linguistics in the present century

~. . . . 1 iodization. But in

Centuries are a most arbitrary mode of historica pen .. I

'. d ' . 1 centunes t iey

cases where certain tendencies are concentrate in g('. en , I

' ., b of histonca

may have some mnemonic value Through anum er

. . 'I . rury~~

accidents and previous trends in linguistics, the ninetecnt 1 cen 0

d ' d b hi . I di but I , orne of the devel p-

ormnate y istorrca stu ies ; ut in tracing s .

. ns we were

ments that arose directly from the work of the ncogrammana ,

I· the geneSIS

led across into the twentieth' and likewise, in fol owing up h

. '. ki b ck into t e

at present-day theories and attitudes, we shall be 100 ung . a f

··h ' . 1 f . h antecedents 0

mncteenr and preceding centuries, not mere y or t e. . for

the scholars involved and the teaching that they recei\'ed, but. .

. . d itl the present

speeinc mon:rnents of thought more closely connecte WI 1

age than with the predominant concerns of the nineteenth centur~,

The ni 1 " hi h h ,I 'twentleth-

e ntneteent l-Centurv background within W ic t e ear ) ,

J • , ' It at

Crlltury scholars grew up, has already been considered, and In . '

I 1 . , , tradItIOn

east t rrce major strands can be distinguished: the continuing

of grammatical and other linguistic work carried on by Europ~an

h I indiff - reeiatiOn

sc 0 ars in 1 erent ways since antiquity, the progress1ve app

of Indian linguistic scholarship, especially in phonetics and phon~logy:

d th . 'I '. . hi cally

an, . e aSSll1~1 atloa of lInguistic science, specifically as a Ist~n

onentate~ sCience, to certain general nineteenth-century att~tudes, comparatlsm" evolutionism, and the positivism of the natural sCiences,

I~ atte~ptl~g to pick Out the lines on which Iinguisrics has mo\'c~

and IS mOVIn<> III the prase t '" h ' .. porarv

• , b, ,. e n century. one IS dealmg Wit contern "

hiStOry, The h1stom:al attitude is the same hut the material differs In

~eing mnre ple~tiflll and 1('[';8 easily formali~(.(l. On the one hand, one IS concerned with persons and thea' al d f 'I' , elementary

nes rea y ami iar In

199

"'TORY

R"SENT CE •• IN THE. P ..

LINGUISTICS .. , eteenth~

'thsome rnn .

, " 0 areaterextent than,W1. work of earher

introductions to linguistics t g tent than With the e makes

f greater ex . f the seen

cen~ury work and to a .ar hand, the very nearness c and of relatively

periods: and on the other . d movements, hi eyes to

• fini t . directlOns an , . lifting IS

the discernment of de. ill e. 1. The traveUer, in . view the

l' ore difficu t, sed can .

perman en. t' schoo S , m h (Ice he has pas nd haracteriZe

ill t scene wean C

survey the more . stan . f ts that make up . bbles trees,

, ' and ores .. 'u ks pe ,

plains, mountams, nvers"ust about him, hi o~ , icture of how

the terrain' but when he looks J 1 arly outstandmg P1 over past

' ent no c e ., 1\ ore ,

and small streams often pres greater distance, , nd perhaps

, from a h 'ustlCe, a di

the landscape Will appear b' t to the roug J . and imme 1-

, k re su Jec . oranes d

scholars and their wor s, a, ' f their contemp f mention an

h nJustlce. 0 rthy 0 , ds

sometimes to the roug 1 , found wO l' er peno '

d to what IS I from ear 1 d

ate successors in regar ed particular Y 1'1ve today; an

11' preserv , . t are a f r

development; and not a .•. 1S r ld's scientists ==: mense and 5~ , a

It has been said that of the v. o~ in view of the irn ld's universlues,

, " ientlsts, 1 'he wor .. and

this is true of linguistic s~ .stic studies in t. l' uiscics today ,

' f hngu1S 1 k 1U lUg , anti-

unchecked expansion 0 f significant wor hat possible In h:

Anything like a full account a 1 comparable to t tionate in lengt . ' , on a sea e 1 dispropor . rcise in m the recent past, even ,ld be groSS Y e than an exe ve»

iddl A es wou li le mor , to sur. ,

quity and the lY11 e g • ld come to ltt 'tention IS 'h's-

' n wou . the In 'thetr 1

and abbreviated mentl~ . I this chapter topments in m-

d ping n , ' deve en a sur

academic name- rop·· t lingUistIC . . to give ev .

. . d curren her than·. books, I

SOme of the recent an. another. rat 'l·lable in texth last two.

' hi 'th one d'lyava t e

torical relations Ip WI. this is rea L 51 betWee~ opposed

f h whe.re contra .. tlCS, as

mary account 0 eae . st obvious . tive lingulS dominance,

The principal and mO)'ld rise of dcscnPpositiOn of pre teentb- to

, b the raj sent nine

cennmes has ~en, tics to its prc change fro,:" Ferdinand de

to. historical hngulS 'fi<Tllre in the swisS lingu1st hi through an

S' ifi 1 the key b- the holars Ip .' ~

19m cant y, . des was n to sc , tin<nll.StlCS,

atutu If knOW aratweo- , '

twentieth-century d hin1se . an comp n lingtllstlCS

Saussure, who first ~a ~o Indo-cdur. °SP:ussure's lect,ill r~lsno Geneva that

'buttOn If e , puP! s h

important con. tn d I' rle hiIl1se, essed Ius . l"''' far as t ey

I, he It'mpr enira e- .1

Though he pub IS. .'. century so I li1tguistiqu~ g ure notCS and SU~ J.

in the early twentieth d his COI~rs de and others leet h'story or lingUlS-

blishe 'r own d } [n the I 'pil ...

in 1916 they pu 't from thel ure's han, 1 U Th what his pu

could reconstrUC~ I d in de Sauss d studied t ire ~

ve l ." an h

. I as SU0'1 T • knO\\" . . . tlv t e

rnaterta s . , is l;lrgcl)' f languages, mOS •

'. de SausSurc . ed range 0

nes,., tr1ct

d t 11101, rCS

recollecte 0 dreW on a

De Saussure

200

CHAPTt:R EJGHT

familiar languages of Europe.; but his influence on twentieth-century linguistics, which he could be said to have inaugurated, is unsurpassed, The publication of the Cours has been likened to a 'Copernican revolution' in the subject.s A number of ideas on language and the study of language very much in sympathy with those of de Saussure had, in fact, been expressed nearly a century before by von Humboldt [pp. 174-7, above); the extent to which de Saussure was directly influenced by Humboldt is uncertain, though a connection has been suggested,. Humboldt's general linguistic theory attracted less attention because at the time historical studies were in the ascendant; de Saussure's teaching came in an age when the drive of comparative and historical linguistic theory had temporarily reached an acceptable resting place in the tenets of the neogrammarians.

.. Historically, de Saussure's ideas may be put under three heads, ~lrstly, he formalized and made explicit, what earlier linguists had e~ther assumed or ignored, the two fundamental and indispensable dunensions of linguistic study: synchronic, in which languages are t~eated as self-contained systems of communication at any particular ~me~ and diachronic, in which the changes to which languages are sub- . Ject, in the Course of time are treated historically. It was de Saussurc's

achievement t di ish " ' .'

. 0 IstmgulS. these two dimensions or axes of hngUlStlCS,

~ynchronic or descriptive, and diachronic or historical, as each involvlng Its own methods and principles and each essential in any a.dequate COurse of linguist··I'" stud 1'.'" , • I ml'ght

. ..... . .y or unguisnc mstrucuon (a pornt t lat· .

perhaps be heeded by some latter-day descriptivists),

Secondly he di ti ... h d - , " ak r

, IS mguist e the linguistic competence of the spe c

and the actual ph ' l

d enomena or data of linguistics (utterances) as angue

an parole (like so 1-. ' d

many others, these Saussurean terms have passe

untranslated into '. . th

. di lUternatlOnaI currency). While parole constitutes e imme lately acces 'bl d ' f

each ,S1 e ata, the linguist's proper object is the langue 0

conunumty the]' d .

each indo id 1 b . ex Icon, grammar, and phonology implante In

IVI ua y hIS bri , h' h

he speaks d n d up nngmg in society and on the basis of w rc

an un erstand hi I .' logical theory of Emile ~ Isa~guage, Much influenced by the SOC10-

the suprapersonal re I' . urkhe1m, de Saussure perhaps exaggerated especially as he rccog~~%~~~mwue over ~nd above the individual, more made by individuals ' , at changes In langue proceed from changes is not subj'cct to th .md~~elr parole, while he yet declared that langU.e

e In Ivtdual'

Thirdly, de Saussure h. s po.wer of change. 6

. . sowed th t l . d

described synchronicall a any angue must be envisaged an

y as a system r : ..' J

. . 0 Interrelated elements, lrouca I

201

LINGUISTICS IN 1'HR PRE.SENT CENTURY

. ' re ate of self-sufficie~l

grammatical, and phonological, and not as an agg hi') LinguiStic

. d e nomenc awre .

entities (which he compare to a mere w bitely. This is

'1 h other not a so U

terms arc to be defined relative y to eac '.' f. rme non s,lb-

" t that a langue lS;O ,

the theory expressed In his staternen·. f chessmen and

, . .,., 11·k wn metaphors 0

stona, and Illustrated with his we -. no,. h I svstem of the

, , b hei . I ce in the woe J '

trams, Identified and known y t eir p a . " . 1 bstantial com-

,. . d t b t their aetua su d

game 01' the railway network, an no. ), h of the tWO fun a-

, ,. .. lations he on cae, '

positIOn,8In a language these mterre . sy'ntagmatlc, III

" . r istic structure, .' ,

mental dimensions of synchromc mgUl di tic (associall\'e), ]II

line with the succession of utterance, and para Igma

, 9.

systems of contrastive clements or categones, I guage underhc5

, . I pproach to an , ,

This statement of the structura a "fies de Saussurc ~

· . , " and Just! ,"

VIrtually the whole of moder. n hng._ Ulsucs.'b· t of study in rts 0\\11.

