First Mention
The first paper to explicitly address “language universals” in English was written by Burt and Ethel Aginsky for Word in 1948. The couple argued that language universals were likely to exist, and that the issue warranted study as “universals in human cultures” had already delivered “considerable benefit to the theory and methods of anthropology” more generally. Cultural universals in turn, they argued, warranted study on the grounds that they might shed light on “the psychic unity of mankind” (Aginsky & Aginsky, 1948, 168). The rationale presented, in other words, was one that subordinated language study to anthropology: language holds “double interest,” they argued, in that it is both “determined” by culture and a reflection of it.
The paper presents an inventory of historical explanations for observed similarities: independent invention, parallel development, convergence, divergence, “limited possibilities,” and patterns of culture. Its preliminary conclusion blends several of these:
If universal traits exist despite the possibility of divergence of trade traits and despite new inventions and diffusions, it must be at least in part due to common needs arising from the basic oneness of the species and the conditions of life on our planet. As a result, the study of universal traits may be calculated to help us understand the barest and most basic aspects of human beings in their social environment and to clarify the earliest periods of human cultures (p. 169).
This analysis is informed by German “liberal ethnology” and is more proximately in conversation with the writings of Edward Sapir, whose influence on subsequent developments in the study of “language universals” during the 1960s and ‘70s can hardly be overstated. This comes through, for example, in their assertion that “[n]o two particulars are identical, and yet there is a single universal in all of them” (p. 170).
Perhaps the most striking feature of this short essay is the pivot it takes by way of conclusion to “practical” interests in language universals. Here, we read of the authors’ desire to reach audiences beyond the “ivory tower.”
The solution to the world problems today, to an even greater extent that in the past, are cultural and social…Social and cultural scientists must make known the importance of their findings and must indicate possible applications…The study of language universals should be of help in various ways in projects of developing more effective communication in the modern world. We speak here not so much of mechanical devices…but of the means of mutual understanding among peoples. Three methods are in use or are conceivable for the purpose of bridging the gap between populations of different speech: language learning, translation, and international language. For any of these three approaches an appreciation of language universals would prove extremely helpful.
These words are a rare expression of the tight connection between scientific and social investments in language universals. They are especially resonant given the forum in which they were published. Word was founded in 1943 by members of the Linguistic Circle of New York (both Greenberg and Jakobson served as editors early on), which was formed by many members of the École Libre des Hautes Études living in exile. In view of the “expanded character of its membership” this body changed its name to the International Linguistic Association in 1969. It is important to note that the Aginsky’s emphasis on applications to “language learning, translation, and international language” aligns with “language universals,” not “linguistic universals,” which was the primary emphasis of the rationalist tradition that would be associated with Noam Chomsky.
Works cited:
Aginsky, Burt W. and Ethel G. Aginsky. 1948. “The Importance of Language Universals.” Word 4 (3): 169-172.
Ferguson, Charles A. 1978. “Historical Background of Universals Research.” In Joseph H. Greenberg, Ed., Universals of Human Language Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 7-31.
