “Nordiska språk”, but the only wayto investigate their contents at the moment is topull them out, item by item, meaning that what isthere is currently invisible to the researchcommunity. The letters at least need to be madeaccessible to researchers through propercataloguing. These include letters from theleading linguists of the day, from withinScandinavia, e.g., Otto Jespersen (1860–1943),Holger Pedersen (1867–1953), Vilhelm Thomsen(1842–1927), and beyond, e.g., Karl Brugmann(1849–1919), Hermann Paul (1846–1921), PaulPassy (1859–1940). My primary interest in thearchive was to understand more completely thenetwork of linguists to which Lundell belonged,as well as Lundell’s role within it. This meant

that I was not equally thorough in my scrutiny ofall the papers I came across, and my ownlanguage limitations meant that I could do verylittle with the letters and other documents writtenin Slavic languages, so the archive has more toyield.

Working through a relatively unexploitedarchive must be one of the most rewarding tasksfor any historian. To do so in the surroundings ofUppsala’s Carolina Rediviva library onlyenhances the pleasure, and I am not the first toadmire that library. Paul Passy wrote that, afterattending the 1886 Scandinavian philologists’meeting in Stockholm, he visited severalScandinavian educational institutions. His firstvisit (“naturellement”) was to Uppsala, “où je pusadmirer, après tant d’autres, la bibliothèque […]”(Passy 1887: 29). I hope, for their sake, that otherhistorians find their way to Lundell’s papers inthe future to ask some of the questions I failed toask. Jordanova (2000: 185) warns of putting toomuch faith in sources as a key to unlock the doorof the past, noting that “most sources are […]mediations […]. No sources are transparentrecords of a past situation, not evenarchaeological fragments”. However, in ahistoriographical climate still frosty from thedebates of recent decades concerning the abilityof historians to ‘get at’ the past (for an overview,see Burke 1991; Fay, Pomper & Vann 1998), “theaesthetic grasping of surviving fragments”(Tortarolo 1996: 18) remains a physical andundeniable link with the past, regardless ofproblems of interpretation.

2. The Anglo-Scandinavian School2.1 On the concept of ‘schools’ in linguistics

It is common practice in the historiography oflinguistics, as in all forms of intellectual history,to designate groups of scholars demonstrating ashared agenda, one manifestly different from thatof other groups with which they might becompared, as schools. The shared agenda mayonly become clear in retrospect, and so historiansposit schools of thought where their actualmembers may have been unaware or suspiciousof such commonality of purpose. Two directionsin linguistics of the past century or so are

sometimes described as ‘schools’, when theirmembers in fact took no such view ofthemselves.

Jankowsky (2001: 1363) quotes HermannPaul’s 1886 review of Schuchardt’s 1885 Überdie Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker,where Paul insists that a neogram marian schooldoes not exist, although “one may talk of aneogrammarian direction (“junggrammatischeRichtung”) […] if by all means one has to havesuch a troublesome name” (Paul 1886: 3). In thetitle of his survey, Jankowsky adds ‘framework’to the collection of circumlocutions for school.

Even more varied are the alternative labelsused by Vachek (1966) in his survey of “TheLinguistic School of Prague”. In his openingparagraph, Vachek writes of “what is commonlytermed the Prague School of Linguistics […]what has been referred to for almost four decadesas the École de Prague” (Vachek 1966: 3). In thefollowing paragraph he writes of the “Praguegroup”, and in the next paragraph variously of the“Prague group”, “the Prague school” [lower-case‘s’], “the Circle”. Later, on page 6, Vachek writesof “the Prague movement” and a page later of“the Prague people”. There is real anxiety hereabout how to refer to these linguists, not leastbecause they didn’t use the term Schoolthemselves:

In the invitational prospectus for this congress[the First International Congress of PhoneticSciences in Amsterdam, 1932] the organizersused, for the first time, the term “L’École dePrague” […] no stimulus for this use hadcome out of Prague […] (Vachek 1966: 10)

If the linguists themselves did not perceivethemselves in this way, does the historian havethe right to reinvent the views of those who knewthe work best, the scholars themselves? This is aperennial historiographical problem, but happilynot one facing us here.

Looking back at those pioneeringphoneticians of the last two decades of thenineteenth century and the first two decades ofthe twentieth, historiographers have been quick toidentify a common purpose. Writing from a closedistance about the older of the two generationsinvolved, Raudnitzky entitled his 1911 book Die

Bell-Sweetsche Schule. However, it was thelinguists themselves who first identifiedthemselves or each other as members of a School,and we shall see throughout this article how oftenthey used that word to frame their activities.Jespersen (1897–1899: 55) spells this out:

With the year 1881 [i.e., with the publication of Storm(1881) and Sievers (21881)] we have to say thatmodern phonetics really broke through, and it isbeginning now to make itself felt in ever more circlesof language scholars and language teachers. Itssignificant characteristic, by contrast with the moreisolated efforts of earlier times, is its internationalcharacter. “The Anglo-Scandinavian School” [“denengelsk-skandinaviske skole”], as Sweet and Stormand their followers have been called, found strongsupport in the German Sievers and soon influencedresearch in other countries too. What is more, with theaforementioned men comes a previously unknowncombination of theoretical knowledge and practicalability. In this connection there is a growing interest inlanguage teaching.3

It is obvious from this quotation that the phrase“Anglo-Scandinavian School” was already in useby the end of the 19th century, as Jespersen isciting others’ practice, and that there was a clearunderstanding of who it involved. Although heuses a different phrase to describe these linguists,Passy is also clear that the catalyst was thepublication of Johan Storm’s EnglischePhilologie, this time in its original Norwegianversion:

Ce travail considérable, paru en 1879 [= Storm1879] a exercé une très grande influence sur lesesprits des linguistes; il a, pour ainsi dire,provoqué la formation de la nouvelle école desjeunes phonéticiens. (Passy 1887: 4; emphasis inthe original)

‘Les jeunes phonéticiens’ [Neophoneticians],calqued on ‘die Junggrammatiker’, was thephrase Passy used to describe the youngergeneration, but it excludes the older Storm,whose survey of English philology he explicitlycredits with launching the School, and it excludesSweet, who, as we shall see, was very much atthe heart of the School, both personally and as aninspiration for its members. So, given that thephrase has a pedigree and that the constantinvention of new labels is just confusing, we willcontinue to describe the linguists in question as

the Anglo-Scandinavian School, whilerecognising that some of the satellite memberslived and worked elsewhere in Europe, such asPassy in France. (Interestingly Passy had tochoose a Scandinavian country with which to beaffiliated when he joined Quousque Tandem (seesection 5), and he chose Sweden, because of “lesrelations si exsèlantes [sic] que j’ai avec Upsala”(letter to Lundell, Feb. 1887).

2.2 Schools, discourse communities andcommunities of practice

Metaphors like school and circle can beunhelpful in intellectual history because theyhave demarcated boundaries and imply a binaryrelation between those inside and those outside.These metaphors also suggest a centre holdingthe group together, either a central place (Prague,Copenhagen, etc.) or a central figure (Saussure,Chomsky, etc.) and so fail to do justice to moreinternational and collaborative enterprises.‘Anglo-Scandinavian School’ is a convenientdescription, but as a means of explaining themechanisms by which linguistics developedaround the turn of the 20th century, it is too rigid.We need a more flexible term, one which canexpress different sorts of membership, centraland peripheral, short-term and long-term, whileexpressing the key fact of intellectual history, thatit is down to human agency, the interactionbetween individuals. Alternative terms likemovement or Richtung give the impression of theideas transcending the individuals involved, asthough insights into language are like the rat-catcher of Hameln, leading their followers outalong a true path, leaving the blind and the lamebehind. Instead we will use the English term‘community’ to explain how the Anglo-Scandinavian School works. This term reflectsthe fact that this was a collaboration ofindividuals, some of whom were more centrallyinvolved than others, and that it was not limitedto one historical period either; the community inquestion survived at the very least for twogenerations, and we suggest that it in fact grewand blossomed and lives on as the internationalcommunity of applied linguists, but we return tothis in the next section. The idea of a community

in the historiography of linguistics is not a newone, and in introducing the notions of ‘discoursecommunity’ and ‘community of practice’ here, Iam building on the work of Watts (1999;forthcoming) in analysing 18th-century Englishgrammar-writing.

Watts (1999: 43), drawing on earlier work inapplied linguistics by Martin Nystrand (1982)and John Swales (1990), defines a discoursecommunity as

… a set of individuals who can be interpreted asconstituting a community on the basis of the waysin which their oral or written discourse practicesreveal common interests, goals and beliefs, i.e. onthe degree of institutionalisation that theirdiscourse displays. The members of thecommunity may or may not be conscious ofsharing those discourse practices.

The extent to which this is a satisfactorydefinition of the Anglo-Scandinavian School willbe revealed as the practices of that communityare set out in the rest of this article, but there isno doubt that this was a community of linguistsunited in a common cause, a cause which theypursued in writing, in communication with eachother, in books and newspapers, and above all inthe pages of the newly emergent specialistjournals. They were avid writers of programmatictexts, and these texts cohere via the reproductionof certain phrases (‘the new science’, ‘the livinglanguage’, etc.). Swales (1990: 24-27) seeks tocharacterise a discourse community byidentifying “six defining characteristics” of adiscourse community, which:

has a broadly agreed set of common publicgoals;

has mechanisms of intercommunicationbetween its members;

uses its participatory mechanisms primarilyto provide information and feedback;

utilizes and hence possesses one or moregenres in the communicative furtheranceof its aims;

has acquired some specific lexis;has a threshold level of members with a suitabledegree of relevant content and discoursalexpertise.

In section 7 below we will measure these

characteristics against the facts of the operationof the Anglo-Scandinavian School to ask whetherthey can be explained by appealing to the notionof a discourse community or not.

Watts (forthcoming) also introduces thenotion of ‘community of practice’, developed andvigorously expounded across a range of areas ofhuman behaviour by Étienne Wenger, fully inWenger (1998), but most helpfully on Wenger’sown website,4 from which the followingdefinition is drawn. Communities of practice aredefined as “groups of people who share a concernor a passion for something they do and learn howto do it better as they interact regularly”. Thereare three defining characteristics. Firstly, acommunity of practice is identified by a shareddomain of interest. Secondly, it is a truecommunity, based on a mutual desire to learntogether. Thirdly, there has to be a sharedpractice. As Wenger puts it, “members of acommunity of practice are practitioners”. Whilethe Anglo-Scandinavian School can certainly beseen to exhibit the characteristics of a communityof practice, Wenger’s view of this sort ofcommunity is so entirely synchronic and practicalthat it does not prove particularly enlightening inexplaining the mechanisms by which ideas havedeveloped historically.

2.3 The Anglo-Scandinavian School in appliedlinguistics

The Anglo-Scandinavian School is significantin the history of linguistics because, I contend, itis here that modern applied linguistics emergedas an independent and coherent enterprise inlanguage study. There are differing opinionstoday about what applied linguistics involves,how it is distinct, if at all, from ‘normal’linguistics, whether there is a useful distinction tobe made between applied linguistics andlinguistics-applied, and these debates are summedup in Davies & Elder (2004). Applied linguistics,as reflected in the national and internationalconferences dedicated to the field, is a very broadchurch. The Association Internationale deLinguistique Appliquée (AILA) defines itsdiscipline like this:

Applied Linguistics is an interdisciplinary field ofresearch and practice dealing with practicalproblems of language and communication that canbe identified, analysed or solved by applyingavailable theories, methods and results ofLinguistics or by developing new theoretical andmethodological frameworks in Linguistics towork on these problems. Applied Linguisticsdiffers from Linguistics in general mainly withrespect to its explicit orientation towards practical,everyday problems related to language andcommunication.5 (AILA website)

So, applied linguistics is about using insightsfrom the academic discipline of linguistics toaddress what we can paraphrase as ‘real-world’language issues, and this is precisely what theAnglo-Scandinavian School was committed to.AILA goes on to list some of the language issueswith which applied linguistics is typicallyconcerned. Although applied linguistics hasextended its reach to treat language issues whichhave emerged more recently, we do not have tolook hard to see the work of the Anglo-Scandinavian School at the core of what appliedlinguistics is now, a century on. Languageteaching is the dominant topic in appliedlinguistics today, as it was for the Anglo-Scandinavian School, but the “problems”italicised in the following quotation are all oneswith which they also engaged (see, e.g.,Jespersen 1909, 1916; Storm 1896, 1911b;Lundell 1934):

The problems Applied Linguistics deals withrange from aspects of the linguistic andcommunicative competence of the individual suchas first or second language acquisition, literacy,language disorders, etc. to language andcommunication related problems in and betweensocieties such as e.g., language variation andlinguistic discrimination, multilingualism,language conflict, language policy and languageplanning.6 (AILA website; my emphases: ARL)

With the exception of some specificsubdisciplines of applied linguistics (e.g., Howatt& Widdowson 2004), the field has not been thesubject of extensive historiographical research.Davies & Elder (2004: 6-8) have a sectionentitled History in their overview of appliedlinguistics, but this makes no reference to theperiod prior to the 1920s. Dealing with real-worldlanguage problems, like establishing a writing

system or working out how best to teach foreignlanguages, goes back to the very beginning of thetradition of linguistic enquiry across the world.Applied linguistics predates and provides theimpulse for theoretical linguistics. It is only thehistorical accident of linguistic historiographycoming to maturity in a century in whichtheoretical approaches dominate institutionalisedlinguistics that has prevented the canon oflinguistic historiography being applied. Taking aless revisionist stance, it is our claim that appliedlinguistics, as recognised by its internationalassociation, has its roots in the application by theAnglo-Scandinavian School of the new science ofphonetics to “practical, everyday problemsrelated to language and communication”, asexpressed in this quotation from Lundell (1887:2):

It is seldom that linguistics is in a position,like the natural sciences, to intervene inpractical life. However, it now offers itsassistance in two directions: in support of asensible revision of the orthography andimprovement in language-teaching methods.7

3. The Anglo-Scandinavian discoursecommunity3.1 J. A. Lundell: A biographical sketch

As noted in the introduction, we will beassessing the status of the Anglo-ScandinavianSchool by placing one of its less prominentmembers at the centre of our investigation. It ispretty unexceptionable to suggest that, forexample, Sweet and Storm collaborated. A morerobust test is to assess the extent to which a rangeof other contemporary linguists were engaged inthe same discourse community. Since Lundell isnot as well known as some other members of theSchool, it will be useful to start with him andwith an outline of his life and achievements.