. ·1' " s as a SU Jec ct

claim on the independence of tngUlsUC . 1 ced on the ex-a •

· " t rprctatlOnS pat rat

nght,lo Whatever the dlffercnt In e d disclaim struc u

I, ists waul now

meaniIlg of' structuralism', few lDgUlS .

thinking in their work. . .d d as the Saussurean ~lPpha~

Hjelmslev's glossematics may be regal' c t planc' (semantiCS lcfi

· ' the' conten d the de-

SIS on form as against substan~e In e ' ( honology), an ~no their

grammar) and in the' expreSSion plan ,P ts both eaTTled t d - t

, of clemen , , dcpen en-

nition of form as the i.ntcrrclauons al\'sis must be m, ( h no-

I ' .', content an) , analystS p 0

cgical extremes; that IS to sa)", d .ex-presslon ric cri-

f . ial cntena all . . tic) phone 1

ot extra-linguis.tic eXlstentl.. . ..' d extra-lingu1S 1 I . arc the

I d t of (assume . tbemse \ es,

og)') must be indepen en t the elements f re can the

. . I mentS, no , Iy to the 0

tc.na, Relations between e e. . g this strict . d (It on an)'

, , . 1 by keeplll , t dcpen e .

object of a SCience, and on Y linguistiCS, no h regarded as

S f tonomous . . are eac

aussurean ideal 0 an a~ The tWO planes, . lml, It/. 1;)/, or

other discipline, be realIzed., entS (e,g. =: tnt~horse' 'female"

. l' t con$utu d lOto >

analysable into u nrna e f 'pression, all :o,",morphous, as no

h lane 0 ex "h are not ..,..

m, a, r, e, on t e P tcnt), 'Tl ey,. '1 honemes or letters

,. 1 of con . dl\,]dua P d

singular', on the p ane b tween the in ! I'lCS are to be anal}'se

b dawn e b t both P a . a

connection can e rfcontent: U , and equi"'alent U1 a

" I! ents 0 ,_ordinate . tll

and the mimrnar e em . d ,each rs co, ,uivalence bet'ween. .e

in an analogous .... '·ay, an , ,Iv this claliTl to eq pt since difl'erenGcS

. is prcCISt..: - d'ffi_cu.h to .aCCt:. , _

language system, It . ha"';: found J .~ble in a language and.belong to

two planes that o~hers endeptly obsen differences in semantic oont~nt in expression are IJl~ePd field, 'whereas .. I differences in e'Xpresslon

, ' scnbe .' led tbrou", "\

a strictly CIrCUm onlv re' ea

1 ) are '

(which is limit eSS

II in a language,

202

CliAPTBR BIOHT

Elsewhere in linguistics, the structural study of meanings as depending in part on theca-presence in a language of numbers of related lexical terms in semantic fields represents the working out of ideas brought into prominence by de Saussure .. I ~

But the most immediate and historically one of the most important effects of de Saussure's structural theory of language was in the realm of phonology, where it coincided remarkably with the tentative position reached about the same time in phonetics as the result of the work of nineteenth-century phoneticians.

Phonetics, with its allied activities and applications in shorthand, language teaching, and spelling reform, had received considerable attention in England from the Renaissance onwards: and the general stimulus to phonetic studies from the discovery of Indian phonetic work at the end of the eighteenth century has been mentioned in ~hapter 6. Sir William Jones himself expressed and aroused great Interest in the problems of the phonetic transcription of languages s.uch as Sanskrit, Persian, and Arabic, 'which had a long tradition of literacy in systems of writing other than roman letters- His' Dissertation on the orthography of Asiatick words in roman letters' J; praised the p~onol?gical appropriateness of the Dcvanagari syllabary and of the -:rablc scnpt to the disadvantage of English alphabetic spelling, Unlike most of his contemporaries he clearly distinguished between letter and . d d ' , ' I

.. soun, an he vigorously protested against (he paedagog1ca

refe~ence to 'five vowels' in English. q

SIr 'Villiam Jones's phonetic work was studied carefully in England by A. J. Ellis, who collaborated with Sir Isaac Pitman on alphabetiC reform' and E 1- h - . d tl e

, '. ng IS interest in thc physiology of speech Ie to I

pubhcatlOn of C. R. Lepsius's Standard alphabet J 5 a cooperative product of English d ' ' lble

an contmcntal scholarship setting out the POSS]

vowel and consonant sound types classified bv their articulation, represcnted by distin ti , 'b I " f d'ff - . c I .. e sym 0 s, and Illustrated from a number 0 I er

ent languages 1"1'· f . ' ,

• ' , liS Was ollowed in 1877 by Sweet's 'broad romlC ,

and m 1889 by the rcyised International Phonetic Alphabet of what

was later de~ignated tl I· . ~

Thi ~, ie nternatlOnal Phonetic Association.

rough the em' - f .'

i • . . . ugranon 0 the remarkable Bell family, this same

n .. erest resulted In th '. .

wbere th e InVentlOn o.f the telephone in the United States,

e name of the y - }

is COtnmem d - oungest Bell (Alexander Graham, 1847-1922

~ orate III the B 11 T H

like his father A1 e - elephone Company of America. e,

r, exander Mel·1I { ",r h

Alexander (1790-186 ) VI e 1819-19°5) and his granwat e~,

5 • worked on speech training and remedial appli-

Ll NG U 1ST I CS I N THE PRESENT CENTU]l Y

203

~ . . of a system of 'visible

cations of phonetics. A. '!\II. Bell was the mventor b herein each

speech' on the lines of earlier attempts (p. 1 I 9, a ov~). w .'. This

, .. . .'. n raphlc notatIOn.

separate process of articulation receive. d. Its Ow,.g dif '. s by Sweet

. ~ d mo 1 cation

system was adopted, with some correctl.Ons an

in his Primer of pholletics.16 d . the study of

f the lea ers In

Henry Sweet (1845-1912) was one 0 . d ) English in Great

phonetics and of Old, Middle, and New (mo ern He was teDlpera~ Britain in the second half of the nineteenth ce~tu.ry. ects of linguis~

, - h hroni c deSCriptive asp

mentally inclined towards t e sync r~m '. d h- hostility towards

tics, in part by his rather intense natlonahs~ an_h, h1S1 e rightly associ-

, " h larshlp ~ IC 1

the dominant historical lIngUIstic sc 0 _ rS-lty of human

d ' the pene

ated with Germ. any. As it happene , I~ h 1, that he was came

, . h t'tandmg sc 0 ar

affairs, recognition for being t e ou.:;. .. han in this country,

more readily abroad, and notably 10 Germa~y~ tess and, in later

- , 1 b·' SUSPIC!OUsn, . - .

where his outspokenly cntlca canng, 'f ever attammg

ted him rom

years, his justified resentment pre~'en

professorial rank in a British universltyY, '_ k drew on the progrc5S

Phonetlc wor - t I

During the nineteenth century, - and cxpenmen a

, I d acoustiCS, d

of the allied fields of physio ogy an f h etic research by the e~

investigations were an accepted part 0 p. on_ spelling reform. and In

-' f phonetiCS In '-rrent

of the century, The apphcauons 0 ., major part 10 cu .

d d as playmg a . .. f social

language teaching were regar e . nd the cause 0

- of education a

efforts towards the extenswn

d themselves

progress in gen.cra1. I g .' .. 'ans had cancerne lnh b ti

S PhonetlCI. , , . I alp a e ic

Up. to the time of weet,. d "ng of addluona .

, 1 di the eV151. . I the latter

with spelling reform, ~ncu 109 anctic symbol sys.tems, ~ hOBetic

symbols, and with umversal P~d t that with the Increase III Pr rm--ed

. b e eVI en h . ~ was rero ~.

half of the century It ecam hv however muc It., y narrow

- ,. ,. orthognlP. • _ sand t rat lin ~

sophistication ev ery h letic difference, , I of "one

, bservab1e p OT rh attalnable goa

would omit many 0 ,here near t e un , d for practical

.. h arne aoy~ . I comphcate

transcription t at c Id be tOO hopeit's!> Y bi dilemma can

d ,bol' WoU . Th approach to t IS •

soun ,one s ym 1 uage- e L if pllOTtet ICE (1 877)

" of a 1I11g hi HandbaG" 0

use in the wnttng . I .,riting, In IS d'lI', -ences depend in

b ·s ' -t's ear Y \ ds whose mel

e seen In \'iee. ' t..etween soun d 'therefore non-

di etl0n 11 - nent an are

he drew the IsttO: honetic enVlronI 1 t blish two words

n theIr P b themse ves cs 3

the language 0 ds which may Y honetic difference may

distinctive, and SOU\ems. \-irtuaily the sad~e.p ti e in another; and

'--11 . parate I nd non- _1SttflC IV ~,

as lexl~ Y,se, ooe languag~ a: . . cd separate notation In a

be disttncuve 10 , nd differences ne

only the distincttve SOU

CHAPTER EIGHT

broad transcription system fOJ a particular language, 19

Sweet did not use the tenn phoneme, though the concept clearly underlies his work. The explicit terminological distinction between sound or phone and phoneme was the work of a Polish scholar teaching in Russia, Baudouin de Courtenay, who made technical use of the Russian word [enema: His theory of the phoneme was published in 1893, but he had probably arrived at it rather earlier, around the same time as Sweet, though there was no contact between them then."

It was not, however, before the second decade of the twentieth century, after the teaching of de Saussure had begun to make its impact, that the term phoneme gained wide currency, soon thereafter to become a linguistic universal. De Saussure had used the French word pfumblle, though generally in the sense of speech sound as a phonetic occurrence; but his structural theory of language in its application to phonology quite dearly formulated the concept of

phonemic distinctiveness as its centrepiece. .

Daniel Jones made it the basis of • broad' versus' narrow' transcnption (terms previously used by Sweet) in his Outline of English phon-!,til,S, first published in I<JI 8. During the twenties its status as a lingUlsUC unit, or as a class of sounds, was debated and it was variously held to be a psychological entity a physiological entity a transcendental entity, and just a mere desc;i~tive invention, 2 1 But' the first really signiiicant development in the evolution of the theory of the phonelllewas the work of the Prague school in the twenties and thirties.

The Prague school, as it is known, was constituted by a group o~ Czech and other scholars doctrinally centred round Prince Nikolai !rubetzkoy, a professor in Vienna [923 38, which held regular mee~m~ ~d published the Trauaux du cercle linguistique de Prague. Their mam,mterest lay in phonological theory, and the most important wor~ associated with the school was Trubetzkoy's Grundziige der ph.onolog~ (principles of pho I)' . ' d th t~

no ogy, on which he was working up to his _ ea '

Trubetzko d h Phon.'

, Y an t e rague phonologists applied Saussurean t e 'J

to the elaboraf f h· 'b I - ged

10n 0 te phoneme concept. Speech sounds e on

to parole the phone b I, d ro f ' ,aC ~~

'. . ' me 'e onge _ to langue. In studying languag"" '

systems of tnternall 1 d 1 t the

. ,y re ate cements, Prague scholars did not trea

phoneme as a mere cla f d . b t as

ss 0 soun s or as a transcriptional device, ut

a lco~plexf ph~no~ogic.aJ: unit realized by the sounds of speech. The

re ation 0 reahzatJon ( '. .' .'t

1 representatJon or implementation) between urn S

at one evel and thos .

