post-Bloomfieldianadj.n.

1949 J. R. Firth in Archivum Linguisticum 1 110 Slav linguistics..are certainly post-Saussurean and showing signs even in America of becoming post-Bloomfield.]

1961 F. W. Householder in S. Saporta & J. R. Bastian Psycholinguistics 16/1 It would seem to a naive observer that the question ‘what is the grammar for?’ is an obvious one. Nevertheless, until recent years, no serious attempt to answer it seems to have been made by post-Bloomfieldian linguists.

1966 A. A. Hill Promises & Limitations Newest Type Gram. Anal. 11 Post-Bloomfieldian structuralists produced rather remarkably few grammars.

1971 D. Crystal Linguistics iv. 208 The term ‘structuralism’ was often used, in fact, in a narrow sense to refer to the kind of emphases which characterized post-Bloomfieldian linguistics (in a broad sense, of course, all linguistics is structural).

1987 S. C. Levinson Pragmatics 35 The post-Bloomfieldian structuralism that predominated immediately before transformational generative grammar.

1970 Jrnl. Linguistics 6 ii. 287 Structuralist phonemics of the so-called Post-Bloomfieldians, for instance, is only a set of practical procedures.

1970 G. C. Lepschy Survey Struct. Ling. 11 ‘Structural linguistics’ in a more limited sense (the post-Bloomfieldians).

1981 J. Simon Paradigms Lost ix. 164 Clearly, there are cases where neither Bloomfield nor the Post-Bloomfieldians, to say nothing of tagmemics, prove to be of much help.