Johan August Lundell was born on 25 July1851 in Hårstorp in the parish of Kläckeberga,north of Kalmar in the Småland region of south-east Sweden. Although he spent his entire adultlife in Uppsala, he remained faithful to hisgeographical roots. Together with his sisters,Hilda and Elise, Lundell published a 900-pagecollection of folklore from Kläckeberga (Lundell,Lundell & Zetterqvist 1889–1940), which was

produced piecemeal over the course of half acentury. Of his childhood there is not much toreport, but it is clear that he was precociouslybright as well as bookish. Throughout his life hekept a careful list of all the books he bought,where he bought them and how much they cost.This list (preserved in UppsalaUniversitetsbibliotek (henceforth: UU) NC 682was started in 1862 when Lundell was ten oreleven years old. Item 1 is entitled Andeligasånger för barn (“Spiritual songs for children”)and was bought at Snöberg’s bookshop inKalmar. The final item in this catalogue of hispersonal library was entered in 1938, two yearsbefore his death, and was number 23,776,indicating an accession rate approaching anaverage of one item per day for 76 years.Lundell’s work as journal editor, notably as thefounder editor of Nyare bidrag till kännedom omde svenska landsmålen ock svenskt folklif [RecentContributions to Knowledge of the SwedishDialects and Folklore], meant that he acquiredpublished works in greater numbers than othercontemporaries did, but this is also testimony tothe extent to which authors sent copies of theirpublications to other interested parties. Letters tohis parents from 1862, the same year as he beganhis library catalogue, are collected together in UUNC 686 under the title Formula litterarumsvecarum ad parentes, suggesting that, evenbefore his teenage years, he approached his worldvery much as a collector and cataloguer. Hisbiographer in the Svenskt biografiskt lexikon(Witting 1982/1984: 264) describes Lundell thescientist as “primarily a teacher and a collector ofdata”. This is to belittle the range and impact ofLundell’s writings and contacts with otherscholars, but his instinct was certainly that of acollector, as can be seen from his workingnotebooks and hundreds of scraps of papercontaining tiny, illegible jottings, stuffed inamongst his papers.

In August 1871 Lundell entered UppsalaUniversity, where he would remain until hisretirement in August 1916. Nearly half a centuryafter starting his university studies, Lundell wrotethat “during my first years as a student, when Iintended to become a zoologist, I had studied

several branches of natural science” (Lundell1928: 1). When Passy visited Lundell in Uppsalain 1886, Lundell showed him the anatomicalmodels he used with his students and explainedthat he had his students dissect the vocal organsof animals in preparation for the study ofpractical phonetics. This early training in thenatural sciences reminds us of the experience ofother influential linguists of the period. JohanStorm began his university studies in Norway bytaking natural sciences, before re-enrolling as aphilology student, and Ferdinand de Saussure(1857–1913) also began his academic careerstudying the natural sciences in Geneva. VilhelmThomsen made a false start as a student oftheology, and his fellow-Dane Jespersen beganhis academic career as a law student, before, heclaimed, Storm’s Engelsk Filologi made himrealise that philology was the true path (seeJespersen 1995 [1938]: 33-34). Those interestedin modern languages at university level werepoorly provided for in the 19th century, whichexplains why the first generation of modernlanguage specialists had to get there viacircuitous routes (see Linn 2004a: 55-78, 150-159). Lundell had a copy of Thomsen’s ownstudent lecture notes from an 1865 series on “dengotiske Folkeklasses Sproghistorie”. That thisfound its way into Lundell’s hands is anindication of how Scandinavian linguists of thelater 19th century corresponded and cooperatedwith each other — how the discourse waspursued.

Lundell must have developed an interest inthe emerging science of phonetics during hisstudent days, but it is not obvious how and whythis interest arose. Given his earlier flirtation withzoology (which gave him a “knowledge ofacoustics, anatomy, and physiology” [Lundell1928: 1]) and his fondness for taxonomies, puttogether with his linguistic interests, perhaps itwas only natural that his attention would bedrawn to phonetics. Pioneering textbooks(Sievers 1876, Sweet 1877) appeared at the endof Lundell’s student days (he gained the degree ofFil. Kand. in December 1876). He was in contactwith Sweet from 1877 and with Sievers at leastfrom 1879 (to judge from a letter in UU) sent by

Sievers to Lundell’s Uppsala colleague, AdolfGotthard Noreen (1854–1925).8 Lundell waswriting to Alexander John Ellis (1814–1890) in1877, enquiring about his work The Alphabet ofNature. In response Ellis suggests that Sweetwould be a far better person to talk to, and thatSweet was in fact in Uppsala at that moment.Meeting Sweet and corresponding with theinternational community of phoneticians wouldhave given Lundell confidence and inspiration inthe pursuit of phonetic research, but he wasalready respected, at least within Uppsala, for hisphonetic skills before this.

Lundell is best remembered in linguistics forhis dialect alphabet, Det svenskaLandsmålsalfabetet (see Eriksson 1961), first setout in full in 1879 (Lundell 1879). In 1928Lundell explained (in English) how he came todevise this system. Various of the student“Nationer”9 in Uppsala were carrying out workon the dialects and traditions of their homeregions, but they were using different systems torecord the sounds. Lundell was called upon, asthe resident expert, to devise a common system(see section 6.1 below). Although self-taught inphonetics (how could he be otherwise?), Lundellwas appointed to what was, as far as I know, thefirst university post explicitly wedded tophonetics, becoming Docent i Fonetik at UppsalaUniversity in January 1882. Similarly unwillingto state it categorically, Passy bears out that,“toutefois M. Lundell est probablement le seulprofesseur officiellement chargé d’enseigner laphonétique (dosent i fonetiken)” (Passy 1887: 31,fn.). He held this post until June 1885, afterwhich all his positions at the University were inthe field of Slavic languages, from June 1908onwards as ‘ordinary professor’. His scholarlycontributions to Slavic studies were minor (e.g.,Lundell 1890, 1911–1914; Lundell & Rubetz1921), and much of the Slavic material in thearchive relates to teaching rather than researchactivities. The provision of Russian languagetraining for the military occupied much of histime, and he was also active administratively inthe furtherance of Swedish-Slavic relations.10

In the sections which follow we willinvestigate Lundell’s work in the various areas he

dedicated himself to, with a view tounderstanding the nature of the wider communityof linguists to which he belonged. Briefly now,however, we will complete the sketch of Lundellthe man, as far as is possible at a distance ofseveral decades. Archive work gives theresearcher a privileged view of the life of another,but it is a view entirely framed by the chancecollection of materials within the archive. Icannot say that I know Lundell, but I have anethical obligation to remind readers that we areusing personal materials without explicitpermission, and that what we treat as ‘findings’or ‘data’ is the production and possessions of afellow human being.11

Lundell’s last passport (dated 1927) survivesin UU NC 684. It describes him as 1,76 m. tall(including his shoes), with an oval face, grey eyesand (unsurprisingly in a man of 76) grey hair.Photographs show a well-built man, and,although not very tall, larger and more powerfulthan Jespersen, with whom he was photographed.He had a high forehead and full moustache, and,again to judge from photographs, was acommanding presence on stage.

Lundell lived for most of his working life atvarious addresses in Skolgatan, a well-establishedresidential area immediately to the north ofUppsala’s University and Cathedral district, andalthough he travelled a lot, this must haveprovided a pleasant base for his activities. In June1882 he married Marie-Louise Jönsson (1860–1940), who post-deceased him by just a week. Tojudge from notebooks (UU NC 686) containingpencil drawings of the churches of Öland, closeto his home region, and provided they areLundell’s own, he was a capable artist. To judgefrom his writings he also had a good sense ofhumour, writing for example that “beauty andharmony are innate human desires, from whichonly some modern linguists have been able tofree themselves” (1928: 6)! Papers in UU NC684, concerning his efforts to gain a patent for adivider for use in book collections, suggest apractical side to his character too. The picturewhich forms is one of domestic and professionalcomfort and contentment, but in his work heshared with other leading linguists of the time a

passion for reform, which Witting (1982/1984:264) attributes to a sense of social responsibility,but which was as likely inspired by a belief inwhat could be achieved by phonetics. Thisreforming zeal is particularly evident in theefforts he made towards the provision of betterand fairer education, including the foundation inUppsala of summer schools (see papers in UUNC 684), of a reformed school with fewer hoursand a more practical curriculum (with AdolfNoreen) and of a home-economics college (withIda Norrby).14

3.2 Johan StormSeen through Norwegian eyes, there was one

dominant figure in language study in the decadesaround the turn of the 20th century, and that wasJohan Storm, described in 1907 by BjørnstjerneBjørnson (1832–1910) as “the highest authorityon language as such” (reported in Langslet 1999:44). He was (from 1873) the first Professor ofEnglish and Romance Philology in Norway, buthe also provided lectures on Norwegian in theabsence, before 1886, of a professor ofNorwegian (see Venås 2000: 35-38). Storm feltthe lack of a kindred spirit in Norway verykeenly, and, to judge from the letters he received,and which survive in the National Library inOslo, he was a particularly conscientious letter-writer. As the representatives of the newlinguistics were spread around northern Europe,in some cases as lone advocates of a newapproach to language study in their universitiesor even in their countries, correspondence was alifeline. There are 88 surviving letters from JohanStorm to Vilhelm Thomsen,15 sent sometimes atthe rate of several letters per month, and Stormbecame upset when Thomsen failed to respond asquickly as he would have liked (see Linn 2004a:5). This was a community held together bycorrespondence.

Storm corresponded most actively withmembers of the first generation of the Anglo-Scandinavian School. His letters from HenrySweet are particularly valuable in our efforts tounderstand the mechanisms of linguistic debate atthat time (see Foldvik 1976). Storm found theenthusiasm and reforming zeal of the younger

generation (Jespersen, Lundell and Western)frustrating and unattractive, regarding itsproponents as arrogant. Although like Lundell hededicated his working life to questions of reform,language-teaching reform (e.g., Storm 1887),reform in his mother tongue (e.g., Storm 1878)and to a new form of dialectology rooted inphonetics (e.g., Storm 1884), in short all theSchool’s key applied linguistic interests, he wasby nature more reserved and conservative in hisviews and felt that reform should take placeslowly. It is fair to say that the first generationwas generally more cautious in its calls forreform than the second.

Storm was the leading light of the oldergeneration in Scandinavia, and it was natural thatLundell should contact him, as he did Sweet andSievers further afield. Storm was certainly astrong supporter of Lundell’s Landsmålsalfabetproject, which he reviewed very positively(Storm 1880). Storm’s letters to Thomsen showthat he was already working out his owntranscription system as early as 1874, butLundell’s work evidently encouraged him toadvance his own project. Movement in one partof the community provided a fillip in another.The fact about Storm which gets repeated fromone historiographical overview to the next (seeLinn 2004a: 43-50) is that he encouraged Sweetto write his Handbook of Phonetics, a toposderiving from Jespersen (1897–1899: 53), and itis true that there was plenty of mutual supportand encouragement between members of thegroup. Storm concluded his review of recentSwedish dialectological work:

[…] with the wish that this meritoriousundertaking might make good and lasting progressand might be warmly participated in as well asemulated in the other Scandinavian countries. Inparticular it is my wish that all Norwegiansinterested in our beautiful dialects might followthe shining example shown by their Swedishbrothers, and might unite in that noble goal, ascientific study of the Norwegian dialects.16

(Storm 1880: 350)

From 1880 until 1886 Storm received financialassistance from the University’s travel fund, andwork leading towards his own dialect alphabetwas firmly underway. Lundell returned the

compliment five years later, writing in a reviewof Storm (1884) that it contained the bestintroduction to phonetics to be found in anylanguage (Lundell 1885: 459).