E l... heat another level is fundamental to Prague theory,

acn p oneme Was com db' " .

pose y a number of separate dlstmctlve or

305

LINGUIstICS IN THB PRESENT CENTURY , .. '. d it as a linguistic entity; pertinent' features, which alone characten~e .. to its absence

. , d . defimte opposltl0n

and each distinctive feature stoo in a . ., 'the language.

or to another feature in at least one othe~ phoneme 1neording to the

1 d I various ways ac

Phonological systems were c asse In '.. '. thus English fpI,

f disti hi h ' mponent phonemes,

eatures .1stmgu,' 1S mg t eir co ,.. ' 'I ess and voice at

fbI / f I 'I f d o , ositions of VOlce essness , .

, t, Id/. and Ikf, g ,orme, opp .. ,. k h da three term plOslve

each articulatory position, while anClent Grce a

system

{k/

{pI /Z r:

IPh: ;b/ /tb'-/dl fkbf Igi ,

d l'raUOIl and

,. d i bsence an asp

involving the oppositions of voice an Its a

its absence.21 . hei omponent articulation,

d into t err c f h

The analysis of speech soun s 1. f h nitary phonen!es 0 t e

features was not new, but the analySIS 0 t ehu ds into ordered sets.

, , l' dbyspeec soun, ,r S

phonologIcal level that were rea ize . b f distinetlYe leature

. '. aUer num er a " rhod.

of specific contrasts between a sm d deSCriptive me . .

leal theory an 1 '

Was a definite advance in phonologiC vealed the eornp exity

. b 1 the phoneme re , bersof

Moreover this analysis e OW. t to be all mem

were seen no enter

of phonological systems. Phonemes. . '1$ in a language, but to dt

one undifferentiated set of contrasu"dj'e, 'ffUnlent positions. Ip/.I, o], Itt, / d'

.' . er d'all an

into different systems of relatiOns sn d lced initially. me 1 y,

. . less an val , I 58 cOIlt.rast

and /k/., IgI contrast as VOIce ,,' I Is! the voice-VOIce e h

d b t after lllitia ., occur at eac·

finally in English wor s, u .' ly one ploslve can ."

. .• ali . d' as on , " d i Gennan m IS non-operative or neutr IZe, trast is neutralize In 1 ' class

. The same coil. "n the p OSJve .

point of articulation. 1. 'celess ploslves It was

. h on Y VOl . 1 'cal contras .

word final position, were d a1ysis of phono ogl 'h features

Thi re refine an • rising Just t e ..

are found. . s rna . hi' honemes. camp . bil b'-"lt'j etc.

- p 'arc P ar' n (I e 1 a Jill ,

expressed b~ se~tln~ u positions of neutr lZallO ..

still distinctive in t ese . th than the

. ) r d to features 0 er : , -

and,pl~slOn , f analysiswer: app I.e onolo ical theory had

Similar processes ,0 ..ments With whlch ph g f sylJables, such

d vowel SC!i'-' mental) f,eatorcs (I f

consonant an sodie (non-seg, . n) an cx.tension or

begun, the so.-called Pdro itch (including l~ton!~uo,. ~s Ior the future.

hess all P . - rant Imp lI::auo < .

as lengt , str ol y ha\'ing ImpOI'. " honological: analysis the

descriptive pl~On?fiog t wove included _ 10 ? .1 sound features as

11 gnl can . nd units anu

An equa Y 51 . s of certain sou dari . addition to their

:;\,ntagmatic functl01fibl' and word boun arres In

• , of 5yl a e

demarcator:> '

206 CHAPTER EIGHT

paradigmatic function in constituting distinct phonemes. In this syntagmatic, demarcative- role they were referred to as Grenzsignale or signes oristiques (boundary markers).:IA

The phoneme concept had originated in the search for the theory of broad transcription. As the result of the work of the Prague school it became one of the fundamental elements of linguistic theory as a whole, and of the scientific description and analysis of languages.

While the main efforts of the Prague school were directed to the explication of the phoneme concept and the development of phonological theory, its members made a number of contributions to other areas of linguistics, including the more peripheral topics such as stylistics. Several syntactic studies were published, and the comparative syntactic typology of Czech and other Slavic languages is strongly reprcsented in the work of Czech linguists since I945.zS In morphology, Jakobson's study of the Russian case system and his attempt to abstract from it a basic semantic content for each case represents an application of the same analytic procedures as were being applied in phonology to the description of grammatical categeries.w

Soon after the publications of de Saussure's COUTS, other books were published in Europe dealing wholly or principally with synchronic linguistics, for example, O. Jespersen's Language, A. Gardiner's Theor)' of speech and language, K. Buhler's Sprachtheorie, and two important books written by Hjelmslev before the fuU , .. -orking out of his glossematic theory, Principe» de grammaire generate and La categorie des cas:" At .t~e s~e time certain tren~s in philosophical th~ugh~ ,,:ere brin~in2~ ~~fcl.ans into closer contact WIth the problems of hnglllStlC analYSIS.,

re ~auguration of a series of international congresses of linguists 1.n 1.928 .IS. further illustration of the growth of interest in synchrOniC ImgUlshc research.

. Ho:,ev~r, ~t was in America that linguistics, and in particular descrip-

nve Imgmstlcs receiv d . . , . .. d ing the

, e most recogrunon in uruversluesurw

HjZOSj and the genesis and course of American linguistics in the interwar.decades exercised a profound and lasting effect on the development

of lin ,. .. . [

.. guistrc ,stUdies and linguistic thinking throughout the world '. n

192:," ~e Lmguistic Society of America was constituted, wiih the

periodical La"rmat1 .

T. '"b - 1> e as its annual publication.

hree outstanding hi· e

F B sc 0 ars set American linguistics on rts cours J

el~:: °dash' Edward Sapir, and Leonard Bloomfield. Boas was the

. an e taught se 1 A . . n

Bl fi 1 . vera mencan linguists of the next generatlO .

oom e d IS quoted c...:» .

as rererrmg to him as • the teacher in one or

2.07

L J l"\ G Ul S'n CS IN THE PRE.SE N'f CEN 'fUR Y ibute to his work for

another sense of us an', and he paid generous tn .

American linguistics in his obituary.19 . t edents. Boas and

d h d from their an ec .

These three men were not etace .. d'cd neogrammanan

S . . . E d Bloomfield stu 1 Tl

. aplr were born m <urope, an . . (19.13-14). ley

hi L ki nd Brugmann .

istorical linguistics under ' es _len a:. . . historical linguist

f h arher American h

were familiar with the work 0 tee . fl need by nineteent -

. hi 1£ much In ue

and Sanskritist W. D. Whitney, . irnse . , b . ttitude to language

B . and Sapir s aSIC a h f

century European thought. oass .. lif and way of thoug, to

in its intimate bonds with the whole. way of I e H ..... boldtian Ideas

... .. d h k to u ...

its speakers can in great part be trace aCh .... ic theory and pro-

h· 'fng on pone, .•

(p. 176, above). Noticeably in IS wn 1.. • f the phoneme, streS~

d h holog1cal VIeW 0 . d the

cedure, Sapir espouse t e psyc .' t's abstractlOn an

, b the hngulS

smg the correspondence etween.... hi tanguage.30 ,

d i tUltlOnS 00 . IS Amcn~

native speaker's reactions an 11:1.... h· ior influences on ., I

r sented t C rnaj ditlone(

In. their work 'we can see rep e ., theory WaB can. 1

. . e Amencan . vcho 0-

can linguistics at this fonnat1ve nrne- , . t or mechan1st ps. .:

h . . . f the bchavIUUrlS h in wntlflg

y the rigorous posltlVlSm 0 . Bloomfield, w 0 'II

. . ally strong III ) drastlca y

gists. This influence was especr blished in 1933, . d N W

h. . L age (first pu (L don an - e

IS standard tex. tbook, angu li l:<tic science on . hanist

d ti n to tngu." , h the mee

revised his earher Intra uc lO .. 1· basis in line WIt t about

Y . . thcoretlca . statemen s

. ark, 1914), to bring ItS, . A p \\Teiss, wheretn d in terms

havi 1 ts as . . 11 xpresse I

outlook of such be aVlOur s ' . be whO Y e. , ee and

. . . nce mLlst , ble In spa .

human activity and ex~ene . henomena ob~er,.,a. to oneself or

relating, at least potentIally, to P Bloomfield's talkmg rely popular

. d observer, h like are me, .

time bv any an every f clings and t. c . ttitude.J1

J 1 . rnageSe ' I of tillS a .

thinking' and' menta ) 'nts' are typlCa f Boas and SapIr

- b dily (110Veme . _1 interest 0 1 '

terms for varwUS 0 1 nthropo1ogtc1U. . n of anthropo og)

. ) . de the II d assOc)atLO ..

On the practtca ~I, lIaboration an logists and lingUISts

d i the dose co , ' . AnthroPO l' t

were reflecte 10 . nh-ers1.Ucs. 1 t wholly pre ltera e

. A(11encan U td f the amos . dli

and linguistics in . he ,'llSt fie 0 'mall and dWIIl mg

all ge III t . d often In S S·

faced a joint ch en scattere, and Canada. moe

d·. languages, United States h· d

American-In ran eh of the h siastic amateurs a

. . er so rnu 1 and ent u

commuOlt.les, OV •... ries, tra.~lers, f .... ber (If these .languag.'. C5'.

[J'Ils~tona . [5 (I a nuru 'c. • ·1

colonial days,· : and grarnmil. h fit fun-scale class1l1catton 0

comp iled dictioOancs . 11 ... ublisheJ t ers 1 . <ages and in addition

. . . J Vol. po".,e F, :I..ork on thesc anglo '. I'

and in 1891 • centrated hiS 'i • and in part wrote the l1an~bfX/i.

them.ll Boas CO~ •. studies he edited d cti n by Boas, is still an

al descnptJ\c snits Int'TO U 10 •

to sever. Indj(J11 language,. ive linguistics.

oif Amer:can~ tiOfl to dcscnpu

- tfOdl.lC

excellent jn

208

CHAPTER EIGHT

Some American linguists made these languages their prime concern, extending their scope to include the languages of Central and South America (where Spanish and Portuguese missionaries and others had done work in earlier centuries); and many others prepared a descriptive account of one native American language in the course of their career, ~ften as a doctoral thesis. The languages chosen had in most cases had little previous scholarship expended on them, and the field worker \\ as l:arning the language at the same time as he was analysing it, a Situation quite unlike that prevailing in earlier studies of most European languages. He was cast upon his own resources, and had himself to decide on and justify every statement and classification he made, This was, and still is, a most valuable part of a training in linguistics, but it may also have been partly responsible for the heavy emphasis in American linguistic work of the succeeding decades on 'discovery procedur,es', so that linguistic theory was virtually required to specify the operations by which a language was actually to be analysed as well as providing the framework for the analytic statement, One can contrast the amount of work done by the 'Bloomfieldian' linguists on American-Indian I~ngu,ag,es with the early development of transformational-generative linguistics carried out largely in English or in familiar European languages,

Sapir and Bloomfield stood in contrast and they complemented each ot~er .in their approaches to their subje'ct. Bloomfield was rigorously scientific in tile 1" ht f h"'" iorr of ' e

" Ig 0 IS own, mechanist interpretation 0_ SCLenc-,

concentrating 0 h d I· ',. ". . t

. n met 0 0 ogy and on formal analysis. While It IS unJus,

to say that Blo f Id' ' L'

om e was not Interested in the study of mearung. nts

demand for the stri I hani ' . d I.'

net y mec amstic statement of all mearungs an ms

consequently tathe '" h

_ r peSSlmlstic attitude towards semantics must ave

contnbuted to the. I . . 'h

re atrve neglect of this aspect of linguistics during t e

1930S and Hl40S on th f . .

