page 1196 note 1 The following arc typical expressions of this attitude: 'It is not possible to understand what is in the minds of other people without understanding their language, and without understanding their language, it is impossible to be sure that they understand what is in our —John Foster Dulles, 1 May 1952.

“At this junction in world affairs it has become essential to our national welfare, perhaps even to our survival, that we understand the culture, the psychology, the aspirations of other peoples. Such understanding begins with a knowledge of foreign languages ... ”—Luther H. Evans, 16 April 1952.

“. . . language differences—and the difficulties they may create—are among the big barriers that block the course of understanding. If the peoples of the earth are to meet and move together along the road to a better world for themselves and for their children, they will need to communicate with one another . . . To do this they will need to know more than they know of one another's language.”—Mrs. Newton P. Leonard, President of the National Council of Parents and Teachers, 15 January 1953.

“Whereas, a great need of our generation is for a wider and deeper understanding of other nations and other peoples, and whereas, a knowledge of the language of a people contributes greatly to the understanding of a foreign culture, be it resolved: That this Conference recommend that increasing provisions be made for the study and effective teaching of foreign languages and cultures at all levels of American education—elementary, secondary, higher.”—Resolution adopted unanimously by the Eighth National Conference on Higher Education, 7 March 1953.

“The true problems facing international cooperation today are not economic or social, but psychological. The best key to their understanding and to their solution is the study of language and literature. Only if we can read what has molded the soul of the chief foreign nations, perceive the secrets of their national character as revealed in their language shall we discard our provincialism and our temptation to frame hasty solutions for very complex questiona. Only if we know another language besides our own, and if possible several others, shall we be able to perceive what divides other people from us and also the basic similarities underlying such differences. ”—Professor Henri Peyre, Yale Univ.

page 1199 note 2 The senior participants In the seminar were: John E. Englekirk (Spanish), T Unie.; Victor H. W. Lange (German), Correll U.; Robert L. P (French), Honard Unfs.; Roger W. Brawn (Bocial Psychology), Harvard Unts.; David H. French (Anthropology), Rood Colloge; Benjamin W. Wheeler (History), Unin, of Michigan; Marjorie C. Johnston (Language Teaching, Comparative Education), V. S. Office of Education; Alf Sommerfelt (linguistics), Unis, of Oslo, UNESCO; Albert H. Marckwardt (English), Unis, of Michigan.

The staff also included junior assistants, provided by the University of Michigan, Leonard R. Criminale (Spanish), Ohio W, and James A. Davies (French), Un, of Michigan.

page 1204 note 3 Space prohibits the publication here of the complete bibliography compiled by the ar relative te various aspects of the interrelationships between language and culture. For the convenience of readers p unfamiliar with some of the nodal science studies basic to certain sections of our report, these portions are fully documented. The bibliography of the seminar is available in dittoed form upon application to the Executive Secretary of the Association. The present reference is to H. Meltser, “Development of Children's Nationality Preferences, Concepts, and Attitudes,” Journal of Psychology, xi (1941), 327-336.

page 1204 note 4 D. Katz and K. Brely, “Racial Stereotypes of One Hundred College Students,” Jesr. of A and S P xxvii (1933), 280-290.

page 1206 note 5 See, e.g., Robin M. Williams, Jr., American Society, a Seciolegical Interpretation (New York, 1951).

page 1206 note 6 Robert S. Lynd and Helen M. Lynd, Mi, a Study in Contemporary American Culture (New York, 1936) and Middletownd in Tr, a Study in Cultural conflicts (New Yourk, 1947).

page 1206 note 7 Lloyd Warner, Y City S, Vols. i-iv (New Haven, 1941-47); James West, P USA (New York, 1945).

page 1206 note 8 See p. 1206, below.

page 1207 note 9 Margaret Mead, And Keep Your Powder Dry (New York, 1942); Geoffrey Gorer, The American People, a Study in National Character (New York, 1948), a much criticised book.

page 1207 note 10 John W. Chase, ed. Years of the Modem, an American Appraisal (New York and Toronto, 1949).

page 1207 note 11 George P. Murdock et al., Outline of Cultural Materials, 3rd rev. ed. (New Haven, 1950).

page 1207 note 12 Notes and Queries on Anthropology, Royal Anthropological Inst, of Great Britain and Ireland, 6th en. (London, 1951).t

page 1207 note 13 Edward T. Hall and George L. Trager, The Analysis of Culture, private pre-publication edition (Washington, 1953).

page 1207 note 14 The following checklist, suggested in part by Hall & Trager, pp. 16, 17, would serve as a practical guide to a consideration of the economic aspects of the life of a particular people. Similar lists could be framed to deal with education, recreation, government, occupations, etc. Advertising, Auctions, Trading, Monetary systems (their vocabulary), Banks and banking practices (cashing checks), Fixed price systems vs. bargaining, Installment buying, Pawnshops, Dowries, Other monetary aspects of marriage, Employment of women, Stock exchange, Shopping centers, Country stores, Super markets, Open markets (direct sale from fumer), Department eteree, Drug stores, Dey of the week selected as market or shopping day, Sunday business, Gambling, Government lotteries, Monopolies and trusts, Anti-monopoly legislation.

page 1208 note 15 Daring the courte of the seminar, working definitions of these terms and others were suggested. In summary: (1) a unit of culture, as denned by an observer, is a culture trail. (2) When a group of traits is customarily found together, the whole can be called a culture complex. (3) When the culture of a given region is fairly homogeneous as contrasted with adjacent regione, one is dealing with a culture area.

Other méthode of analysis start with stable sub-sections of a society. (4) Institutions are a comptez of rules, values, and culturally prescribed personnel. (5) Statutes are positions in a society, and roles are activities appropriate to these statuses. (6) Stable, ranked divisions of A society are social classes. (7) Groupings such as dubs with relatively specific, united interests are called associations. The categories which have just been denned are structural for the most part, and are often studied in conjunction with the functions which they perform. Another method of analysis concentrates on the processes found in a society or culture. More than a mere system of terminology is involved here. Techniques for identifying procemes and structures, exploring functions, and relating these to each other are of utmost Importance in developing a rigorous and objective approach to social phesomena.

page 1208 note 16 Morris E. Optar, “Themes as Dynamic Forces in Culture,” Amer. Jour, of Social., li (1945), 198-206; “Rejoinder,” Amer. Jour, of Sociol., lii (1946) 43-44; “An Application of the Theory of Themes in Culture,” Jour, of the Washington Acad, of Sciences, xxxvi, v (1946), 137-166 (the theory is applied to Lipan Apache culture; some general discussion); “Some Recently Developed Concepts Relating to Culture,” Southwestern Jour. of Antkrop., iv, 1 (1948), 107-122.