Given such mutual admiration, it is surprisingthat there is not more evidence of closecooperation between the two men than there is.There are no letters from Storm amongstLundell’s papers. They met each other atconferences and congresses, and they travelledtogether through Telemark in the summer of1881, after they had both attended the meeting ofScandinavian philologists held in Kristiania(today’s Oslo) that year, at which Lundelldelivered his polemic on Scandinaviandialectology, published as Lundell (1881). Whilethere are no surviving letters from Johan Storm,there is one from Storm’s wife, Louise, tellingLundell of her husband’s death and hinting at acloseness belied by the apparent lack ofcorrespondence:

When the professor paid my husband a visit lastyear, it was probably noticeable that he was not aslively as previously. He found it difficult toexpress himself, but he was always lucid, and wespoke afterwards of how nice it was that you hadcome. He valued it greatly […].17 (Letter of 18July 1921, UU NC 680)

The popular picture of Storm was of adifficult and unapproachable person, and this issupported by some frank letters Lundell receivedfrom Norwegian colleagues of his owngeneration. In November 1888 Olaf Broch(1867–1961), later Lundell’s opposite number asprofessor of Slavic languages in Kristiania and aninfluential scholar of the phonetics of Russianand Eastern Norwegian, described Storm as“impossible”:

It is little use to know that we have one ofEurope’s leading scholars — in his field — at theUniversity, when one gets so little use from him,when one is even afraid to approach him. Mostpeople find it best to keep their distance. I don’tknow him so well personally, and perhapsexaggerated descriptions by others have createdtoo strong an impression.18 (UU)

The relationship between Broch and Stormthawed, and Broch wrote fondly of him toLundell, following the older man’s death in

1920.19 No matter what sort of fearsomereputation Storm had (reinforced in a letter toLundell from Yngvar Nielsen of 8 Feb. 1904),20

the fact is that, by the time Lundell was readingof it in correspondence from Broch, he and theimpossible Storm were already mutual supportersand travelling companions, so the absence of anycorrespondence from Storm in the papers of thearch-collector, Lundell, remains a mystery.

In 1882 Storm travelled briefly in Norway inthe company of Noreen, just from Kristianianorth to Gardermoen, the site today of Oslo’smain international airport. On the face of it,Storm had less in common with Noreen than hehad with Lundell, but there are surviving lettersin Uppsala to Noreen, where, amongst otherthings, Storm writes in preparation for Noreen’svisit to Norway, how he looks forward toworking together undisturbed for several daysand discussing in peace and quiet the things“which concern them [hvad der ligger os paaHjerte]”. Noreen was obviously another of thosewho Storm regarded as part of the community.He wrote to him of Sweet’s planned visit toNorway in 1883 (Sweet was Storm’s travellingcompanion in the summer of 1883) and of thedesirability of “en liden fonetisk Konferents”between them (UU, letter to Noreen of 6 May1883).

Letters are the clearest evidence, and for thehistorian the most satisfactory evidence, ofmembership of a discourse community. If thecorrespondence from Storm to Noreen was thiswarm, writing of the need to spend undisturbedtime together and of “little conferences”, thenhow much more so are the letters to Lundelllikely to have been? The discourse betweenStorm and Lundell is destined to remain a spokenone.

3.3 Otto JespersenInternationally the best known Scandinavian

linguist of the younger generation, not only fromwithin the Anglo-Scandinavian School but of allScandinavian linguists, was Otto Jespersen.Jespersen was the Danish equivalent of Storm,the first professor of English with a seriousresearch profile and a serious commitment to

pursuing the study of the modern languages inline with the standards of the internationalresearch community. As Sørensen (1971: 94-95)notes, “it was only when Otto Jespersen wasappointed professor in 1893 that it becamepossible to study English on a sound basis”.

Lundell, Storm and Jespersen had more incommon than just being among the first tooccupy internationally regarded chairs in modernlanguages. Firstly, they were all to a large extentself-taught or came to the modern languageshaving first studied something else. Theycorresponded with and visited others with similarinterests, and this was very much a communityon a shared voyage of discovery; much of theirinsight into language, particularly in the area ofphonetics, was acquired not by attending coursesas students, but through self-motivation.Consequently they were not hide-bound bydisciplinary tradition, and this sense of beingpioneers permeates their correspondence. Thepioneering spirit, reinforced by forging newdisciplines and new syllabuses in their respectiveuniversities, gave them a freedom to be differentand a fearlessness of reform. Secondly, they allhad experience of teaching in schools and weretherefore personally interested in language-teaching at that level (see section 5 below). Aswell as working on topics not traditionallyregarded as part of the university curriculum,they were not afraid to break down the traditionalbarrier between school and university. In factStorm’s post in Kristiania had been madepossible by new legislation of 1869, whichintroduced a modern syllabus into the schools, onan equal footing with the traditional ‘Latin line’.Thirdly, all three were very active in the studyand reform of their own native languages, eventhough their university appointments were inother areas, and as we noted above, Lundell’scontributions to Slavic philology were negligible,compared with his work on Swedish, both thestandard form and the dialects. Fourthly, theywere all fired by a philosophy of the livinglanguage, and we will return to what this meantin practice in the following sections. For now wewill simply say that this philosophy is a majorreason for arguing that these linguists constituted

a community with a common cause, a commonapproach and a common language, rather thanbeing merely a loose association ofcontemporaries.

Jespersen’s main involvement with Lundellwas through the Quousque Tandem society.Letters from Jespersen in the Lundell archivetend to be quite brief and practical, which is to beexpected between collaborators, who probablymet each other reasonably frequently. Thephotograph of the two elderly men reproducedabove shows, despite the formal constraints of aposed photograph, two people at ease in eachother’s company. In his autobiography Jespersenwrites of “a friendship that lasted throughout ourlives” (Jespersen 1995 [1938]: 39).

The relationship between Storm andJespersen was less placid. Jespersen sent some ofhis own work to Storm as early as 7 June 1885,very much as a disciple to a master but with someof the self-confidence which would later infuriatethe older man:

Together with this letter I permit myself to sendyou the first two sheets of a little Englishgrammar “of the written and spoken language”,which I intend to publish immediately. I am in factvery eager to hear a competent man’s judgementof this attempt to provide a slightly morecontemporary grammar than those usedpreviously.21

Storm was enthusiastic about Jespersen to beginwith, writing to Thomsen a year earlier that hefound Jespersen “promising [lovende]” (22 Nov.1884). By 1890 Storm’s avuncular admiration hasturned to paternal pride, proclaiming thatJespersen will soon become Scandinavia’sleading phonetician. It is interesting that Storm,although by no means reaching the end of hiscareer, should show no sign of professionaljealousy here. From now on, however, Storm’scomments on Jespersen in his letters to Thomsenare characterised by complaints of Jespersen’sarrogance and lack of respect, and Storm’senthusiasm for the young Jespersen finallyexploded into anger on the publication ofJespersen’s Fonetik (Jespersen 1897–1899). Inthe preface to Fonetik Jespersen credits Storm(along with Sweet and Thomsen) with having

encouraged and furthered his studies, and he sentStorm a signed copy of Fonetik. This copy, nowin Bergen University Library, bears the scars ofStorm’s fury, however, as pages 53 and 54, whichdiscuss Storm’s contributions to phonetics, arepartially torn out; Storm has marked the passageshe found particularly offensive. To be fair,Jespersen is as full of admiration here as othercontemporaries at Storm’s practical linguisticabilities, but he does go on (p. 54 )to criticise hisfailure to systematise, a criticism which couldalso have been levelled at Lundell:

His presentation is organised by associations ofideas, which to others can seem extremely random[…] when the material is inflated to the extent thatit is from the first to the second German version(from 88 to 352 pages on General Phonetics), thisà-propos method has an off-putting and tiringeffect.22

On 3 January 1898, in handwriting that isdifficult to read, Storm wrote to Thomsen that “Ihave neither the wish nor the time to bother anymore with J [Jeg har ikke Lyst eller Tid til atbeskjæftige mig mere med J]”.

Like all human relationships, the inter-personal relationships within the School ebbedand flowed. The relationship between Storm andSweet, for many years so close, to judge from therichness of Sweet’s letters to Storm, appears tohave ended abruptly, and for no obvious reason(see Linn 2004a: 116). It may just be that Stormkept the letters written by Sweet after 1892elsewhere, and that they have not made it into thearchive housed in the Norwegian NationalLibrary, just as I cannot believe that there wereno letters from Storm to Lundell. The relationshipbetween Jespersen and Storm had good reason (atleast in Storm’s eyes) to break down, but papersin private ownership, which have recently cometo light,23 indicate that the Jespersen-Stormcorrespondence did in fact pick up again in lateryears. In 1911 they were sending each othercopies of their recent publications, and on 28January Jespersen wrote to “Cher maître”,thanking him for a copy of Storm (1911a). In1915 Jespersen received the next volume ofStørre fransk Syntax, and wrote to Storm:

Heartfelt thanks for sending your French Syntax

(prepositions). A read-through of it has been veryinstructive for me: I am occupied with similarthings and am still working on my large Englishsyntax, so I know how to assess the impressivelylarge amount of material you have collected andorganised and sifted in your book. May you havethe strength and fortune soon to be able to publishfurther parts of your great work, for which all whoare concerned with modern languages will begrateful to you.24

Despite disagreements over the years, at the endthese are two members of a community on acommon mission.

3.4 August Western and Knud BrekkeLinks between the members of the School

were kept strong not only by means ofcorrespondence, but also via personal visits.Neither Storm nor Sweet were famous for theirpersonal warmth, but both were generous inentertaining visitors who shared theirprofessional interests, and indeed the image ofyounger members of the community goingphysically to sit at the feet of the older masters isa compelling one. In a letter to Lundell ofNovember 1878, Sweet notes that: “I have hadthe pleasure of seeing several Swedes here thissummer: Ekman from Upsala [sic], + Wulf +Cederschiöld from Lund”.25

He also welcomed at least two of Storm’sstudents to his home: Knud Olai Brekke (1855–1938) and August Western (1856–1940). Brekkeand Western represent the part of the communitythat was ‘out there’ in the real world. Brekkespent his working life as a teacher of English,putting into practice the ideas on language-teaching reform being worked out in and aroundQuousque Tandem. In 1893 he won a scholarship,allowing him to visit Bedford High School,Bedford Park, London and observe in operationFrançois Gouin’s (1831–1896) ‘Series Method’of language teaching (more often referred to asthe ‘Direct Method’; see Howatt & Widdowson2004: 178-185), which sought to teach a secondlanguage in the same way as a child acquirestheir first. His report was published as Brekke(1894), and Lundell owned a copy.

Western worked as a teacher and educationaladministrator all his life, but he in many waysembodies the ethos and the ambitions of the new

School better than anyone else. With a doctoralthesis on English subordinate clauses and a rangeof scholarly publications to his name, herepresents the erosion of the dividing linebetween linguistics in the University andlinguistics applied in the school system. He wasequally active in researching modern foreignlanguages (English) as he was his nativelanguage: his most substantial publication was a1921 grammar of Norwegian Riksmål, which heacknowledges as being written under theinfluence of Jespersen. He was committed to theapplication of phonetics, writing descriptions ofboth Norwegian sounds (e.g., Western 1889) andEnglish sounds (e.g., Western 1885). In all he didhe bore the marks of his teacher, Storm, butStorm himself identified his former student withthe work of the English phoneticians:

W[estern] has wedded himself closely to themodern English School, even in points which aredubious to me. There is scarcely anyone outsideEngland, who is as familiar with the results of theSchool as W. is.26 (Quoted in Storm 1892: 466)

Western was in England from 1880 to 1881,where he visited Sweet, no doubt thanks to anintroduction from Storm, and where he was, tojudge from his letters to Storm, the beneficiary ofmuch academic and personal kindness fromSweet. Sweet was impressed with Western, andthe mutual respect which developed betweenmembers of the School, even between individualsnot always known for their generosity of spirit, isremarkable, and further reinforces the impressionthat this was a real community. In a letter ofDecember 1880 Sweet wrote to Storm, “I seeWestern once a week. He seems likely to have agood influence on Norwegian phonology and theteaching of English pronunciation in Norway”.After Western had returned to Norway in Aprilthe following year, Sweet summed up hisexperience of him:

I saw a good deal of Western, and thought himvery promising. He is clear-headed, firm + modest— in fact, a true Norwegian. With him andBrekke you ought to found a good school.

Here is Sweet using the term ‘School’ to describethe Norwegian linguists of two generations, but

we remember that the founder of this ‘School’felt that the “promising” Western was a truedisciple of the ‘English School’, meaning Sweet,so the notion that at least Sweet and theNorwegians constituted a unified group is notmerely a historical construction; it was a very realconnection to those involved.