S ' e part 0 more orthodox American lingUlsts.34

apir, by contrast d wi , bi t

exnl , ,range Widely through and around his su Jee.

e:xp onng its relation .. ' h I' h

10 . d . s wit Iterature, music, anthropology, and psyc 0-

gy, an expreSSing " .

rem.' . . Views on language like those of Boas that were

lUlSCent of Humb Id ' . ' ..

whom'·' d Q t and Were later developed by Whorf, both of

mSlste . on the e' - . , A

glance through hi S P IVaSlYe lfl. fluence of language on human life.

IS elect d _" - f hi

scholarship a d e wntmgs shows how wide was the scope a illS

, n a compa . f' .. ld'

Langu.age gives a fai , rison 0 his Language with Bloomfie s

. air plcture of th diff " h to

their subject,35 e ~ erences In their approac e.S

Because of the status of hi

(though it is much m h IS book Language as a students' textbook

ore t an that) d hi , ,

an IS delIberate concentratIOn on

LINGUISTICS I!'> THE PRESE~T CENTURY

209

, f I' .' predominated in

methodology, Bloomfield's interpretation 0 mgu,IStICS. ". h . hirti

, 'I'· t dunng t e ties

the attitude and outlook of most Amencan mgUlS s . d b the

'L rs was conceive Y

and forties. Much of the work done III these yea . f . of the

, , . 1 '. d velopment 0 some

acholars involved in It as the articu anon or e " d

, , ·.·1· fi ld: nd the ensumg peno

Ideas or suggestions expressed by Boom e ,a" , altl ugh it

h h 'Bl mfie!dlan era, .10

as now come to be known as t e 00 ", b directly

f· h etenst!CS can e .

cannot be said that every one 0 its c ara

traced back to Bloomfield's teaching. ., d' iods ' are

, " 'd al d 'schools an per

Every.· scholar 15 an indivi U , an d I -orkcrs actually

'. ' 'h - rk an t le \\0 "

abstraettons doing doubtful Justice to t e ':0 . fieldian linguisticS'

comprised in them, But in a survey as rhis, nIoom d . ing this period

, 'and because, . ur

can reasonably be treated as a umty,.. " b me more firmly

( '" . disclphne eca .

1933-57) linguistics as an autonomous . ,," of the Umted

', . d'n UnlverSltles

established and more widely represente 1 f It over the whole

, rnf ldi "fiuences were e

States than elsewhere, Bloo . ie Ian HI .

learned world in linguistic studies. '. n formal analysis by

d h ir attentiOn 0 fi Id

American linguists concentrate ted nceptS as Bloom e

. . . san co ' "

means of objectively descnbable operation tal units of descnptlon

Th fundamen I 'ally

had insisted that one should, e twO. , lude all phono oglc '

, ded to me h me

Were the phoneme succeSSively exten b 1 v) and the morp e • disri .' h ena (p 216, e 0\, ,.' tl'On between

isnncuve phenetic p enom ' The disunc .

, 1 structure, h t between

the minimal unit of grammauca all interpreted as t a . h

as genet' Y d denote speec.

speech sound and pho,neme wand allophone use . to . established

member and class, \'nth. phone d 1.1 d ·I"tself on the aIread.~ : .. the

1 ' mo e e . . d orpr1£lt1C ...

Sounds. Grammatical ana yS1S h .llomorph, an m

. ' morp, a

phonological method, using f mil defini-

. to the or .

same 'way,l6 . . d some attcntl0n , I' guists placed

Id h d devote American to .

Though Bloomfie a , .,1 unit, later . tructure was set

'. 1l1Inatlc.. .'. Sentence s

tion of the word as a gra "I descripuon. , . which the rnor-

I ' ,,, rammauca analYSlS, In 'f

ess. weight on It in g, nstituent , g construcuons 0 .

. "dlate co ·presenun .'_

out in terms of l1ume her in trees. re I i was impliCit til the

phemes were linked tOgCtt'ty (such an ana YSS and was partially

, . d camP eXt .'. l paedagogy, . b .

ascending size an "of tradloona _ Bloomfieldrnade a asie

•. . 'd analySIS of ranks), , w'ng

parsing an • theorY . ic conslructlOM, aceor

, ., J ersell Ii d e](Ooentfl , 'f

Involved In esp doccntric an . ,. not itself broadly SlllULar

d" . b tween ell 'as or VI as , . d ' ~"r

istmcnon e truction \\ '. diate consutuents, an ia ...

he cons n lIDDW "hin· _

to whether t of its oW f. binary divi ions Wlt: con-

any . f nee or

syntacticall Y to 'ed a pre ere

, for!flahz . d .

generations I f sta!ement in phonol(}gy an 10

.., ed mode 0 •

stltuents.. all favour

The gener "j

2[0

CHAPTER E[OHT

grammar, was that of distribution. Some linguists of the period were characterized as 'distributionalists', and linguistic description was held by them to be the statement of the distributional relations of phonemes in phoneme sequences and of morphemes in morpheme groups and constituents. Thus Z. S. Harris, whose Methods itt structural linguistics ~ay be regarded as the development of certain aspects of BloomfieldianIsm to their extremes, could 'write that linguistic procedures were directed at a • twice-made application of two major steps: the setting up of elements, and the statement of the distribution of these elements relative to each other'.38

In such procedures the traditional distinction between syntax and morphology tended to be somewhat downgraded in importance; and also, in the interests of purely distributional statement, • process' terminology (wherein forms are said to' be related in terms of processes such as v.owel c~ange (Ablaut) or consonant alternation) was as far as ~osslble avoided, Quite illegitimately, descriptive process was someh~~s al.legedly confounded with historical process, and therefore dl~Uked in synchronic linguistics. 39

I'he re~ation of the two levels, grammar (morphemics) and phonology (phonemiCs) was the province of morphophonemics, the link between the two principal aspects of formal linguistic analysis (Prague linguists had ~sed morphoplio1tology in a similar sense), It was first conceived as a

l'elatlon of comp ition : h ' d

, OSI ion ; morpt emes were said to be compose . or to

consist of phonemes, This relationship is hard to maintain in the face of

allomorphic v . ti . h· . "rr

, ' ana Ion In W ich different and sometimes wholly dlUer-

ent, phoneme se " d 1

, quences are morphemically equivalent, an, ater

wnters generally' t ed h '

h in erprete t e relation between phoneme and rnor-

P erne as one of repr . . h b I

esenranon. phonemes compose rnorphs, and t ere )

I'e~resent the morpheme as a class.w

I'he two levels we ide d ' h

h . re consi ere to be hierarchically ordered III t at

rnorp ernie analysis pr d ' . ' - ,

Th d' . esuppose phonemic analysis but not snce versa.

ne octnne of th '. , h

. Bl fi e separatron of levels' though not found as sue

in oom eld was· d '

ample t ,'h" presse by some linguists, G. L. Trager, for ex-

, , 0 !I"ct:'n~ths th t ' . .J

could be I -, -' a 110 graffimati<'-al statement of any klnll

cgltnnatdy used· h' . 1 r

zrarnrnsr: I I,n p onermc analysts and converse),

b mmanca a nalysis co Id I - ", 1

been cornpl t d . u on y begin "hen phonemic analysis hat

, C C In a langua Tl . , I

'grammatical, . " .'. , ge, 1(' deliberate abandonment of sue 1

" prci cqllJSltcs a" . ,

~real and SOl' , "Id < ~ gra.mlHatlC:li word boundaries hUH ;I

, sorne \\OLl say a 1 I

ncmes delimit' I , n into era »le, wciglu on the juncture ph»-

lUg prlOnellllC \\"0 - Is ( I "

rus wordlik- sequences of phom:J1It:;.

211

LINGUISTICS IN THE PRESENT CENTURY

, 'i tion given the statement

juncturally definablej.v' A phonemiC rransci p " this view

h f a language must, on

of the allophones of all the P onernes 0 ' .. ' 1 for free varia-

he unambiguously and directly r, eadable (e:xcepttngd, on Y st have one,

. , , d 1 any uttere ' text mu

tion among allophones), an ,converse y, .. I ,. al demand was

. .. Thls t leoretlc

and only one, phonemic transcnptl0n., ,. , D Jones',;

, t f' blUmqueness.. "

later referred to as the reqUlremen 0 , h rnena within word

I" ., f 1 ' 1· to phonettc P eno f

Imitation 0 P ionermc ana yS1S • b . e of its lack 0

, 1 ate Just ecaus

boundaries was criticized as mac equ , k 42

, 'eeted by Chorus y.

biuniqueness, which, in fact, 1S now rej . , I s framed com-

, I t'stributlOna tenn, , "

Grammatical statement m pure Y I 1 iurn in terms ol

, nt put a preou, ,

parably to sequential phonemIC state me J • ~'hich successive

d rts of languages In \ ,

case of analysis, on languages an pa ' , I t'ons with successl\'e

, , , h d ' ne-to-one re a I .

m,orphemes CDl,lld be mate e in 0 II rphic \'.ariau.,on among

d the less a orne d like

phonemes or phoneme groups, an I English war s 1 'C

dh ') the better. n J' I k

the bound forms (internal san "~ heroically than 00

'I . al)'sable morp 'h. ti

baked and cats were more east y an to provide a t eore 1-

Phs were set up k was

and mice and sometimes zero mar did t provide one: too

, . t 'ord shape I no , d ,0 being an

cal sequence when the o\er" ' ' h f /telk/, an ,

I k/ bei an anomorp 0, . and mice

analysed as /tuk+0, tu, eing " / dt I-tl /-ld/, etc.: no

ffix hke -, ' f I wsj and ~,

allomorph of the past tense su , . j, allomorph 0 rna ~J

was analysed as /mais/ + 0, /mais! bellnjkg ani 5/ I-z./, /-iz/, I-ani, etc,

1 ffix e - , to rate

an allomorph of the plura su , , would therefore seem ,

" I evaluation ' f! . nallanguago:s.,

Disi, ributionalist typoiog1c,a ' ather thao the c,oO t: t' ns, so

, ' languages ra d ' ilar lorma 10 ,

highest the agglutrnattve " J ' Ablaut, an SlIn' bove)

h ' al sand U'81-2 above.

which involve muc mtern oiogists (pp, J77.!· d,' resented in

prized by nineteenth-ce~t~ry tY~t ultimately de~-clopc,_: IS P iod inthe

, fi ldi , !'ngU1StlCS as '.1_ I e end of rrus per "

Bloom elan 1 d ed tOwar, lib t 1 .' dern li1Iouistu:.,

f b ks pro uc , Curle tn "W l>

a number 0 tex 00 . F Hockett so.. d A A. Hill's

h 1 . ect' C,' . linoutSftCS, an .

history of t e SU)J • , to descripll'l}C . b , • -yed historically

LI GI' 'IlltroductlOn trh perIOd IS surve

ri , A. eason s "t udures,44 i ne . t' uistics and various

, Ii gUlstlC s r R adingr 111 mg' .

