Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2026
Students of language do not need to ask Why a linguistic society? but many laymen have asked this question. The answer, to be sure, lies really in our work and in its results; but, for this very reason, it is desirable that our motives be understood.
[Editorial note: This article was originally published in Language 1(1).1–5, 1925. In celebration of the Centennial of the Linguistic Society of America and of this journal, we are reprinting one or two articles per each decade of Language, selected for their quality and importance to the field. Each article is accompanied by a new piece by colleagues who have expertise and unique insights on the reprinted articles, to offer commentary from both historical and modern perspectives. We acknowledge the offensive or potentially offensive nature of some of the language in this text, but the Editor has decided to reprint the article in its original form for the sake of authenticity.]
1 Needless to say that that noblest of sciences, philology, the study of national culture, is something much greater than a misfit combination of language plus literature. It may be well to add in passing that the British use of ‘philology’ for linguistics leaves no name for the former subject and ought not be imitated in this country; rather, the English would do well to adopt our usage.
2 See his biography in Who's Who. [Editorial note: See Conant's obituary by Frank R. Blake, published in the next issue: Language 1(2).63–64, 1925. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/409008.]
3 As to foreign-language teaching, there are few schoolmen who realize that there is a large linguistic literature on this subject.