Western’s closest collaborations, however,were with Lundell and Jespersen. In 1887,according to Jespersen’s 1938 autobiography “tomy good fortune” (Jespersen 1995 [1938]: 61), hecoincided and lodged with Western in London,where they both met Sweet, Ellis and WilhelmViëtor (1850–1918), who was also visitingLondon then. Later in the autobiographyJespersen lists Western among his “phoneticfriends abroad” (p. 138).

This article places Lundell at the centre of thecommunity, and we shall return to hiscollaboration with Western and Jespersen on theQuousque Tandem project later.

3.5 Henry SweetHenry Sweet, “probably above all the greatest

living phonetician” (Jespersen 1897–1899: 50)was the undisputed ‘father’ of the School, and hishome was a magnet for phonetically-mindedscholars from across Scandinavia. It was almost arite of passage to visit Sweet. Interestingly, thereis no evidence that Lundell did so. Although hewas well travelled, England was not an obviousdestination for him, since his interests andspecialisms tended towards the Slavic world andFrance (he was a leading light in the AssociationFranco-Scandinave from 1904 to 1914).Furthermore, he had already met Sweet, duringthe latter’s visit to Uppsala in 1877. I shall heresimply give a summary of Sweet’s letters toLundell (in the letter collection of UppsalaUniversity Library) and note what these can tellus about the dynamic of the School.

Sweet wrote to Lundell in the period from 10November 1878 until 3 May 1881. In his firstletter he apologises for not being able to get holdof a copy of Bell’s Visible Speech for Lundell,and, more interestingly, he comments on hisperception of the phonetic work being carried out

in Sweden, particularly with regard to therecording of dialect forms:

You may be sure that the phonetic studies nowbeing carried on in Sweden will be followed withwarm interest here in England, where theimportance of laying an international foundationfor phonetics seems to be better recognized thanin most other countries.

Here the significant phrase is “internationalfoundation”, and which for Sweet not onlyinvolves England and Norway (see previoussection), but also Sweden. Storm was in the sameperiod writing of a Swedish “fonetisk skole”(Storm 1880: 335). Schools are being spotted allover northern Europe, but the crucial thing is thatthis is an international community. Its membersstill continued to think of national groupings,because that is traditionally how intellectualhistory had developed and would continue todevelop. The historiography of linguistics will goon to identify a Geneva School, a Prague School,a London School, all of which labels fail to dojustice to their international nature, at least in thecase of the latter two. In this respect the label‘Anglo-Scandinavian’ is similarlyunrepresentative, since it appears to exclude thelikes of Passy and Sievers. Although based inFrance, Passy was very firmly part of thecommunity of discourse through his visits to andcorrespondence with Scandinavian and Englishcolleagues. Sweet also stresses the importance ofa multilingual approach to the study of phonetics.He writes that “no one can understand the soundsof his own language who has not a thoroughknowledge of those of several foreign ones”. Tothis end:

I intend to study as many foreign pronunciationsas I can. I have secured a Russian already, + hopeto find natives for Sanskrit, Chinese + Japanese aswell, perhaps also Arabic.

In letters of 1880 and 1881, the internationalagenda is pursued further. Sweet writes on 12December 1880 that:

I am glad to know that Swedish philology isflourishing. I shall be curious to see Svahn’sSwedish Phonology (which I hear Storm is goingto translate into Norse).27 I hear that Sievers ispreparing a new edition of his Lautphysiologie, in

which he will take more notice of Englishinvestigations than before.

And continues on 6 February 1881 that:

He [Sievers] does full justice to English andScandinavian work, and his book will no doubttend to give German phonology a morecosmopolitan + wider character than it hashitherto had.

Subsequent correspondence comprises change-of-address cards, sometimes accompanying giftsof publications. For Sweet the internationalstrength of phonetic science was important, partlyfor the furtherance of the discipline based upon aswide a range of data as possible, but also for thecredibility of the discipline. Sweet famouslyregarded phonetics as the “indispensablefoundation” (1877: v and elsewhere) of alllanguage study, and international support for theenterprise was essential. Phonetics was at theheart of the matter, and it is to phonetics, andspecifically Lundell’s vision for phonetics, thatwe now turn.

4. Phonetics — ‘The New Science’In 1888 the first journal dedicated to the new

science of phonetics began to appear. This wasPhonetische Studien,28 and it bore the subtitleZeitschrift für wissenschaftliche und praktischephonetik mit besonderer rücksicht auf denunterricht in der aussprache [Journal ofscientific and practical phonetics with particularrespect to the teaching of pronunciation]. Notablehere is the fact that the journal is intended tobridge the gap between ‘scientific’ and ‘practical’— its aims are applied — and that it isparticularly concerned with what hassubsequently become the principal subfield ofapplied linguistics, namely language teaching.Before the appearance of Phonetische Studien,work on phonetics was published in more or lessunsatisfactory publications, which failed to reachthe whole community of scholars working inwhat Lundell calls variously ‘the new science’ or‘the young science’. Storm, for example, hadpublished his first article (on tone) in theNorwegian Sunday newspaper, IllustreretNyhedsblad (Storm 1860). There was no danger

that Phonetische Studien would fail to reach theright people, since most of them were on the 51-strong editorial board: Bell, Ellis, Jespersen,Lundell, Noreen, Passy, Storm, Sweet, Western,as well as a significant number of Germanscholars. The editor-in-chief was Viëtor,Professor of English Philology at the Universityof Marburg, and author, under the pseudonymQuousque Tandem, of the influential call forreform, Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren!.

The first article in the first issue of this newjournal was written by Lundell, and is amanifesto for the new approach to language. Thismanifesto, Die phonetik als universitätsfach, isprefaced by two quotations, one from Whitneyand one from Sweet, both predicting thatphonetics will become an independent universitydiscipline in the very near future. This is ofcourse a pressing issue for Lundell, who had beenappointed to just such post a few years earlier.The second part of the article is taken up withestablishing a pedigree for phonetics as auniversity subject, by charting the history ofphonetics teaching in European universities. Thefirst teaching which touched on phonetics,according to Lundell’s survey, was a course “überdie prinzipien der orthographie”, delivered inBerlin in 1867–1868 by Gustav Michaelis (1813–1895), and the first teaching explicitly entitled“allgemeine phonetik” was Lundell’s own inUppsala in the spring of 1882. This is by way ofpreparation for a rather full account of Lundell’sunsuccessful attempt to get the University torecognise phonetics as an independent discipline.Lundell’s ultimate goal in this article is to rallythe new journal behind the cause of lobbying foran increase in the status of phonetics inuniversities. However, it is the first part of thearticle, where Lundell sets out the claims ofphonetics for greater recognition, which is themore important.

Early in his survey of the state of the artLundell notes that schools are beginning toemerge, but the only one he actually specifies isthe “englisch-skandinavische”, with Bell, Sweet,Storm and Sievers “an der spitze [at the top]” (p.3). The novelty and originality of the School isunderscored by constant reiteration of words like

“neu” and “jung” in its description. Lundellcontrasts the newness of the enterprise with whathas gone before: “Nicht nur Bopp und Grimm,sogar Schleicher und Curtius sind schonantiquirt” (p. 4). This is not, however, to belittlethe contribution made by the older generation,rather to emphasise the originality of the younger(ibid.): “[…]was die ehre dieser genialen forschernatürlich nicht im mindesten schmälern kann, diejüngere generation steht eben auf den schulternder älteren und hat deshalb einen weiterenhorizont”.

The major shift between the generations isthat the spoken language is now foregrounded asthe object of study, and not just the speech of theeducated classes but also “des bauers und desstrassenjungen [of peasants and urchins]” (p. 4).So how does this new direction relate to the workof the Neogrammarians, another group of young,reforming linguists, who had proclaimed theiroriginality and independence from the oldergeneration a few years earlier?

The Anglo-Scandinavian School has adifferent agenda, crucially an applied one basedon the development of phonetic science, and wewill go on in a moment to see what Lundellclaims that this can achieve. He views the Anglo-Scandinavians’ work as in step with theNeogrammarians. As he writes, “Die reformationhatte ihre vorläufer […] in der that sind diejetzigen sprachforscher insgesamt‘junggrammatiker’ [contemporary languagescholars are in fact all ‘Neogrammarians’]” (p.5), rather as the phrase “we’re all structuralistsnow” is often used nowadays. So the Anglo-Scandinavian School grows out of theNeogrammarian Movement, but in terms of itsemphasis, its areas of interest and itsmembership, the Anglo-Scandinavian School issomething new. Passy points to a parallel withNeogrammarianism, but at the same time stressesthe independence of his own community oflinguists, when he describes it in a November1886 letter to Lundell as “Jungfonetismus” (UUNC 680). Passy is even more specific about thecalqued name the following year:

On donne parfois à ses sectateurs, pour les distinguer,le nom de jeunes phonéticiens (en allemand

jungfonetiker, sans doute par analogie avec le motjunggrammatiker…). Je l’adopterai ici, parce qu’il estcommode et assez juste, aucun de ces messieurs, à maconnaissance, n’ayant dépassé quarante ans. (Passy1887: 5)

Correspondence in the Lundell archive fromleading members of the neogrammarianmovement is somewhat limited. Letters and cardsfrom Brugmann and Paul in 1909 (UU NC 691)relate only to a biographical entry on Lundell inMeyer’s Konversationslexikon. Noreen studied inLeipzig in 1879, and, according to Moberg(1979: 67), “Noreen remained a Neogrammarianthroughout his life”; there are 28 items ofcorrespondence from Brugmann to Noreen in UUcovering the period from 1880 to 1919. Mobergquotes Noreen as stating that Sweden became “ettandra hemland [a second home]” for theJunggrammatiker school, but, while herecognised his indebtedness to theNeogrammarians, Lundell felt that the emphasisof the Anglo-Scandinavian School took them in adifferent direction, a sense supported by therelative absence of Lundell’s name fromMoberg’s article on Neogrammarianism inSweden.

Lundell’s claims for what phonetics canachieve are ambitious. It is described as anunavoidable aid to understanding the history oflanguage, as well as indispensable for practicallanguage study (p. 5), so “unentbehrlich” for boththe ‘old’ and the ‘new’ linguistics. As phoneticstakes on ever greater importance for bothscientific and for practical purposes, Lundellclaims, it can be used in work on orthography (ashe did himself), in the teaching of reading, in theeducation of the deaf and dumb (p. 6), inpathology, in the study of metrics, and in the artof singing (p. 8). Lundell’s war-cry is simply“Also auch hier mehr phonetik!” We need toremember the context for this article. It is theopening statement in the first issue of the firstdedicated phonetics journal from the hand of apioneer in terms of the university study of thesubject, and this is the rhetoric of one enthusingto friends rather than of someone seeking to winover an audience of sceptics. All the same, it isquite clear that the discovery of phonetics

provided its advocates with a new lease ofintellectual life, with a sense of excitement andurgency. Lundell writes that the study of writtenmaterials remains a concern in philology, “aberdas gesprochene wort, der fluss der rede wird zumeigentlichen gegenstand des studiums” (Lundell1888: 4), what Jespersen (1933: 5) would call “aphilology of the ear instead of the eye”.

In Die phonetik als universitätsfach, Lundellincludes Sievers in the Anglo-ScandinavianSchool. Not all of the group were equally surethat Sievers was ‘one of them’. Jespersen, as wesaw above, described Sievers as having provided“strong support”, and both Sweet and Storm wereat times critical of Sievers, although in a letter toStorm (27 Dec. 1880) Sweet expressed the viewthat the three of them had between them laid “thefoundations of international phonetics”. Anotherwho saw the phonetic movement as a trulyinternational enterprise was Passy, and there issome very interesting correspondence from Passyin the Lundell archive concerning an internationalvision.29 In a letter of 24 February 1887 (using hisown reformed spelling for French, and writing onthe notepaper of the Assossiassion Fonétique,Ortografe Simplifiée) Passy proposes aninternational committee for spelling reform:

Il me semble, surtout si Klinghardt réussit en Juinà fonder une Société analogue en Alemagne,30

qu’il y aurait avantaje à les grouper ensemble;chaque société conserverait son organisationspéciale, mais nomerait, par exemple, deuxmembres d’un comité central et verserait entre lesmains de celui-ci un tant pour cent de sesressourses. Ce serait alors ce Comité central quiserait charjé de la publication d’un journal.

Passy, as founder of what would later becomeknown as the International Phonetic Association,was an advocate of international language-reformbodies, but this proposal does not seem to havecome to anything. In November of the previousyear, in a letter following his visit to the thirdScandinavian Philologists’ Meeting inStockholm, at which the Scandinavian QuousqueTandem society was founded, Passy wroteenthusiastically to Lundell:

Auch bin ich damit beschäftigt, ein referat überden Stockholmerferein für unser departement zubereiten. Ich mach daraus eine föllige geschichte

des “Jungfonetismus”, u. endige mit dem wunsch,1˚ dass die Lautlehre auch auf der Pariseruniversität studirt sei; 2˚, dass Ihre fier tesen imneusprächlichen unterricht befolgt seien.

We now turn to this Stockholm meeting andto the “theses” set out there. As we noted above,Passy regarded the community to which both heand Lundell belonged as pursuing a commoncause, and it is likely that the term“Jungfonetismus” was coined at the Stockholmmeeting, although probably partly in jest, as itdoes not appear to have been in general use.