Introduction to 111 ,"'\1 )OOS'S . e ib tions to Trends 112

d texts In - ' f the contn u

through selecte, d '0 some 0

. " covere 1 , o-J{}60."~ .'

aspects of It ... re , . linguisltCj I93 d lo ... mcnt of Bloom, fieldum,'

d Amerlcarl d" ergent eve t'" d b

European all mewhat ,. IV'" 'has been develope,:!

t ears a so .' n g:rammar ..1.

In recen Y . t analysIs 1 ' 1 b n exemplified in stU<.lles

, di constltuen, . 't has most y ee ..' -

rmme late h' assOclates,l - in which these lingu lSts have

Pik and IS • n languages,

K. L .. ,' e d South Amenca d This system of analysis, which gre\\

of Central an 'antl'" ultereste ' b haviour sugge ted by Pike, is

dOJlUn J • f human e

become pre I tbeor) 0

genera out of a more

CHAPTi::H EIGHT

kn~wn a~ tagmemics, since the tagmeme is its fundamental grammatical Unit" It IS noteworthy that it is among tagmemicists, with their predommant interests in the field study of native American languages, that disoovery procedures are still a matter of prime concern." The tagmem~ unites in a single unit a function in a larger structure and a class of items fulfilling that function; it is defined as 'the correlation o~ a grammatical function or slot with a class of mutually substitutable items occurring in that slot.'. 47 'Subject manifested or fiUe~ by noun', 'predicate manifested or filled by verb', and 'object manifested or filled by noun phrase j are all tagmemes. Such tagmernes compose larger structures like clauses and sentences. and sentences are

anal d'. "

- yse , .not Into successIOns of (usually binary) immediate consntu-

ents, ,but Into strings of collateral constituents (whence the title 'string 'constItuent anal- si ,. -, . . . . d

. . Y IS LS aiso used of this approach). The subject an

object nouns or h·· b '

. noun p rases are related equipollently to the ver In

many tagmemic anal' h ,.'

. yses, wnereas by the usual Immediate consntuen'

and transforrnat" I " , ' If

f rona generatIve analysis the object noun IS itse part

o the verbal group, .

In identif)'ing t. '

f." agmernes, semantlc function as well as syntaCllC

unc~lOn IS t~ken into account, as long as an identifiable class meaning ~anb' e a;s~cJated with a definite class of formal items as 'fillers. t, so that

su ~ect, location' "ti ,. . ,

t . ., ime, quahfier', and the like may all constItute

agmemlc slots or fu' I· , '

II . , nctlOns .. n thus employing semantics dlagnostlC-

a y, and In severely difvi . .

sy t ,rno I. ytng ImmedIate constituent structures in

n ax, tagmemlcs rna ks I , . di ,

gram . I . r s Its major dl\'ergences from' Bloornficl Ian

rnatlca analysis It ." .

(slot). d 1 " S POsltmg of a unit comprising both functlOll

an c ass of Items (fill .). , b

most useful ; dr. er performmg that function seems to e

different cl III ea mg with languages in which a diversity of fonnally

asses may perf r h '

logically diff . 0 m t e same function (e.g, where the morpho-

. 1 erent classes of '. dl

cates), or con I' n.oun, ad. Jcctlve and verb can all be pre 1-

, , > verse y, m whi h th . ,

fun~tjons in the . c t e same class may perform d)\crse

sentence (e g. , )

Where a. single clas f' " nouns as subjects, modifiers, or o. bJects '

so Items fill ' .

expressing this b .. s a smglc slot, there is redundancy m

y means of a com I ...

Synchronic lin u' ti . piex unJt.,48

. g IS ic studies' G . ,

tl'ated on phonetics and h In. rear BrItam were initially concert-

.extended by D Jo P onology. Sweet's teaching was taken up and

" hed j • nes, whose '0 tli: "

IS ed In 191.4 •. and E /' h It me of Ellglzsh phonetics, first pub-

llg zs pronoun' di . '

1917, are known and used 11 ctng tcttonary, first published III

d' a Over the Id havi , d

an praetlce of' received '. wor, )avlng earned the stu y

pronunClatIo ' (R P

n .. ) far beyond the relatively

2T3

_. T CBNTURY

LINGU1STI'CS IN THE PRESEN

, hi I it characterizes the

d ,t fi ncs m \\ HC \ I

narrow geographical an . SOCial can

pronunciation of a native dialect. . d i Cardincr's Theory

, ". .'. were trcatc In .11 t

More general linguistrc questions ,,-, , tic theory anc tnc

. b . di stinctlve hngUis I "1

of speech and lOllguage (1932); ut .. 1 , de .' c ,subject rn (,·rca

.,' " as an aca crm , ' tl r

recognition of ;:. ... ncral tngu1sttcs .' '., '11 LinguistICS In "

, , 1-' I P Iessor of Gene r, "I n

Britain owe most to J, R,' In 1, ro.. f ' hohkr oI a nt e I

.' , t 11'l~6 the rst 'tn

University of London from 1944 0 'J. ' I f his ,1ttentIO[\

. " . .' . 17' 1 lcYoled mHC I 0 , 1 -sis

hngulstlcs In this country, irt 1 l ., f prosodiC ana}-

" f -ard the theory 0 1 1 eorv.

phonolog'l' in which he put orw a , I' J' s genera t 1. :

J' . , .ed "It 1111 11,

(pp. 217-19. below), This was concciv 'of langua~e, .

which may be called the contextual theor) .1 wo;k :md thO~ghr of

. . ' f' th drew 00 t ie .. k \"ho,

LIke American !mgUlsts, IT .. f l3 !\[ahno\\S I,

, . .' larlv that 0 " , etllllo-

anthropologists, in h15 case paltlCli ,- , :I and sentencCS]l1, 1'1

, , . natlv,e wore 5 '11' Eng I~ I,

faced with the task of tranSlating ..'. omprehcns[ ) c , ., f

, bri d Islands into c 1 mcaniTIgs 0

graphic texts fromthe fro nan " 'hereby t ie ' ~. I

t f SituaUon, \\ t \\'(}rd~ allt

developed his theory of contex 0 ) nd their componen ' ,r' icular

, ary data a , the fI'] •

utterances (taken as the rum , . functions In

d their vanoUS ,

phrases were relerre to . used.4" II· [in"llistlC

, . ' hi 1 they ",ere tin" a h ,

situatIOnal contexts II) w uc 1 ,<n: bv tre,l ", h apph~

. . ach to langll,l." . , ,Iching t e

Firth extended this appro, 'Pg then:bY ::;Irt.:" O)\'cr ffram-

nt of meam . I,":-;t ro .., I

description as the stateme.. 'f netion in con '~' 'amp]c. of t ie

.. " canuw ISll I tor ex

cation of the equatlon m -,." l'be swteJllt.:J1 , 'is the state-

. I nal\'Sl5, h as Latin t

matical and phonologlca a ~ I guage sue ( the sm[emCil

f rm In a an textS am

syntactic uses of a case 0 ]'l1!l!ica1 con ' "b'li tiCS of a con.<;n-

. . ious gram . 1 pOSSL J "1

rnent of its function in van die sCquenua f jt~ flH1Cllun II

It asts an t 1 . tatcment °1 ,..:("(11

of the phonologic-a can r _ I' h is the srI he phnnfl 0,..1

, ) in Eng IS f (,(,nlc,t n

nant such as [b] or III ~ 'il1r1 in t re

, LI COn1l·Xf. ' J ua"C and

various phonologIC: , hCl\\c.,cn ,]I1g <>.

> , T' ;" J • relation , funCtions

~\'stem 01 the language. , nse of t Ie 'f the semantiC

. \1 .' . the ordinary ~c: died in tcr.ll':> 0 t of ",matioO, of a

, eanmg III han 1 ('.ontc" " •

, lce was . diffcr•n ,; I'>,JJ klll.ta"

the world of expenel Ilte:1C(S 1[1 "'ldll•11 .11t~l I \ ~I.. I 1

i1nd SC ,\\,~J,.I" • " I renee an!

of words, pbra:;t'S, • I" 1 :'Ito/hut!' . '" inclmllll!! I c.... .m

]'l: [ •• 11 f ll~e.,.onc .. , Id be relat;eu to

tnore abstract n~ltl.~ ICI\'Or!; 0 C d their parts. COil. , h. • e~aed

'd' 'l 'I rail ceS an , 'rld Flrt· 5.[ ..., .

and provt lIlg' 1...;~h L1tteran '. the e\X(erna.l ,",0 ' an d

. b· wru- ts )11 of grammar -

denotation,SI Y s and even al forUla!, conte)lts. . ... , hili

the relevant featUre,ceo the inu:rJ1 ';s of situation, thus JlI.S!hJing , the parallelism bch't\\ e){tCmai contefXthC use of the term mean,,:g. It 11113,)

d t e sian 0 . 'd semanuc ana yslS

phonology all 'cal e,.:tcn between formal an

, radoXi 'a rences

othen"ise pa basiC dl e

be said that the

Zl4

CHAPTER ElGHT

were underestimated by Firth,Sl but the move in semantics away from the entification of meanings simply as what is 'stood for' or referred to (since with many words no such referent is readily available], toward, the interpretation of meaning as function (how words and combinations of words are used) was a most valuable one,

In the analysis of linguistic form itself, Firth, like most British linguists of his time, was much more concerned with phonology than with grammar, Linguistic form was envisaged by him as sets of abstractions, at the lexical, grammatical, and phonological levels, referable to actual features and occurrences of phonic dara serving as their several exponents, At each level the elements and categories abstracted were related to each other along the two Saussurean dimensions in syntagmatic structures and paradigmatic systems (Firth specialized the ter~s structure and system to refer respectively to these two dimensions o,f ,lntralinguistic relationship); consonant-vowel-consonant and prepo·. siuon-noun were typical structures, while the syllable initial plosi\'es 01 a language or its nominal cases constituted 'systems of contrasting clements or categories, The levels were weak Iv hierarchic, in that

ho .1' . - ' f

P no ogical abstractions could serve mediately as exponents 0

grammatical abstractions while themselves having phonetic exponents 1I1 the p~onic data, though exponency could also be taken directly ~s the relation between grammatical or lexical abstractions and the phmuc data' thi h ' . I'd "

