In a brief declaration in the last issue of this journal, our colleagues P. Drysdale, W. Mackey and M. Scargill outlined their objections to the Smith-Trager description of English stress, pitch and juncture. Their article calls into question the most fundamental American research works in English linguistics. At the outset, we would like to observe that in adopting attitudes towards the great tradition of linguistics in the United States, it is imperative that we avoid the two extremes of total belief and of rash rejection. This tradition is the product of several decades of intense, patient research by men with eminent ability to observe sounds and patterns, and an extraordinary flair for generating verifiable hypotheses. Thus the critic can condemn any part of the tradition only when he can demonstrate that it is false. On the other hand, the American tradition is empirical and positivist. It is evolving rapidly, and its conclusions and postulates are constantly being modified. Furthermore, it is not a monolithic tradition. Though there is a consensus of views at any given time, there are also hot debates, such as the current one on the interpretation of the English vowels and suprasegmentals. Thus anyone who believes this year’s conclusions may soon find himself cherishing obsolete positions that their originators have long transcended.

Recent evidence of renewed interest in the Linguistic Atlas of Canada makes pertinent the publishing of relevant data gathered for the comparable regional atlases of the United States. To the information already published from the files of the Linguistic Atlas of the North Central States there can now be added that from the collections of the Linguistic Atlas of the Upper Midwest.

The Upper Midwest atlas, centered at the University of Minnesota, includes the five states of Minnesota, Iowa, the two Dakotas, and Nebraska. Fieldwork for the entire area, begun in 1947, has been completed, and editing of the materials is in process (though interrupted in 1958–59 by the Director’s absence abroad). Besides the records from 202 American field informants based upon personal interviews, these materials include five Canadian records and the responses for 136 lexical items on 1069 checklists returned by mail from informants in all but two of the counties in these five states. The Canadian field records were made at the suggestion of Albert H. Marckwardt of the University of Michigan, Director of the Linguistic Atlas of the North Central States. In advance of future atlas organization in Canada it seemed desirable to supply at least tentative answers to questions about the relationships of Canadian and American regional English.

The purpose of these remarks is to present a tentative classification of the syllabic phonemes in general use in eastern Newfoundland. In doing so, it will be necessary to justify making such a presentation at this early stage of enquiry, at the same time demonstrating some of the problems involved in the investigation of Newfoundland dialects.

The structural linguist has recently begun to pay more and more attention not only to the sequences of the phonemes of a language but also to their capacity for combination. Trubetzkoy said: “La neutralisation des oppositions phonologiques est sûrement le phénomène le plus important, mais nullement le seul important dans le domaine de la théorie des combinaisons”. Much has been done on the distribution of these phonemic combinations and their functional yield, but little to determine and systematise the frequency of such occurrences, and to deduce from them some general principle. This is particularly true with reference to the consonantal clusters of the French language, though more has been done with other languages especially English.

Vers la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale, l’expression Krvavo connut une vogue extraordinaire sur tout le territoire de la Yougoslavie et particulièrement sur celui de l’ancien royaume de Serbie. Elle se répandit avec une rapidité stupéfiante au sein de la jeunesse des écoles moyennes, des formations militaires et, après 1944, chez la jeunesse estudiantine des universités. J’eus l’occasion d’observer personnellement la diffusion de cette expression durant les années 1945–50 et j’en fus fortement impressionné.