5. Phonetics and Language-Teaching ReformThe third Scandinavian philologists’ meeting

was held in Stockholm in the summer of 1886,and on Thursday 12 August Gustaf Axel LudvigDrake (1834–1893), a teacher from Nyköping inSweden, gave a talk entitled “Huru skall enpraktiskt och psykologiskt viktig anordning afock metodik för språkundervisningen vid våraläroverk kunna ernås? [How can a practically andpsychologically significant system of andmethodology for language teaching be achievedin our schools?]”. This talk generated a great dealof interest, such that it was decided to postponethe subsequent discussion until the followingmorning, Friday 13th, inauspiciously enough.Lundell, Passy and Western all took part in thedebate. Further discussion was needed, and so anextra session was arranged for some 50 delegates,with Lundell in the chair. This time, it is reported(Jørgensen 1893: lxviii), Jespersen, Noreen andStorm, amongst others, also contributed to thedebate. The chief outcome of these meetings wasthe foundation of the Scandinavian QuousqueTandem (QT) society under the leadership ofJespersen, Lundell and Western, and a letter wassent out, dated September 1886, signed by allthree and printed in parallel Danish and Swedishversions, inviting like-minded people to join thenew society. (For more on the foundation anddevelopment of QT, see Linn 2002.)

This was part of a wider international debatesurrounding more effective language-teachingmethods and the role of phonetics in thosedevelopments. Both Jespersen (1901) and Sweet(1899) devoted entire books to the issue, and new

journals emerged (like Phonetische Studiendiscussed above, but also Englische Studien andAnglia) to support the blossoming debate, and towhich schoolteachers and university linguistsalike contributed. The Reform Movement (seeHowatt & Widdowson 2004: 187-209; Howatt &Smith 2002) was at heart a German movement,witnessed by the large number of Germanmembers of the editorial board of PhonetischeStudien. The Scandinavian society proposedreform along four lines, the four theses referredto by Passy above, and these were set out in theletter of invitation. These theses actually startedlife as four proposals put forward by Lundell indiscussions following Axel Drake’s paper, andwhich went on to form the agenda for subsequentdiscussions. They are also reproduced inJespersen (1886):

It is not the written language which is taken as thefoundation for teaching, but the real, living spokenlanguage. In those languages whose orthographydiffers significantly from the pronunciation, wetherefore begin with texts in an appropriatephonetic script. From the very start teaching is based on connectedtexts, not disconnected sentences.Grammar teaching is wedded to reading to theextent that the pupil, with the help of the teacher,is guided into gradually working out the laws ofthe language from the reading. Only later should asystematic textbook be used for revision purposes.Translation both from the first language into theforeign language and vice versa is limited, andreplaced partly by written and spokenreproduction and free production in the foreignlanguage in conjunction with what is being read,partly by more cursory reading.31

The ideal of the ‘living language’ is thefoundation stone of the reform proposals.

The society attracted considerableinterest. Its Revy [Review], which ran from 1888to 1891, lists members. By the time of issue 3,169 members, mostly from the Nordic countries,had joined, and members continued to jointhroughout the years in which the societyfunctioned. It isn’t actually clear how long thesociety continued in operation, and to what extentthe explicit pursuit of the principles actuallyoutlived a formal society. The journal, which wasmore of a newsletter and which didn’t appear

regularly, certainly ground to a halt in 1891, butLundell’s personal papers suggest that the societywas still active at a later date. There are letters toLundell in the period 1891–1895 from JohanBergman, whose letterhead describes him as co-director of the “Nye Språkkursen” Centre atMästersamuelsgatan 19 in Stockholm,introducing new members. By the beginning of1903, however, all formal activity had ceased. Ina letter of 24 January, Axel Gabriel Wallensköld(1864–1933), later Professor of RomancePhilology in Helsinki, writes asking what to dowith the subscriptions from Finnish members,now that the society is no longer functioning, andproposes that the remaining sum of 228,20Finnish kroner be handed over to the Associationphonétique internationale. (In 1904 Le maîtrephonétique reported a donation from QuousqueTandem.) The initial years were the mostproductive, but Western felt that there weregrounds for feeling positive about QT, whateverits fate:

If the Quousque Tandem society has achieved nothingelse, it has at least quickened tempers and generatedsome discussion. It has hopefully made it clear tomany that the excellence of our current teachingmethod is not beyond doubt. And that is something. Ifthe young society dies, it can’t be said that it wassilenced to death, and hopefully it won’t be spoken orwritten to death either.32 (Western 1888: 40)

Lundell appears to have been the least activeof the three founders in terms of promoting thesociety, but this is not to underestimate hiscommitment to the cause, and Passy wasimpressed by his fervour in the Stockholmdebate:

M. Lundell fut chargé d’ouvrir le feu. Il eût étédifficile de faire un meilleur choix […] M.Lundell apportait, dans ce débat, l’autorité d’unecompétence théorique et pratique incontestable.En outre, jeune, ardent, ennemi passionné desvieilles méthodes d’enseignement et del’orthographie traditionelle, il n’y avait pas àcraindre de sa part un manqué d’énergie. (Passy1887: 15-16)

He was obviously keenly interested in the issuesinvolved, given his willingness to chair thediscussions which led to the society’s formation,and he is explicit about presenting natural

sounding texts reflecting natural speech forms,and employing some phonetic script in hisSwedish and Russian textbook much later(Lundell & Rubetz 1921: vii-ix). The mostinteresting documents to shed light on the QTenterprise in the Lundell archive are howeverseveral letters from Jespersen.

In 1893 Jespersen sent Lundell a copy of aletter he had originally sent to someone else;intriguingly enough we don’t know for sure whothe recipient was. This is what Jespersen wrote:

Herewith I am sending you (somewhat late)Lundell’s and Western’s thoughts in connectionwith the suggestion that QT be allowed to mergewith Passy’s association. As to my own view, Ihave never been unequivocally in favour ofmerger, but I am in agreement with Lll, that weshould keep QT’s name. On the other hand I amfor discontinuing our Revy, which is not verysatisfactory in relation to the inconvenience andthe cost.But can you find another form of activity? Themost important thing for me is that by publishingteaching books and taking part in discussions wedo our bit so that quousquism permeates teachingmore and more.How is the printing of the French book going?33

(UU letter collection)

There is no evidence of the French associationconsidering a merger, although in January 1887Le Maître phonétique carried a proposal for ajoint publication by the two societies.34

The query about “the French book” is not animmediate clue to the original recipient of thisletter, since a number of French language bookswere published in the Nordic countries in themid-1890s, but the most likely addressee is AxelWallensköld (see above), leading light in theFinnish branch of the society, who in 1893published in Helsinki a Swedish translation ofJespersen’s 1889 French primer “efterlydskriftmetoden [on phonetic principles]”(Jespersen 1889). The significant thing aboutwhat Jespersen discusses here is that new formsof language teaching based on phonetic principleswere an international mission, and members ofthe School felt the international nature of theenterprise strongly.

Jespersen had written directly to Lundell inpraise of his own French primer, suggesting itmight be translated into Swedish (a suggestion

obviously well taken by Wallensköld), sinceJespersen writes (in all humility!) that he hasnever witnessed such joy in school as precisely inhis own classes. Jespersen notes that he is due togive a lecture about the QT enterprise in Detpædagogiske Selskab, and the letter is redolentthroughout of the international fellowship of QT(his final words are “salus et fraternité!”). He andChristian Sarauw (1865 1925) are preparing aDanish version of Brekke’s English primer, andSarauw is preparing a German primer forFrederiksberg Latin- og Realskole, Copenhagen,whose governors, Jespersen claimed, wanted‘quousquism’ implemented across the board assoon as possible. The urgency and the enthusiasmare tangible. Even before its formalestablishment, QT was characterised by urgencyand enthusiasm. Passy (1887) gives a full reportof the debates following Drake’s paper, whereeven Storm gets washed along on the wave ofenthusiasm (although “je ne puis suivre partoutles chefs de la jeune école phonétique” [p. 25]).No sooner had the discussion finished at 1230 onFriday 13 August when:

Quelques instants après la clôture de la séance,une affiche était posée dans l’antichambre de laChambre des députés, invitant toutes lespersonnes s’intéressant à la réforme del’enseignement des langues à s’unir pour formerune Association. (Passy 1887: 29)

6. The mother tongue6.1 Phonetics and dialectology

The phrase which above all stands as themotto of the Anglo-Scandinavian School is theliving language, or its various Scandinaviantranslations. It permeates all Johan Storm’swritings, no matter what the topic underdiscussion. In his last major work, a study ofFrench historical syntax, Storm wrote of the needto draw out “the playful life of the livinglanguage” (Storm 1911a: xiv), where language isnot to be seen as a collection of moribund forms,but as something alive and even ‘playful’. Thesubtitle of his major work, the Engelsk Filologiof 1879, is in fact “det levende Sprog” (or in thelater German editions “Die lebende Sprache”).This does not just mean the spoken language, butall forms of the language, spoken and written,

which are alive for its users. In languageteaching, too, it was the ‘living language’ thatwas the yardstick for Storm. The living languageshould be the only variety taught, and languagelearning will be brought alive as a consequence.As he wrote in a newspaper article in 1883:

My principle for education in the modernlanguages, which I have always pointed out, andwhich has gained a significant following abroad,is that one must begin at the beginning, i.e. startfrom the simplest basis for language, the livinglanguage.35 (Storm 1883)

This emphasis on the living language as theonly appropriate linguistic object also includedStorm’s work on Norwegian, both the standardvariety, where he was a central figure incontemporary debates (see Linn 2003), and thedialects, where he founded scientific Norwegiandialectology. As a language reformer and as adialectologist, Lundell was Storm’s directcounterpart in Sweden, and Holm (1996: 593)simply describes Lundell as “dialectologist ofSwedish”. Jespersen devised the Daniatranscription system (see Rischel 1989) as theDanish equivalent to Storm’s Norwegian dialectalphabet (Norvegia) and Lundell’sLandsmålsalfabet. It was not only the practice ofdevising transcription systems that spread acrossScandinavia, but there was clearly a suggestion inthe air that the three countries should worktowards a common system, as suggested in a1916 letter from Didrik Arup Seip (1884–1963)to Lundell (UU NC 680), where he wrote:

With regard to the plan for a common-Scandinavian phonetic alphabet I will say that Iam still very interested in the case […] I havementioned it to Amund B. Larsen and others.36 DrLarsen agrees with the idea; he thinks that theSwedish Landsmålsalfabet in any case needs to bemodified a bit to be suitable in Norway. He thinksthat the case should be taken up at a meeting ofScandinavian philologists […].37

Here is yet another example of the commonalityof purpose evident across the School.

It is not necessary to read for long in theworks of the Anglo-Scandinavian School to findthe group’s motto cropping up, and it seemed tocarry a real power for them. In his 1881 polemicon dialectology, the barely thirty-year-old

Lundell opens by characterising “the most recentperiod’s linguistics”, which “concerns itself withthe real language” and “puts great weight on thestudy of the current living language” (Lundell1881: 3).38 He goes on in his presentation at theKristiania meeting of Scandinavian philologiststo set out his vision for dialectology. Dialectologywas the linguistic science of the moment inScandinavia, witnessed by the widespreadinterest in Swedish dialects and, for example,Ivar Andreas Aasen’s (1813–1896) Norwegiandialect grammar and dictionary, published a fewdecades earlier (albeit not on phoneticprinciples). Lundell’s manifesto for dialectologyis summarised in 13 theses, listed on pages 30and 31 of Lundell (1881). Thesis 1 states that“practice in direct observation, preferablyachieved by carrying out dialect studies, alsobelongs to a good general linguistic training”.The new linguistics is to be based on theobservation of real language in use, because, inthe words of thesis 3, “dialects have the sameimportance for linguistics as the literarylanguage”. Lundell cannot go the whole way,barely thirty years old and addressing the massedranks of Scandinavia’s philologists, and suggestthat the dialects are of greater interest than theliterary language, but he didn’t believe this either,since language can be alive to its users in manydifferent varieties. We will not be presenting theLandsmålsalfabet here, concerned as we are withthe development of a philosophy of linguisticsrather than the detail of practice, but it is nosurprise that thesis 12 states that “an organicalphabet complementing the usual Latin one is tobe preferred to alphabets based on otherprinciples”.39 (The principles ofLandsmålsalfabetet are set out in Lundell 1928,and discussed in Eriksson 1961.)

Phonetics and orthographic reformIn the 1880s an interest in phonetics often

went hand-in-hand with a desire for orthographicreform, although not all phoneticians were infavour of orthographic reform and vice versa, asPassy (1887: 3) points out: “Bien que lesphonéticiens soient, en general, partisans d’uneréforme de l’orthographie usuelle, il ne faut pas

croire que les deux qualifications soientsynonymes” [while phoneticians in general are infavour of reform in standard orthography, itshould not be assumed that the two aresynonymous].