, " IS rat .er loose arrangement has been fonm~li.zed in Hall ay ~

h~g,Ulstics, p, 220, below_53

I he most d.istincti\·c aspect of Firth's linguistic work was prosodic phonololTv the o· tli f - t' «llv , t> .• , Ll mes 0 which were first presented programma Ica ,

In 19+R, and de 'I 'I' ,. -,' I' ~ . cveropec In applications to a number (It languages In t I~

( <'cacte foll(l\\ i ng. q -

Firth's prosodi I ' I 'I th'r

sv c P ionn ogv should 1)(' considered along WIt I 0 l

. )'stems of phonal t • to

the I ,II ogy t rat were evolved in the 1940S as responses

cna enge that 1 " f d

during th p 1onology, as a part of descriptive lingUIstIcS, ace

aided b ,e 19305, Phonetics, an observational and descriptive science,

) more and . , '.' ,.' otal

phonetics ') more sophisticated Instruments (experlrne ,

, Was now cap I I f di - ,- . '·1 etlc

phe. nomena' 'I ., arne or istinguishing and recordll1g P ion

, 111.'<0 ved 11) h' I a11

hitherto and ' bri . speec With a greater degree of accuracy m

, was nngln ,las

stress and the' g Into the field of its precision features sue 1

. pitch levels d ' " ,'0

together With th ,an movements Involved In mtonatlO ,

J e Sound differ .', ' hat

re ated to the tra " cnces and their associated articulatIOnS l

- hi . nSlhons bet I es

Wit In whole uttera Ween syllables, words and other stretC 1

nccs SUch h ' ·jb'

, P oneti\: phenomena had beep notice{ J

LINGUISTICS IN THE PRESENT CENTURY

215

d ith ' 1'5' the

Sweet, under the title of 'synthesis' (as contraste Wit ana YSI , ,

description of consonants and vowels considered as separate sequcntl,al segments),SS but in the interval they had been somewhat neglected JI\ phonological theory, In part they provided the material for the

Grenzsignale of the Prague school (p, 206, above). . . - .

The classical phoneme theory, developed almost exclusively wuhll!

, ' h fi t I ce on consonant

accepted word boundaries and focused 111 t e rs p a

and vowel segments and such features as the tones of tone lan?uages"

f " , " bl it tood at the time, ol

unctionmg very Similarly, was mcapa e, as 1 s . ,

d ali . I d 'bed material whose

e mg adequately with this mass of new y escn '

1 b ' er more apparent,

re evance to phonological analysis was ecommg ev . If', t

-, _ h e concept Itse lfi 0

Simultaneously the Prague analysis of the p onem , ' div

, h . d It as an in ,,1-

Its component distinctive features., showed t at to regar h ' al

.: ' . 'veness the t eoretlC

Sible umt whose status was Simply one of contrastl ., . the

> .' b I failed to express '

counterpart of the broad transcnptlOn sym 0, .

lingui~tic ~~ct~ on which the very th:ory reste,d, s b different scholars

This C[ISIS In phonology was met 111 three way , lY' was the one

- ative so utlOn

or groups of scholars. The most conser v 1 e as a phono-

, ' d th t the p :lOnem '

adopted by D Jones who mamtallle a b d the limits

,. ., di all . eyon

logical concept should not be extended ,ra IC Y h . formalized in

, ' 'acllce was t us ,

tacitly. accepted hitherto. Extstmg pr c e whose iocatlOfl

, , . as a leawr ..

explicit theory. Intonation, an. d stress id the range of phonemlc

h' h 1 it fell outSI e f-

c aractenzes words as W ,0 e uru s, . d b d.aries so far rom

, . tical wor· . QUIl " 1

mtcrpre. tation: and accepted gramma 1 , ·Iys's as some B .oom .•

, .' ' ,.,.. honermc ana· I, • 1

being illegitimate conslderatlOnS in p 'l·d by Jones to be essenn3

fi ' rcitIy dec are . ' .. 5~

eldians' taught, were quae exp I. d honernic transcnptlon.

, 1"'SIS an P d d I Th

to a satisfactory phonelTIlC ana J, r' lysis is expoun e In e

h loglca ana h ti

Jones's mature theory of p ana , t, : contributions to P nne rc

d (195°), ."S I' ' he placed

phoneme: its nature an. use al is show how the JmUS "- -

description and to phonological ane ~oncept in no way restri~cd hIS On the extension of the phonem d within a thought syste~ dltfcr:nt

,. ' ly operate '1" tS In Amenc.a

linguistic work. He simp _Bloomfield,an mguU!

- h r by post ' '

from that adopted eit e 'ed \vith him in ,BntaJ.n. .'

Or b· Firth and those assoenl.t . lJ . b American lingUISt! worlung

Y ,.' was taken, P Y . . h " d \lacy of the

An alternatlVe solution , . Faced with t e mac eq

. tradition, all th rele

ithi . th Bloomfield,an ~"'ncept to co.mpass . e r L-

wi in e aI honerne...... I d

existing, largely segment. ioP cd in );tnguages, these linguists responde .

vant phonetic features e~~a1 ~xtension of the theory of t~e phoneme, so

to the hallenge b. y a logt . 1 -ant feature could be assigned to some

c, . Hy re e'

that every phonologlca

:u6

CHAPTER EIGHT

phoneme and represented by some symbol in the phonemic transcription. New classes of phonemes were created, covering distinctions other than those directedly assignable to consonant and vowel segments; hence the generic term suprasegmtm.tal phonem« applied to them.

'The suprasegrnental phonemes included phonemes of stress, length, and pitch, which extended over or could extend over more than a single consonant or vowel segment. Intonation was sometimes treated as a single phoneme extending over several syllables, but more generally the intonation tunes were analysed into series of distinctive pitch phonemes, American English being treated in terms of four contrasting levele.»

Another class of suprasegrnental phonemes was constitutcd by the juncture phonemes. These were set up to analyse the distinctive differences found at sentence final position, in breaks between stretches of s.pcech within a sentence, and in audibly contrastive \Yord transitions like a notion and an ocean in English, where the actual segmental phoneme sequences were the same. Juncture phonemes assumed very considerable importance when phonemic analysis was taken across word boundaries (which Jones had refused to do), and when the demands for ~he strict • separation of levels' ruled out any use of grammatical factors in _phonemic analysis or in the symbols of phonemic transcriptions. (Word divisions, unless they could be shown to correlate with juncturally mar.ked ~ivisions, were inadmissible.)58

Amencan Juncture phonemes covered much of the ground of the Prague Grenzsignale (the first reference to 'juncture phoneme' in E. P,

Hamp' Gt· . bli

, s ossary comes from the year 1941, two years after the pu uca-

tion of Trubctzkoy's Gtundziige)5Q; but American theory integrated these demarcative phenomena into their phonemics, whereas Trubetzkoy had left them assigned partly to phonemic and partly to nonpiumemlc statu' \-" ' . I'· t era

. S,ve l)We to the' Hk"Jm11eilil..lJl· dl,:!PLJlI[l')n;!)'

much of ou: p . ot

. " roper awareness of the flatu! c and lrnpJrtancc

Ju~cttira} pnenomcna in snecch

I'he sUpl'asccrUlental h' ~. .. . [-cd

-\. .'. .,... p. onerues ... 1 pitch, l.cIlgth., and stress, InVO \

, m~ncan phonemics b . ui

h . . IU a . reak with serial it ... in the l.:unceptlOll

)J onem(;~andtheirr'\~"" '. .>, ..' -r the h .' l!! . cse ,ILllIO:t HI transcnpuons. But the ongm 0

poneme in lran -. . ' [ 1,1

on this ad ,. scnptlonal requirements maintained a strong 1U (.

,allced phone . tl h he)'

mishr be s rruc ieory. Juncture phonemes, thoug t

b uprase~ment"l in t ' 1 . I ·cd

were aliocalcd . .. errns 01 t ie phonetic features lflVO v .

. a serial place bet" . .. 'IP-

nons, somclin ,. . ,.,eell segmental phonemes m [l'anse!

Its G1SJ"II1ed f r . e

rom the maximally pl,)millcnt re:ltur

LINGUISTICS IN THE PRESENT CENTURY

2i7

associated \\ ith them, as w nen Swahili stress was phonernicizcd as an '. . II bl f II " g the stressed interword Juncture located after the sy a e 0 0\\ 10

syllable.60 The demand for biuniqueness, noticed above, spr~ng from transcriptional practice, and so did the overall monosystemiC tntcrpr~-

'. f b h . nemes found in

tation 0 the theory, whereby the contri:lSts etween P Q • '

. . . 'I' 1 {' ,11 otller pOSl110nS

posmons of maximal contrast were gen~ra izec or a .

(' h ') Th d IT . '" t comrast Systems

once a p oneme, alwavs a phoneme .. C I erc.. - .

. , _ " . d explicit bv Prague

operative at diiicr em places In a language, rna e e> .-

h ' alhl'lon and the

t cory and dealt with there bv the concepts or neutr J..'

. . . d I .. J and ... perhaps, by

arcluphonemc (p. 205, above), were covere . CSS c eg,} .

, . J'ff' t I' oncmes after the

statements of the different ~ljstributlOn 01 I ercn pl' '."

. .' I . d been 50m!!tlmc~

sounds occurring in positions ol lLcutrahz:ltJon la . , f 1

bi . .. f h h erncs set up or t ie

ar »trarily, assigned to one or anolher 0 t c p on J f

, . .. . . he sec J consonant so un s ()

positions of maximal comr. ast {thUS [ e se .... Un I 'II . g the

. . ., ardec to 0\\ III

Enghsh words like span stitch, ai.d shi:fch '.Iel L; leg . 'I 1 • they

, '..' I / I and 'kl, at lOUg11

onhographlC tradition, as allo;.>llonc5 of / P , . t -: /' ,~ , d I 1).0 r

.h d '. . ) nth /bl, Cl. an ,g,

S are some features (e.g, non-aspn atlon \ . .: (her than

. h ve been tacit fa

Such transcriptional influences maya, . ai' nalysis of seg-

1. . . I . ~h the . \'ertlC a

exp ICIt, but the reluctance with W 11(.; onents (' com-

. .' " fC;lmn:s or comp

mental phonemes into their dlStlllCtl\ t; ••• lid forties \\ as

.: . dur i [he tlLlfUes a

ponential analysis") was prcs~ed urmg " 01

. ' ' '. l' con\,<:l1lenct:, '-

openly attributed to its transcnpuuna 10 t radical break \\ ith

I di 1 . made the mOS f

.n this last respect, proso rc t ieory . f the requirements 0

, , . isted u e separatlon 0

CXlsUng theory' Firth U1SIstC on J. ph(I"o!Ou1cal iheorv.

