Bloomfield's Taxemes

[Martha McGinnis]

Dan,

I believe that morphologists in general view Bloomfield's research as
extremely valuable. Perhaps it's just because I've been working on
Algonquian morphology recently, but I think it's too strong to say
that his work is ignored.

My impression is that so far, work within DM has focused on working
out empirical problems, rather than on examining the historical
origins of the framework.  I think this is a reasonable choice,
though of course there are other reasonable choices.  Some of those
choices fall within the realm of linguistics: for example,
demonstrating that Bloomfield's theory of taxemes (etc.) makes
different empirical predictions from the theory of readjustment rules
(etc.).  I don't know of anyone who has taken on this task, but it
might lead to interesting results.

Another reasonable choice falls within the realm of philosophy of
science: for example, identifying conceptual similarities and
differences between the two theories.  I'm personally less interested
if it turns out that nothing empirical hangs on the differences, but
as you point out, we won't know until someone seriously considers the
question.  If it interests you, go for it!

-Martha
--
mcginnis at ucalgary.ca