Johan Storm was a vociferous and activecontributor to debates concerning languagereform (Linn 2003), but in Norway it was morethan just spelling reform that was at stake. Thewhole standard was up for debate, and it wasinevitable that the country’s leading linguistshould have applied his knowledge in thenational cause. For Lundell as well, debatessurrounding the national language were a naturalforum in which to apply his phonetic knowledge,and here it was orthographic reform that wasunder the spotlight. Lundell was amongst those“new spellers” who advocated cautious reform inSwedish spelling, by contrast with Noreen on theradical wing (Sellberg 1988: 102). Writing in that‘annus mirabilis’ of 1886, in a review of Noreen’sproposals for spelling reform of the same year,Lundell set out his views on reform in general:

There is a general rule that applies in all areas oflife, that reforms could — and let us add should— only be carried out to the extent that generalopinion is adequately prepared and willing torecognise their authority.40 (Leffler, Lundell &Schwartz 1886: 39)

This is in fact very much in line with Storm’sapproach to reform, although it remains true tosay that Lundell’s generation was on the wholemore eager for reform of various sorts thanStorm’s was.

Swedish spelling was by and largestandardised by the beginning of the 19th century,and it was thanks to the influence of proponentsof the new science of phonetics that questionsabout its fidelity to the spoken system of thelanguage came to be raised. Noreen and Lundellwere not lone voices, however, and during 1885and 1886 numerous articles on the question ofspelling reform were published. In 1886 those infavour of a spelling which more adequatelyreflected contemporary spoken Swedish formedthe Orthographic Association[Rättstavningssällskapet], which in turn launchedits own journal, The New Speller [Nystavaren].

Some years later an equivalent society wasestablished in Norway, as discussed by Westernin letters to Noreen from 1892 (UU). (For moreon the debates surrounding Swedish spelling, seeTeleman (2003).)

Lundell sets out his approach to spellingreform in three lectures “on the orthographicquestion”, published in 1886, not, he writes, as adefinite suggestion for a new spelling system,just the boundaries within which one for nowshould be kept (1886: ii). In the preface to theselectures he aligns his own efforts on behalf ofSwedish with efforts being made internationallyto make spelling systems of established writtenlanguages more rational, and he insists that he isaddressing the question from the rational point-of-view (Lundell 1886: ii). For Lundell an“irrational” spelling system has the socialconsequence of preventing the majority ofSwedes from achieving a satisfactory level ofeducation, but the appliance of phonetic sciencecan rectify this. Consequently this course oflectures opens with an introduction to generalphonetics and Swedish dialects before going onto set out the benefits to be gained from revisingSwedish spelling. The fullest account of hisviews on Swedish spelling (Lundell 1934)reiterates the social nature of the question, andhere Lundell states quite categorically thatspelling is not a linguistic question, but, in hiswords, a practical, pedagogical and socialquestion (Lundell 1934: 5), in short at theinterface between language study and the realworld, so firmly within the domain of appliedlinguistics. The system he proposes is based onthe one sound — one symbol principle andinvolves the introduction of three new symbols (ʃ[UNICODE 0283], ŋ [Unicode 014B] and ɷ[Unicode 0277]) alongside existing alphabetletters. Lundell offers the dire warning thatfailure to reform Swedish spelling could result inSwedes ending up in the same mess as theEnglish and the French (1934: 63)!

Lundell liked to summarise his philosophyconcerning the various applied linguisticquestions he was concerned with. We havealready noted his summary theses concerninglanguage teaching and dialectology. The seven

principles of spelling reform are set out inLundell (1893: xxi-xxiii), and they can besummed up as stating that: orthographic reform isneeded in the name of better educationalopportunities; it needs to be extensive enough toreap real benefits; it should be cautious. Lundell’sproposals (like Storm’s) were not accepted. Thepoint is, however, that here was yet another areain which the science of phonetics could beapplied in the name of social improvement. It isnot until the middle of the 20th century that thebranch of applied linguistics known as languageplanning gets a name, but there is no doubt thatLundell (as well as Storm and Western and othersof the Anglo-Scandinavian School) were firmlyengaged in the enterprise of language planningfrom the 1880s.

7. ConclusionsBecause of its emphasis on the development

of theoretical linguistics, the history of linguisticscanon has failed to give adequate recognition tothe Anglo-Scandinavian School. This is whereapplied linguistics emerged in its modern form.Henry Sweet has been called the founder ofapplied linguistics, but he was part of tight-knitinternational community of linguists pursuing acommon agenda based on the desire for reform.These linguists wanted reform in language-teaching methods and they wanted reform in thewritten standards of their own languages. Theyfelt passionately about these ‘real-world’language problems. They had the confidence tolobby for reform because they possessed apioneering spirit. Many of them were pioneers inthe teaching of modern languages in universitiesacross northern Europe. They were pioneers inthe teaching and application of the science ofphonetics, which provided the foundation for alltheir work with language. There was a clear sensein which they were embarked on a new form oflinguistics, and the rhetoric to support thispermeates their writings. They knew each otherpersonally, they supported each other both face-to-face and in their publications, and when theywere prevented from meeting, the relationshipswere kept up by vigorous correspondence. Themembers of the Anglo-Scandinavian School had

a strong sense of constituting a school, and thisterm formed an important element in theirdiscourse practices and their self-justification.

It was suggested in section 2.2 (above) thatthe Anglo-Scandinavian School can best bedescribed as a discourse community, so now it istime to test it against the “six definingcharacteristics” of a discourse communityadvanced by Swales (1990: 24-27).

Firstly, a discourse community is said toexhibit “a broadly agreed set of common publicgoals”. There is no textbook of Anglo-Scandinavian practice as such, so there was neverany reason for the members of the School toexpress these in any formal sense. However,Lundell (1888) as a manifesto for the ‘newscience’ sets out a series of goals for phonetics, aset of goals tacitly agreed by the august editorialboard at the start of whose new journal theyappear. And in their practice — what they wroteabout and were concerned with — members ofthe School show a striking similarity of purpose.

Next, a discourse community “hasmechanisms of intercommunication between itsmembers”. These linguists communicated witheach other tirelessly, through letters, visits to eachothers’ homes, holidays together, conferences,and more formally in the rash of new journalsdedicated to their interests.

Thirdly, a discourse community, according toSwales’s definition, “uses its participatorymechanisms primarily to provide information andfeedback”. Swales (1990: 26) glosses this byexplaining that “membership implies uptake ofthe informational opportunities”. From the pointof view of the Anglo-Scandinavian School thisrefers to the fact that they sent each other copiesof their publications, which they read andreviewed. They subscribed to each others’journals and attended each others’ conferences.So they took part actively in the School’sactivities in order to advance their understandingof the field.

Further, a discourse community “utilizes andhence possesses one or more genres in thecommunicative furtherance of its aims”: “[…]groupings need, as it were, to settle down andwork out their communicative proceedings and

practices before they can be recognized asdiscourse communities” (Swales 1990: 26). Inshort, a discourse community needs to talk acommon language. For the Anglo-ScandinavianSchool this means the language of the science ofphonetics, including the use of a specialisedphonetic alphabet in various contexts, like dialectstudies and language-teaching books.

A discourse community is recognised byits discourse, how its members speak to eachother, and this involves at the micro-level having“acquired some specific lexis” (Swales’s fifthcharacteristic). There are several discoursal redthreads running through the writings of theSchool, and a close reading of key texts woulddraw out more, as well as characteristic rhetoricalgestures. For now it is sufficient to mention themantra living language, as well as the languageof newness and freshness: young science, newscience, young practitioners, ‘Jungfonetismus’.

Finally, a discourse community is said toexhibit “a threshold level of members with asuitable degree of relevant content and discoursalexpertise”. Whether we count up members of QTor subscribers to Phonetische Studien, or thenumber of people carrying out dialect workaccording to the principles of Lundell, we haveno difficulty in arguing that this was an activecommunity. It was not an artificially constructedcommunity either. As Swales notes, “discoursecommunities have changing memberships”(1990: 27). We have already witnessed some ofthe inter-personal ebb and flow, whichcharacterises a dynamic community, in Storm’schanging relationships with Jespersen and Sweet.Members of QT came and went, whether “bydeath or in other less voluntary ways” (Swales1990: 27), but the causes survived them, mutatingultimately into the applied linguistics of the 21stcentury.

This article has deliberately scrutinised theAnglo-Scandinavian School from a somewhatnarrow perspective, from the point-of-view of theLundell archive. Nonetheless, I hope to havepresented enough evidence to argue for theexistence of an independent Anglo-ScandinavianSchool within the history of linguistics and forthe usefulness of the concept of a discourse

community in intellectual historiography. What isneeded now is: better knowledge of othermembers of these two first generations of appliedlinguists; a more nuanced understanding of theinter-personal dynamics of the community;focused studies of the individual topics on whichthey worked; and a thorough investigation of thesubsequent development of applied linguistics,both locally and internationally.

REFERENCESAtherton, Mark. In preparation. Henry Sweet andthe Nature of Language.

Brekke, K[nud Olai]. 1894. Indberetning om enhøsten 1893 foretagen stipendiereise tilEngland for at studere Gouins metode forundervisning i sprog [Report on a scholarshipvisit to England in the autumn of 1893 to studyGouin’s method of language teaching].Kristiania: A.W. Brøggers bogtrykkeri.

Burke, Peter, ed. 1991. New Perspectives onHistorical Writing. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Collins, Beverley & Inger M[argarethe] Mees.1999. The Real Professor Higgins: The life andcareer of Daniel Jones. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.

Davies, Alan & Catherine Elder. 2004. “GeneralIntroduction: Applied linguistics. Subject todiscipline?”. Handbook of Applied Linguisticsed. by Alan Davies & Catherine Elder, 1-15.Malden, Mass.; Oxford & Carlton: Blackwell.

Ellis, A[lexander] J[ohn] 1885. The Alphabet ofNature; or, Contributions towards a moreaccurate analysis and symbolization of spokensounds; with some account of the principalphonetic alphabets hitherto proposed. London:Bagster.

Eriksson, Manne. 1961. Svensk ljudskrift 1878–1960: En översikt över det svenskalandsmålsalfabetets utveckling och användninghuvudsakligen i tidskriften Svenska landsmål[Swedish phonetic transcription 1878–1960: Anoverview of the development and use of theSwedish dialect alphabet, primarily in thejournal Svenska landsmål]. (= Svenskalandsmål och svenskt folkliv B, 62.) Stockholm:P. A. Norstedt & Söner.

Fay, Brian, Philip Pomper & Richard T. Vann,eds. 1998. History and Theory: Contemporaryreadings. Oxford: Blackwell.

Foldvik, Arne Kjell. 1976. “Henry Sweet omlydskrift, Svenska landsmålsalfabetet og J. A.

Lundell”. Svenska landsmål och svenskt folkliv99.64-68.

Holm, Gösta. 1996. “Lundell, Johan August”.Lexicon Grammaticorum: Who’s who in thehistory of world linguistics ed. by HarroStammerjohann, p. 593. Tübingen: MaxNiemeyer.

Hovdhaugen, Even, Fred Karlsson, CarolHenriksen & Bengt Sigurd. 2000. The Historyof Linguistics in the Nordic Countries.Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

Howatt, A[nthony] P[hilip] R[eid] and R[ichard]C. Smith, eds. 2002. Modern LanguageTeaching: The reform movement. 5 vols.London: Routledge.

Howatt, A. P. R., with H[enry] G[eorge]Widdowson. 2004. A History of EnglishLanguage Teaching. 2nd ed. Oxford & NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Jankowsky, Kurt R. 2001. “The Consolidation ofthe Neogrammarian Framework”. History ofthe Language Sciences – Geschichte derSprachwissenschaften – Histoire des sciencesdu langage, vol II ed. by Sylvain Auroux,E.F.K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & KeesVersteegh, 1350-1368. Berlin & New York:Walter de Gruyter.

Jespersen, Otto. 1886. ”Den nysprogundervisnings program”. Vor Ungdom1886.353-381.

Jespersen, Otto. 1889. Fransk Læsebog efterLydskriftmetoden. Kjøbenhavn: N. publ.

Jespersen, Otto. 1897–1899. Fonetik: Ensystematisk fremstilling af læren om sproglyd.København: Schubothe.

Jespersen, Otto. 1901. Sprogundervisning.København: Schubothe.

Jespersen, Otto. 1909. ”Artenes oprindelse ogsprogenes verden [The origin of species and theworld of languages]”. Tilskueren 1909.8-17.

Jespersen, Otto. 1916. Nutidssprog hos Börn ogVoxne [Contemporary language amongstchildren and adults]. København & Kristiania:Gyldendal.

Jespersen, Otto. 1933. Linguistica: SelectedPapers in English, French and German.Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard; London:George Allen & Unwin.

Jespersen, Otto. 1995 [1938]. A Linguist’s Life.An English translation of Otto Jespersen’sautobiography with notes, photos and abibliography. Edited by Arne Juul, HansF[rede] Nielsen & Jørgen Erik Nielsen, Odense:

Odense University Press. [Original title, Ensprogmands levned. København: Gyldendal,1938.]