. ... . dequalc" 0- .

transcripti.on from the structure of 1ll1. ad;' earlier, but with Imlc

. d ouch a ... orce

I'waddell had indeed. suggeste 5, ' Co" r Firth the phoneme

, . t [he time. () -'

effect on the phonological theory oJ J dc,-islllg and juSlJlYlfIg ot

. ·,·al ue In l ie If' !

as a theoretical urut had IlS \ . . f JI dispby of t ie unClW[].1

. . os' the U '. f

economical broad transcnptlO ' required a different set 0,

. . ., s in utterance , ,

iater-relations of sound ft;;ature al '.' 63 Since FIrth "as a strong

d of an ySls. . . h d

terms and a different mo e. pts exist only \\"lthl11 t e es-

t -nc conce . If h

adherent of the view that a~a) d not in the Janguage use ,sue a

. . f h lingUJ.St an n " d'a'ercnt purpose!!

cnptrve system 0 . t e al 'stems set.)fIg IU' .

onceptu S}

coexistence of separate c .. .

presented no difficul~ies fO,r h~~~ types of basic c,lement: phonemat~~

Prosodic analysis mvohes is set up in relation to some phone ic

h f thcse 1 . h t

units and prosodies. Eac 0 ) ser\..jng as its exponent In t e actua

f (groUP of features ric units are consonants and vowels,

eature or . Phonema ..

d ech mater1l11. nts ; but any phonological structure

uttere spe d as 5cgme J

'all ordere

and are sert Y

218

CHAPTER BIGHT

(e,g. s~lIable, or syllable group) may include one or more prosodies. Prosodies arc assigned to definite structures, not to places between phon.em~tic units, and are set up to handle syntagmatic relations between cer~:nn phonetic features. Broadly" phonetic features are allotted to pm' so dies rather than to phonemaric units, if they either extend over the whole or the major part of a structure, or are positionally restricted in it a.~d thus serve to delimit or demarcate it. As examples, the tones in Siamese .(T~ai) are treated as syllable prosodies by the first criterion, :md plosion in this language, being confined to syllable initial position, is regarded as a syllable (part) prosody by the second criterion.I" Comparable examples of prosodies of words, as phonological units, arc :owel harmony restrictions (usually accompanied by related differences In ~he consonantal articulations) in languages like Turkish and Hunganan: a.n~ stress confined to a fixed place in the word and thus serving 1:0 delimit Its boundaries.

It: will be seen that Firth's prosodies, and the prosodies of analyses that fo~owed this theory, in part deal with the same phenomena as the Grenzszgnale of Prague and the suprasegmental phonemes of the Ameri-

can ph " .

onemieisrg, There are, however, a number of differences. Any

type of h . £ .

_. ~ onenc reature that can be shown to be syntagmatically in-

volved WIth more than a single segment can be treated as the exponent

of a prosody' A' . .

, mencan suprasegmental phonemes, other than Junc'

tures Were gene 'II li -'-

. - 1'. ra y limited to stress length and pitch features not

lUVO Vlng a b . d'er ". • ,,' , .

. . asic irrerence In the shape of the sound waves,6,5 In PIO-

sodic analysis no h " " I

h . sue restnctlOns apply and some phonetic matena

t at In other syste ' f analvsi "

ms 0 ana YSIS would be part of some consonant or

vowel phonemes be assi . . .

skrit . d may e assigned to prosodies (e.g, retroflexion in San-

I an some mod I di I al

rti 1" ern n Ian languages, and palatal and non-pa at

a leu anon in So " h

ex . me vaneties of Chinese66) and for the same reason t e

. ponems of some h . .' .'

feat h P onematie units may comprise fewer phonetIC

ures t an would b 1 - . .'

a phone' I' e ong to the nearest corresponding phonemes IJl

'.. nuc ana YSIS. -

With tranSCriptional d ., . , .

ffionosystem' .of nee s no longer a relevant conSIderatIOn, a

lC set 0 analyt'l . .

is prepared t IC e ements IS not necessary. Prosodic analYSIS

. ' 0 set up differ

dies at differe t 1 . ent systems of phonernatic units and proso-

n p aces In struct h .. f "I' t s

the analysis Th 11 ' ures were this significantiv aCl,lta e

.. us sy able' ." .,

system from svll bl f lIutla! consonants may well form a different

• a e nal cons' f h

members of one s t " onants, WIth no identification 0 t e

. y em WIth the b h h

certam phonetic feat ( rnern ers of another even t aug'

ures exp· ) ,

onents may be shared between them.

219

LINGUISTICS IN THE PRESENT CENTURY

. 'b lik transformational-

Moreover unlike the < Bloomficldlans, ut 1 e, I' e

, 1. ) , «idic phono Oglst5 se

generative linguists (pp. 229-30, be oW I prose

d the actual utterance, or,

phonology as the link between grammar an ' " 1

. , d gram matlca eate-

more abstractly between grammar and phonelics, an .', t

.' . I t phonologIcal statemen

genes and structures are properly re evant 0, t d with

h h ie f t res can be assoCIa e .

w erever a phonetic feature or p oneuc - ea u , . f d and

" .h ecogmtlon 0 wor

them as exponents.s? From this come t e r "bTty

di d also the POSSI I I

sentence prosodies, as well as syllable prosoles, an -I foneclass

. " ects for wort so

of phonological systems different III certain resp t in which

. 1 . The last two respee s

m a language and words of another c ass. . t d phonemiC

" . ally onenta e

prosodic analysis differs from tranScrlpt:on . f nee to prosodic

1 ". l temtc WIth re ere

ana YSIS ga\"e nae to the term po;ysys ' .' t a readable tran-

h I . die analYSIS IS no f

p ono ogy. The outcome ot a proso - '. f the interrelations 0

scription, but a diagrammatic representatiOn 0 th t can be put into

1 "h f utterance, t 11

e ements and features In a stretc a

• oS

connection v v ith its grammatIcal structure. ses to the challengt.:

h e three respOD di f.

It is important to consider t es h as ri\'als conteD ing : or

f d "1 not so muc h eeting

ace by phonology In t ie 1930S solutions eac m

h . . but rather as d'[ under

t e recognition of supenonty, . ' DomieaJ an casl y .'

certain requirements. jones's phonology" IS ecous and exhaustive, and it .' . . ngoro " " 1

stood; 'Bloomfieldian' phonemiCs IS. f tures into a transcnpt1on~

honene ea di nalysis

claims to fit all the relevant P . "nventory; proso rc a •

1 te phonenllc I "plicitly the

representation and a compe. . bl to bring out more. ex

at the price of some compIe:,uty, IS. a e hooetie features m a language

. . f he vanous P al ble though onlv

phonological functIOns.o t -. lv is Some v ua , :

..,. tical ,ana ys . ial by prosodiC

and to link these to a gramma the same langua.ge mater. " • been partial, contrastive treatments of he hands of a sJngle wnter hhill;e '1

d b h ic analysis at t " . 'fie nt at any rate in a stonca

In y p onerru . more Sign! ca • . on the

published.s? Such studles ~re rate assertions by devote~

- e Intempe h lo.ncal analysIs .

survey than the rnor proach to P ono "" ak' th·

, articular ap _ was the pace-m er In t

supremacy of one P "d that phonology d ethodology were

It may fairlY be sal descriptive theory ~. rn , d f

BI fi ldi era as far as . pulse to .:1 reVISIon of th[.'O. ry a, n 0

oome Ial'l' geS[ im .' d

B far the stroll. gress in phoneuc observat1on an

~oncern:d. d Y ncepts carne frolll r;o school and the earlier FirthiWII ltsassoclatC co. '[he Pragti '. ,., ·1 f 'I . , . •

1 . _I analySIS" . to the phonologtcal leve 0 an. g,uage,

phono oglc... ,tteJltlOn " d .

, . t of thelr il 11- with phonology and phonetIcs; an 11'1

devoted mOS • If whO Y .' directi h

(led hlmse d eed further in its chosen ecuon t an

Jones .conche;nemiC theOr)'tbil gran ammatical theory of the time, with its

Amenca P '" llJ1d e

. aI thea,),

grammatiC

no

CHAPTER EIGHT

especial interest in morphemic analysis, followed in the wake of progress made in phonemics. In a comment on Hockett's Manual of phonfi- 10;51 (1955), published towards the end of the period, one can read the wen justified remark that a comparable manual of grammar could not

as yet be envisaged. 70

Developments that have taken place after the' Dloomfieldian' era, for all their differences, show an equal concern for all levels of language; phonology no longer determines the course of linguistic theory and linguistic method, and semantics is no longer regarded, as Bloomfield had unwittingly led many of his contemporaries to regard it, as somehow beyond the purview and the competence of linguistic scienc~ ".

Significantly the recent British development of Firthian lingUlst1~ lays no special weight on prosodic phonology, but is primarily an arnculation of his general theory of language. Firth's conception of context of situation as the means of making statements of meaning and of

honeti f rmalized

phonology as the link between grammar and p onetics, are 0

in the following schematic diagram of descriptive lingu istics : 71

phonetics

1·------' linguistics

substance

form

situation

extralinguistic features

phonology

grammar (closed system)

context

phonic substance

orthography

graphic substance

lexis (open system)

HaIl' dav' . conception

The diagram on this page sets out M. A. K. 1 ay s .. ot

of linguistics as an organized and articulated science, It ha~, n,

. , . " ," I resentatwn In

surpnsrngly, cbanged and developed Since Its initia p ,

1961,72 but the picture there given remains substantially as It was. is

Halliday's linguistic theory, as he has repeatedly made, cle~rt" s

., . . of bngUlS 1C ,

intended to follow up and build upon Firth s conceptIOn 'fact

and to do for Firthian linguistics what _. irth himself never In d of achieved, to present in its terms a full-scale theory of language an

LINGUISTICS [N THE PRESENT CENTURY

linguistic analysis, The extent to which Halliday has succeeded in this aim remains a matter of debate, but his linguistic theory, cspecially in its current form, has attracted very considerable attention,

In its early stages the theory "went under the self-explanatory name of "neo-Firthian linguistics 'j it was also designated 'scale and category grammar', this latter title being taken from the set of seven basic elements, three scales and four categories, of the theory as expounded in 1961.13 Currently Halliday's theory is referred to as 'systemic grammar' or 'systemic linguistics 'J since the grammar of a language (in the widest sense of . grammar') is envisaged ~s a highly complex and delicate set of systems of options, some sequentially