Jordanova, Ludmilla. 2000. History in Practice.London: Arnold; New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Juul, Arne. 2002. Den levende fonograf:Nordmændenes Professor Higgins. (=University of Southern Denmark Studies inLinguistics, 14.) Odense: SyddanskUniversitetsforlag.

Juul, Arne & Hans F[rede] Nielsen, eds. 1989.Otto Jespersen: Facets of his life and work.Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Jørgensen, C[hristian Peter Julius], ed. 1893.Forhandlinger paa det fjerde nordiskeFilologmøde i København. Den 18–21 juli1892. Tillæg: Berättelse om Förhandlingarnavid det tredje nordiska filologmötet i Stockholm10–13 augusti 1886 af Nils Linder [Proceedingsfrom the Fourth Nordic Philologists Meeting,Copenhagen, 18–21 July 1892. Appendix:Presentation of Proceedings at the Third NordicPhilologists Meeting, Stockholm, 10–13 August1886 by Nils Linder]. København:Gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag (F. Hegel &Søn).

Klinghardt, Hermann. 1888. Ein JahrErfahrungen mit der neuen Methode: Berichtüber den Unterricht mit einer englischenAnfängerklasse im Schuljahre 1887/88;zugleich eine Anleitung für jüngereFachgenossen. Marburg: N. G. Elwert.

Langslet, Lars Roar. 1999. I kamp for norskkultur: Riksmålsbevegelsens historie gjennom100 år [Fighting for Norwegian culture: 100Years of the Riksmål movement’s history].Oslo: Riksmålsforbundet.

Larsen, Amund B[redesen]. 1897. Oversigt overde norske bygdemål [Overview of theNorwegian rural dialects]. Kristiania:Aschehoug.

Leffler, L[eopold] Fr[edrik], J. A. Lundell &Eugène Schwartz. 1886. Några anmärkningar irättstafningsfrågan med särskild hänsyn tillrättstafningssällskapets reformförslag [Someobservations on the orthography question withparticular regard to the reform proposals of thespelling association]. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt& Söner.

Linn, Andrew R[obert]. 2002. “QuousqueTandem: Language-teaching reform in 19th-century Scandinavia”. The Henry Sweet Society

Bulletin 38.34-42.Linn, Andrew R. 2003. “Johan Storm,

‘målmennenes og fornorskingsmennenesargeste motstander’ [Johan Storm, ‘fiercestopponent of the Landsmål activists and theNorwegianisers alike’]”. Krefter og motkrefter ispråknormeringa: Om språknormer i teori ogpraksis ed. by Helge Omdal & Rune Røsstad,175-186. Kristiansand: Høyskole Forlaget.

Linn, Andrew R. 2004a. Johan Storm, dhi grétestpràktikal liNgwist in dhi werld. Oxford &Boston: Blackwell.

Linn, Andrew R. 2004b. “Research Ethics inBook-Based, Historical Research”. FloresGrammaticæ: Essays in memory of Vivien Lawed. by Nicola McLelland & Andrew R. Linn,21-32. Münster: Nodus.

Linn, Andrew R. 2006. “Adolf Gotthard Noreen”.Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nded. directed by Keith Brown, vol. VIII, p. 696.Oxford: Elsevier.

Lundell, J[ohan] A[ugust]. 1879. “Det svenskalandsmålsalfabetet, tillika en öfversikt afspråkljudens förekomst inom svenska mål [TheSwedish Landsmålsalfabet, together with anoverview of the occurrence of speech sounds inthe Swedish language]”. Nyare bidrag tillkännedom om de svenska landsmålen ocksvenskt folklif 1.11-158.

Lundell, J. A. 1881. “Om dialektstudier medsärskild hänsyn till de nordiska språken:Föredrag vid andra nordiska filologmötet iKristiania i allmän sammankomst den 11augusti 1881”. Nyare bidrag till kännedom omde svenska landsmålen ock svenskt folklif 3:1.1-31.

Lundell, J. A. 1885. Review of Norvegia 1.Nordisk Revy 1885.458-460.

Lundell, J. A. 1886. Om rättstafningsfrågan: Treföreläsningar [On the orthography question:Three lectures]. Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt &Söner.

Lundell, J. A. 1887. “Olika ståndpunkter”.Nordisk Tidskrift för Vetenskap, Konst ochIndustri 10.1-30.

Lundell, J. A. 1888. “Die phonetik alsuniversitätsfach”. Phonetische Studien 1.1-17.

Lundell, J. A. 1890. Études sur la pronunciationrusse 1e partie: Compte rendu de la littérature.1e livraison. (= Upsala Universitets Årsskrift1891 [sic] Filosofi, Språkvetenskap ochHistoriska vetenskaper. 1.) Stockholm: P. A.Norstedt & Söner.

Lundell, J. A. 1893. Svensk ordlista medreformstavning ock uttalsbeteckning [SwedishWordlist with Reformed Spelling andPronunciation Guide]. Under medvärkan avHilda Lundell och Elise Zetterqvist samt flerefackmän. Stockholm: Hugo Geber.

Lundell, J. A. 1911–1914. Lärobok i ryskaspråket. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner.

Lundell, J. A. 1928. “The Swedish DialectAlphabet”. Studia Neophilologica 1.1-17.

Lundell, J. A. 1934. Svensk rättstavning.Principutredning. (= StudentföreningenVerdandis småskrifter, 368.) Stockholm: AlbertBonnier.

Lundell, J. A., Hilda Lundell & Elise Zetterqvist(née Lundell). 1889–1940. “Folkminnen frånKläckeberga och Dörby, upptecknade av HildaLundell och Elise Zetterqvist, utgivna undermedverkan av J.A. Lundell”. Nyare bidrag tillkännedom om de svenska landsmålen ocksvenskt folklif 9.

Lundell, J. A. & Al[exander] A. Rubetz. 1921.Svensk-Rysk Parlör till tjänst för ryssar ochsvenskar vid inlärande av svensk och ryskttalspråk. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner.

MacMahon, Michael K. C. In preparation.Through the Silent Land: The life and times ofHenry Sweet.

Moberg, Lennart. 1979. “Om den nordiskaspråkvetenskapen i Sverige för hundra årsedan”. Svenska landsmål och svenskt folkliv102.53-71.

Nystrand, Martin. 1982, ed. What Writers Know:The language, process, and structure of writtendiscourse. New York: Academic Press.

Passy, Paul. 1887. Le phonétisme au Congrèsphilologique de Stockholm en 1886: Rapportprésenté au Ministre de l’Instruction publique.Paris: Ch. Delagrave & Hachette et Cie.

Paul, Hermann. 1886. Review of HugoSchuchardt, Ueber die Lautgesetze: Gegen dieJunggrammatiker (Berlin: Robert Oppenheim,1885). Literaturblatt für germanische undromanische Philologie 7.1-6.

Raudnitzky, Hans. 1911. Die Bell-SweetscheSchule. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte derenglischen Phonetik. (= Marburger Studien zurenglischen Philologie, 13.) Marburg: N. G.Elwert.

Rischel, Jørgen. 1989. “Otto Jespersen’sContribution to Danish and General Phonetics”.Juul & Nielsen, eds. 1989.43-60.

Sellberg, Lars. 1988. “Rationalismen”. De

nordiske skriftspråkenes utvikling på 1800-tallet, vol. III: Ideologier og språkstyring, 93-112. Oslo: Nordisk Språksekretariat.

Sievers, Eduard. 1876. Grundzüge derLautphysiologie zur Einführung in das Studiumder Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen.Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

Sievers, Eduard. 1881. Grundzüge der Phonetikzur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehreder indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweitewesentlich umgearbeitete und vermehrteAuflage der Grundzüge der Lautphysiologie.Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. (5th ed., 1901.)

Storm, Johan. 1860. “Tale og Accent i Forhold tilSang”. Illustreret Nyhedsblad 9.169-170, 177-178.

Storm, Johan. 1878. “Det norske Målstræv”.Nordisk Tidskrift för Vetenskap, Konst ochIndustri 1.407-430, 526-550.

Storm, Johan. 1879. Engelsk Filologi: Anvisningtil et videnskabeligt Studium af det engelskeSprog for Studerende, Lærere og Viderekomne.I: Det levende Sprog. Kristiania: Alb.Cammermeyer.

Storm, Johan. 1880. “De svenske Dialekter”.Nordisk Tidskrift för Vetenskap, Konst ochIndustri 3.333-350.

Storm, Johan. 1881. Englische Philologie:Anleitung zum wissenschaftlichen Studium derenglischen Sprache. Vom Verfasser für dasdeutsche Publikum bearbeitet. I: Die lebendeSprache. Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger.

Storm, Johan. 1883. “Engelsk Stil ved Realartium1882, med nogle Bemærkninger omRealdannelsen”. Morgenbladet, 23, 25, and 26January 1883.

Storm, Johan. 1884. Kortere Ordliste medForklaring af Lydskriften. (= Bilag tilNorvegia, 1.)

Storm, Johan. 1887. Franske Taleøvelser. Ensystematisk Fremstilling af det franskeTalesprog gjennem Samtaler af det daglige Liv,ordnede efter Grammatiken. Mellemtrin.Kjøbenhavn: Gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag(F. Hegel & Søn)

Storm, Johan. 1892. Englische Philologie:Anleitung zum wissenschaftlichen Studium derenglischen Sprache. Vom Verfasser für dasdeutsche Publikum bearbeitet. I: Die lebendeSprache. 1. Abteilung: Phonetik undAussprache. Zweite, vollständig umgearbeiteteund sehr vermehrte Auflage. Leipzig: O. R.Reisland.

Storm, Johan. 1896. Norsk Sprog. Kraakemaal ogLandsmaal [Norsk language: Crow languageand Landsmaal]. Kjøbenhavn: GyldendalskeBoghandels Forlag (F. Hegel & Søn).

Storm, Johan. 1911a. Større fransk Syntax I:Artiklerne. Kristiania & Kjøbenhavn:Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.

Storm, Johan. 1911b. Om Nabosprog ogGrænsedialekter. (= VidenskapsselskapetsSkrifter, II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse, 1911, 4.)Kristiania: I Kommission hos Jacob Dybwad.

Svahn, Oscar. 1882. Lärobok i Välläsning.Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner.

Swales, John M[alcolm]. 1990. Genre Analysis:English in academic and research settings.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sweet, Henry. 1877. Handbook of Phonetics.Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sweet, Henry. 1899. The Practical Study ofLanguages: A guide for teachers and learners.London: J. M. Dent & Sons.

Sørensen, Knud. 1971. “The Teaching of Englishin Denmark: An historical survey”.Pædagogica Historica 11:1.90-101.

Teleman, Ulf. 2003. Tradis och funkis: Svenskspråkvård och språkpolitik efter 1800. (=Skrifter utgivna av Svenska språknämnden, 87.)Stockholm: Norstedts ordbok.

Tortarolo, Edoardo. 1996. “Intellectual Historyand Historiography”. Intellectual News 1.17–18.

Vachek, Josef. 1966. The Linguistic School ofPrague: An introduction to its theory andpractice. Bloomington & London: IndianaUniversity Press.

Venås, Kjell. 2000. Ivar Aasen og universitetet.Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.

Viëtor, Wilhelm [= Quousque Tandem]. 1882.Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren! EinBeitrag zur Überbürdungsfrage. Heilbronn:Gebr. Henninger.

Watts, Richard J. 1999. “The Social Constructionof Standard English”. Standard English: Thewidening debate ed. by Tony Bex & Richard J.Watts, 40-68. London: Routledge.

Watts, Richard J. Forthcoming. “GrammarWriters in Eighteenth-Century Britain: Acommunity of practice or a discoursecommunity?” Grammars, Grammarians andGrammar Writing ed. by Ingrid Tieken-Boonvan Ostade. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice:Learning, meaning, and identity. New York:

Cambridge University Press.Western, August. 1885. Englische Lautlehre fürStudierende und Lehrer. Heilbronn: Gebr.Henninger.

Western, August. 1888. “Mere om den nyesprogundervisning [More about the newlanguage teaching]”. Vor Ungdom 1888.40-70.

Western, August. 1889. “Kurze Darstellung desnorwegischen Lautsystems”. PhonetischeStudien 2.259-282.

Witting, Claes. 1982/1984. “Lundell, JohanAugust”. Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, band 24:Ljungdahl-Malmros ed. by Birgitta Lager-Kromnow, 261-264. Stockholm: Svensktbiografiskt lexikon.

SUMMARY

The major claim of this article is that there isan independent and clearly defined chapter in thedevelopment of linguistics, beginning in the1880s, which represents the birth of modernapplied linguistics, and which has beenoverlooked in linguistic historiography becauseof the comparative marginalisation of appliedlinguistics in the literature. This is the Anglo-Scandinavian School, a phrase its members usedto describe themselves. Pioneers withinphonetics, these linguists applied their phoneticknowledge to a range of ‘real world’ languageissues, notably language-teaching reform,orthographic reform, language planning, and thestudy of the spoken language. As well aspresenting the ideas of the Anglo-ScandinavianSchool and how they were developed, this articleinterrogates the notion of a school in intellectualhistory and proposes that it may in fact be morefruitful to view intellectual history in terms ofdiscourse communities.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article a pour but principal de démontrerl’existence d’une période claire et définie dans ledéveloppement de la linguistique, qui se situedans les années 1880 et qui représente lanaissance de la linguistique appliquée moderne;aspect souvent négligé par l’historiographielinguistique, vu une certaine marginalisation de lalinguistique appliquée dans la littérature. Il s’agit

de l’École anglo-scandinave, pour reprendrel’expression dont se servaient avec ses membresafin de se décrire. Pionniers au sein de laphonétique, ces linguistes appliquaient leursconnaissances phonétiques sur toute une gammede questions concernant les actes de paroles oul’énonciation, telles que la réforme del’enseignement du langage, celle del’orthographe, la politique linguistique et l’étudede la langue parlée. Au-delà de la présentationdes idées de l’École anglo-scandinave, cet articles’interroge sur la notion même d’‘école’ au seinde l’histoire intellectuelle et envisage qu’il seraitpeut-être plus fructueux de concevoir l’histoireintellectuelle en termes de ‘discoursecommunities’.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Seit den 80er Jahren des 19. Jhdt. zeichnetsich eine eigenständige Entwicklung in derLinguistik ab, die man gut und gerne alsAngewandte Sprachwissenschaft bezeichnenkann: die sog. Anglo-Skandinavische Schule. Ausdieser “Schule”, die bisher wegen derMarginalisierung der angewandtenSprachwissenschaft in der linguistischenHistorio graphie übersehen wurde, entstand diemoderne Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft. DieVertreter dieser “Anglo-Skandinavischen Schule”— denn so bezeichneten sie sich auch damals —leisteten Pionierarbeit, indem sie ihre Kenntnissein der Phonetik auch auf eine Reihe vonkonkreten sprachlichen Problembereichenanwendeten, wie Reform desFremdsprachunterrichts, orthographische Reform,Sprachplanung sowie das Studium dergesprochenen Sprache. Dieser Beitrag stellt dieHauptvertreter und die Ideen der “Anglo-Skandinavischen Schule” vor, aberproblematisiert gleichzeitig auch dieAngemessenheit des Konzepts ‘Schule’ in derGeistesgeschichte und plädiert stattdessen für‘discourse community‘ als theoretische Größe,mit der sich Ideengeschichte adäquaterbeschreiben lässt.

Author’s address:

Andrew R. LinnSchool of English Literature, Language and

LinguisticsUniversity of SheffieldSHEFFIELD S10 2TNE n g l a n de-mail: a.r.linn@shef.ac.uk

* While preparing this article, I have received valuablecomments from Professor Oddvar Nes (Bergen) and fromaudiences at: the University of Bergen; the University ofStavanger; the University of Stockholm; and at the 2007joint meeting of the Henry Sweet Society and theStudienkreis ‘Geschichte der Sprachwissen schaft’ inHelsinki. I also wish to acknowledge the helpful commentsby two anonymous readers on an earlier draft. — I dedicatethis article to the memory of Professor Werner Hüllen(1927–2008).1 Linn (2004a) asks whether an independent Anglo-Scandinavian School existed and suggests that this questionis worth “a closer look” (p. 125).

2 My thanks go to the staff of the Manuscript section ofUppsala Universitetsbibliotek, especially Håkan Hallberg,for allowing me access to these materials and for providingme with help and advice during my visits. 3 All translations are my own, except where statedotherwise.[Med året 1881 må vi sige, at den moderne fonetik er slåetigennem, og den begynder nu at göre sig gældende i stedsevidere krese af sprogforskere og sproglærere. Densvæsentlige karaktermærke i modsætning til tidligere tidersmer isolerede bestræbelser er dens internationale karakter;„den engelsk-skandinaviske skole”, som man kaldte Sweetog Storm med deres efterfølgere, havde jo en kraftig støtte ityskeren Sievers og påvirkede snart forskningen også iandre lande. Endvidere kommer med de nævnte mænd entidligere ukjendt forbindelse af teoretisk viden og praktiskkunnen frem. I forbindelse hermed står en stigendeinteresse for sprogundervisning.]4 http: //www.ewenger.com/index.htm [accessed17.12.2007]5 http: //www.aila.info/about/index.htm [accessed17.12.2007]6 http: //www.aila.info/about/index.htm [accessed17.12.2007]7 [Sällan kommer dock språkvetenskapen i tillfälle att, somnaturvetenskaperna, omedelbart ingripa i det praktiskalifvet. Den erbjuder emellertid nu i tvänne riktningar sittbiträde: för en förståndig omreglering af stafsättet och förförbättring af språkundervisningens metodik.]8 For Noreen, see Linn (2006). 9 The Uppsala Nationer resemble the colleges of some ofthe older British universities, providing social andacademic facilities for the students affiliated to them. 10 In 1925 he was appointed Commandeur de l’OrdreTchécoslovaque du Lion Blanc by the President ofCzechoslovakia.11 For a fuller discussion of ethical issues in book-based,historical research, see Linn (2004b).12 This and the two other pictures provided by Uppsala

Universitetsbibliotek for use in publications.13 “According to Lundell, general linguistics should includethe following fields: 1) the history of linguistics, 2) thelanguages of the world, 3) the study of a non-Indo-European language, 4) general phonetics, 5) languagepsychology, and 6) dialects and dialogue” (Hovdhaugen etal. 2000: 316).14 Ida Norrby (1869–1934) was awarded an honoraryDoctor of Medicine degree by the University in 1927. Sheand Lundell were obviously close, and letters to Norrbyfrom Lundell are signed, for example, “vänskapligahälsningar från Frökens ‘professor’” [friendly greetingsfrom mademoiselle’s ‘professor’], and address “kära snällalilla vän” [dear, good little friend].15 Catalogued as NKS 4291-4˚ in the Royal Library inCopenhagen.1 [… med önsket om at dette fortjenstfulde foretagende måfå god og varig fremgang og finde varm deltagelsesåvelsom efterligning i de övrige skandinaviske lande.Navnlig önsker jeg, at alle nordmænd, som interessere sigfor vore vakre bygdemål, ville fölge det glimrendeexempel, som deres svenske brödre have givet dem, ogsamles i enighed om det skjönne mål, en videnskabeliggranskning af de norske dialekter.]17 [Da professoren i fjor avlagde min Mand en Visit,mærkedes nok at han ikke var saa livlig som för, han haddeondt for at udtrykke sig, men klar var han altid, og visnakkede efterpaa om hvor hyggelig det var at De kom; storPris satte han derpaa.]18 [Det nyttes lidet at vide, at man har en af Europas førstelærde — i sit slags — ved universitetet, når en får så lidennytte af ham, ja når man endog skal være ræd for athenvende sig til ham, de fleste virkelig finder det bedst atholde sig i frastand. Selv kjender jeg jo ikke hans person sånøie, det er måske overdrevne beskrivelser fra andre, somhar gjort indtrykket altfor sterkt.]19 Broch it was who also wrote the tribute to Storm inAftenposten on the centenary of his birth.20 Probably Yngvar Nielsen (1843–1916), Professor ofGeography in Kristiania.21 [Samtidig med dette brev tillader jeg mig at sende Demde to förste ark af en lille engelsk grammatik ,,for tale- ogskriftsproget”, som jeg agter at udgive med det förste. Jeger nemlig meget spændt på at høre en kyndig mands domom dette forsøg på at tilvejebringe en lidt meretidssvarende sproglære end de hidtil brugte.]22 [hans fremstilling beherskes af ideassociationer, der forandre kan se i höjeste grad tilfældige ud […] når stoffet ersvulmet op i den grad som fra den förste til den anden tyskeudgave (fra 88 til 352 sider om almindelig fonetik), såvirker denne à-propos-metode snarere afskrækkende ogtrættende.]23 I am deeply grateful to Louise Storm for her generosityin allowing me access to her grandfather’s papers.24 [Hjertelig tak for tilsendelsen af Deres franske syntax(Præpositionerne). En gennemlæsning af den har værtmeget lærerig for mig: jeg sysler jo med lignende ting ogarbejder stadig på min store engelske syntax, så jeg forstårat vurdere det beundringsværdigt store stof De har samletog ordnet og sigtet i Deres bog. Gid De må få kræfter ogheld til snart at kunne udsende videre dele af Deres storeværk, som alle der gir sig af med nyere sprog, vil væreDem taknemlig for.]25 Wulf = Fredrik Wulff (1845–1930), Romance philologist.

Cederschiöld = Gustaf Cederschiöld (1849–1928), laterprofessor of Scandinavian languages in Gothenburg.Ekman cannot be identified.26 [W. hat sich der neueren englischen Schule engeangeschlossen, auch in Punkten, die mir zweifelhaft sind.Es giebt ausser England kaum Jemand, der mit denErgebnissen der Schule so vertraut ist wie W.]27 “Svahn’s Swedish Phonology” = Svahn (1882), whichStorm did not translate into Norwegian!28 It did not employ upper-case initial letters in nouns.29 For Passy, see Collins & Mees (1999: 21-27).30 Hermann Klinghardt (1847–1926), author of variouspractical works on the intonation of English, French andGerman. His experience of using the ‘New Method’ oflanguage teaching is recounted in Klinghardt (1888).31 [1. Til grund for undervisningen lægges ikkeskriftsproget, men det virkelige, levende talesprog. I desprog, hvis ortografi afviger betydelig fra udtalen,begyndes derfor med texter i en efter formaalet indrettetlydskrift.2. Undervisningen gaar allerede fra Begyndelsen ud frasammenhængende Texter, ikke fra løsrevne Sætninger.3. Grammatikundervisningen slutter sig til Læsningen paaden Maade, at Eleven ved Lærerens Hjælp ledes til af detlæste efterhaanden at udfinde Sprogets Love. Først senerekan en systematisk Lærebog anvendes til Repetition.4. Oversættelse saa vel fra Modersmaalet til det fremmedeSprog, som omvendt indskrænkes og erstattes dels afmundtlig og skriftlig Reproduktion og fri Produktion paadet fremmede Sprog i Tilslutning til det læste, dels af merekursorisk Læsning.]32 [Har foreningen Quousque Tandem ikke gjort andet godt,så har den da ialfald sat lidt liv i gemytterne og fremkaldtnogen diskussion. Den har forhåbentlig gjort det klart formange, at vor nuværende undervisningsmetodesfortræffelighed ikke er hævet over al tvil. Og allerede detteer noget. Blir den unge forening dødet, så kan den daialfald ikke siges at være tiet ihjel, og forhåbentlig skal denheller ikke blive snakket eller skrevet ihjel.]33 [hermed sender jeg dig (lidt sent) Lundells og Westernsbetænkninger i anledning af forslaget om at la QT smeltesammen med Passys forening; hvad min egen meningangår, da har jeg aldrig ubetinget været forsammensmeltningen: men efter Llls grunde er jeg enig medham i, at vi bör opretholde Qts navn: derimod er jeg forafskaffelsen af vor Revy, der ikke er meget tilfredsstillendei forhold til ulejligheden og udgiften.

Men kan du finde en anden form for virksomhed?Det viktigste for mig er, at vi ved at udgive skoleböger ogdeltage i diskussioner gör vort til, at quousquismen mer ogmer gennemsyrer undervisningen.

Hvordan går det med trykningen af den franskebog?]34 Many thanks to Professor Mike MacMahon (Glasgow)for help with this and other points.35 [Mit Princip for Undervisningen i de nyere Sprog, somjeg altid har fremholdt, og som har vundet megetTilslutning i Udlandet er, at man skal begynde medBegyndelsen, d. e. gaa ud fra Sprogets enkleste Grundform,det levende Sprog.]36 Amund Bredesen Larsen (1849–1928), author of a rangeof dialect studies and a comprehensive overview of theNorwegian dialects (Larsen 1897).37 [Med hensyn til planen om fælles-skandinavisk

Lydskriftalfabet vil jeg si at jeg fremdeles er megetinteressert for saken […] Jeg har nevnt den for Amund B.Larsen o. fl. Dr Larsen er enig i tanken; han mener at detsvenske landsmålsalfabetet i all fall må modificeres en delfor å passe i Norge. Han mener saken burde tas op på etnordisk filologmöte […]]38 [den nyaste tidens språkvetenskap…sysselsätter sig meddet värkliga språket…lägger stor vikt vid studiet af detsamtida lefvande språket.]39 [1. Till en god språkvetenskaplig allmänbildning höräfven vana vid direkt iakttagelse, hälst vunnen genomdialektstudier. 3. För språkvetenskapen äro dialekter afsamma vikt som literaturspråken, men äga mindre literärtintresse. 12. Ett organisk alfabet med komplettering af detvanliga latinska är att föredraga framför alfabet efter andragrunder.] 40 [Det gäller som en allmän regel på lifvets alla områden,att reformer kunna—och låtom oss tillägga: böra—genomföras, endast så vidt som allmänna meninger ärtillräckligt förberedd och villig att erkänna derasbefogenhet.]