, . I)

ordered, some simultaneous .. through which one must (figurative Y

move in framing an utterance and in terms of which as a bearer one

must interpret an utterance, ' ,

These interrelated networks of choices (the term network is HallIday .s)

are presumed to have taken the form they have, in all languages, In order that speakers and hearers can make use of their lan~age, to meet their requirements as determined by the general ~uman. Itu",tlon and by their own particular culture, In this way Halliday, like Firth, links his linguistics with Malinowski's anthropology, and professes, as

h ",. f 1 to help answer the

t e central objective of his theory 0 anguage,

question: "Whv is language as it is?' ,74 , "

.. .' hI' I analYSIS prmcl-

The hnguistic theory worked out, With p ono oglea I

II ' ' '. f the Prague schoo

pa y In mind by Trubetzkoy and his associates or i, . 'f·

, 1 . The analySIS 0

led to a number of very important deve opments, . d d

li " f di ' . ,; f 'at1l resal rcady exten e mguistic units in terms of sets o Istlllctive e ., li d t

to morphology by J akobson (p, 206), has been fu~hcr aPhP Ite ns~

, . , d ' . entral In roue ra -

grammatical analysis In general an IS now ce h rial

£ • . b I W)75 though t e eSsen

wrmattonal-generative grammar (p. 230, eo h most

fI idi , ' . I inzs in many, per aps , til Ity and indeterminacy of lexica meanmg ., lik a total , . lik 1 that anythmg I e - words in natural languages makes It un ley 6 Thi type of

, 'h cans alonc.7 IS

semantIC analysis can be achieved b.y t ese rneau: . y help to

, 'the hope that It rna

analysis has been extended to semantics, In . . f nons or

f,". of semantiC unc I

ormalize the apparently 11Inltless range Ob ' laces for its

, ' ' '1 guages VIOUS P

meamngs carried by lexical Items In an . 'lturally de-

, , ,.. 1 b terns of terms In ell

apphcatlOn are restncted lexica su -sys,' E li h for example,

I" , '. h' b lanes In ng IS , , Itmted areas, such as kins rp voca u' ding generation

• . • ki " fi t degree aScen I

aunt' can be analysed into in rs "th 'unde' by the

• fi ' , d s t: Ie' contrasting WI

rst degree colJaterahty an lema •

~21

CHAPTER EIGHT

feature of sex difference, Several attempts have been made to extend this sort of componential schematization to other and wider areas of the lexicons of languages,

In phonetics and phonology, distinctive feature analysis made striking advances, in alliance with instrumental and acoustic studies of speech transmission. This development has been particularly associated with R. Jakobson, one of the original Prague circle" who relatively early in his career decided that more light would be shed on some phonological questions by considering the distinctive features composing phonemes from the acoustic and from the hearer's point of view rather than from the articulatory or the speaker's position. In this approach, Jakobson drew on the findings of earlier acousticians such an H. von Helmholtz and C. Stumpf for the basic triangles

/il lui It! ipl

jk/

and

tal

wherein acuteness and gravity are contrasted horizontally, and diffuseness and compactness are contrasted vertically, as acoustic features resulting from differences in the configurations of the vocal tract. 77

Under pressure of war Jakobson moved to the United States, and in collaboration with scholars working with such equipment as the sound spectrograph he has analysed the inherent distinctiveness of the phonemes of all languages into combinations of up to twelve binary contrasts of acoustic features, defined in terms Qf the distribution of energy at different frequencies (' formants ') in their sound waves, rather than directly in relation to their articulations."! In this type of analysis, phonological systems are set out on a matrix of feature oppositions, the phonemes participating in more than one binary contrast in relation to the other phonemes of the language .. This is displayed in Jakobson's and Lotz's diagram of the phonemic system of French. Feature analysis, in which segmental units are taken theoretically as no more than sets. of simultaneous distinctive features, has provided one mode of statmg the phonological link between the output of the syntactic component and the transcribed utterance in transformational-generative grammar (p. 230, below), though in this case the stage of phonemic transcription is often by-passed.tv

, In histo~icallinguistics, the phoneme theory, especially in its Prague mte_r~retatJOn, led to a significant development of the neogrammarian posiuon ~pp, 182~3, above), The neogrammarian achievement had been to formalize and to make explicit the concept of the sound law, and it was

I,

LINGUISTICS IN TUE PRESENT CENTURY

223

with sounds as individual phonetic segments that they were concerned. When sound change \ .. 'as reconsidered in the light of the phoneme theory, by which the sounds of languages were understood as forming interrelated systems of contrasts, attention was paid to the evolution of phonological systems rather than to the changes of individual and supposedly independent sounds. This approach could be and was made from two different directions. Firstly, the end product of a sound change was a different phonological system, unless the change related merely to phonetic difference within the limits of an existing set of contrasts. In an eight vowel system with four front and four back vowel phonemes, the merger of two back vowels (say [J] > fo)) entails the loss of the contrast of /~I and [o], and an asymmetrical system of four front and three back vowel phonemes results, Jakobson traces the sequence in Latvian of Ikl and !gl developing fronted allop~ones before the front vowels li/ and Ie! Jts] and [&]), and these becoml~g separate phonemes Its/ and {dz! contrasting with jkl and !g!, after /al/ had been

, " . ' t d

monophthongized to li/; Fourquet has re-exammed and r~lIlterpre e

h G " 'C' , Law' In terms of

t e ermanic sound changes compnsmg nmm s .'

the evolution of systems rather than of the changes of particular sounds, and has explained the historical phenomena as the maj~tenance of phonological oppositions under the pressure of succeSSIve general

changes in the force of articulation on the part of speakers. ~o .

id d t egards Its systemIc

Secondly sound change can be consi ere no as r

• , ti n The neo-

effect, but from the viewpoint of its systerruc causa 10 • f

_ .' he u tion of the causes 0

grammanans had played very safe over t e ques Lo. .

.' d 1 ing: 'The causes

sound change and Bloomfield followed them in ec armz: , h

f ' ., Th . n for sound change as

o sound-change are unknown .81 e accaslo _ ..I

. . . hi h h is tratlsm.ttcu a.q :1i

always been seen in rhe conditions m w IC speecn » b"t

. t another' ut qUi e

SOCially learned capability from one generation o· h

, . d ' I . External factorS sue as

oer. tamly the causes are multiple an . camp ex.· '. the su".,r-

1 . , ali h ffects of substrates in I"~

anguage contacts, bihngu Ism, t e ell', and the

. , _ -. speech CotIUllumty,

ImpOSltlOn of an alien language upon a 1- ·d· d: and perhap:;

. n ' . t all be acknow e ge ,

In1mence of wntmg systems mus .. t be ruled

• , •• '11 ry speculative, canno

geneuc influence, though this IS sn ver " be found within the

OUt.8z But a significant cause of sound changes IS to

phonologic, al system, s of languages thems~lves. h . n the imp·ortance

S f all his ernp asrs 0

trangely enough, de Saussure, or, . h ie r·I'nguistics w,ent

. { 1 e in sync rom . I

of the structural conception 0 anguag _. f structure.8• But

. , . d - hromc relevance 0

so far as to deny exphcltlyany rae .' h 1 gt'cal systems. The

. k WIthin p ono 0

two factors are constantly at wor .

Z24

CHAPTER EIGHT

LINGUISTICS IN THE PRESENT CENTURY

economy of effort produced by the multiple use of each feature contrast that has been once mastered tends towards the maintenance and the generation of symmetry in phoneme systems (/p/, It/, Ik/, /d/, /g/ requires as many contrasting articulation features as the fuller and more symmetrical system If'/, ttl, /k/, fbf. !df, /g/); but the physiological asymmetry of the vocal tract interferes with the achievement of perma~ nent symmetry (for example, in the matter of distinctive degrees of tongue height in vowel phonemes, there is more latitude for keeping the front vowels apart than for the back vowels). A. Martinet cites as an illustration the fronting of luI in Azores Portuguese, whereby the exploitation of the front-back contrast (acoustically acute-grave) in the close rounded vowel phoneme releases more space for the ready maintenance of phonemic contrast between the remaining back vowels, faf, /;)/, and !0f.8~

Researches on these lines, and the broadening of the theory of historical linguistics to embrace their results do not invalidate the neogrammarian insistence on the regularity of sound change as the basis of historical linguistics; but they do bring to historical linguistics further important insights and more powerful means of investigation.

During the nineteenth century, Russian linguists were in touch with general European developments, and the phoneme concept was apparently arrived at independently by eastern and western scholars at about the same time (p. 204, above). Trubetzkoy was Russian by birth and education, and had worked, on some of the vernacular languages of the Russian empire before leaving the country after the first world war. ~he ,B~lshevik revolution brought with it a sharp break with the h~g~lStlc scholarship of the rest of the world, and during the twer:ties, thirties, and forties, although phonological work went on and with it the study of the phoneme theory, Soviet linguistics was dominated by the eccentric dogmatisms of N. J. Marr (1864-1934).

.Marr, himself half Georgian by birth and from his early youth gifted ~tlth remarkable language learning ability, turned his attention first, hk~ some other Russian scholars, to Georgian and the rest of the Caucasian languages. In investigating the history of the Caucasian languages he .gra~ual.ly evolved' his own theory (or theories) of linguistic history. ~eJectmg the accepted Indo-european theory, he drew his ideas from el~hteent?-century beliefs in the gestural origin of language and from ~ddle nmeteenth-century opinion on linguistic typology as an indication of stages of progressive linguistic development. The • Japhetic' languages, a term he used to cover the languages of the Caucasus,

represented a stage in the evolution of language through which some other languages had already passed. Languages were historically related, not in linguistic families, but by the different evolutionary 'layers' of structure deposited from continual mixtures and combinations. Languages were not national, but class phenomena, and were part of the superstructure whose changes corresponded to changes in the economic base of the speakers' social organization; here he claimed the theoretical alliance of Marrism and Marxism.

Claiming to explain not only linguistic history but also Linguistic prehistory by his theory, Marr soon transcended merely observational statements, and declared that the words of all languages could be traced back to four primitive elements: [sal], [ber], [jon], and [roJ]. Such unsupported theorizing enjoyed official patronage, and seve:aI other Russian scholars found it prudent to uphold and even eulOgize Marr's pronouncements, until 1950 when suddenly Stalin ordained the rejection of the whole Marrist edifice, pointing out, among other things, that language was not dependent on economic organization since the same Russian language served both pre-revolutionary capitalism and post-revolutionary communism, a statement of the ob\rious not ~ppar. endy made before. Stalin's intervention both ended the long reIgn of Marrist theory and drew the world's attention to it,85 Since th.en, ~~h

tb . f· . I . eraticn in hngwstiC

. e. post-war expansion 0 mternatlOna coop . .. ."

studies, Russian linguists have started to work in closer contact With

th f d A ' nd current western

ose 0 the rest of western Europe ann . merica. a .

d I . . f II d b ted In general

eve opments are being keenly and fruit u yea '

r' . . .. lexi h which is accorded Ingwstlcs particular attention is paid to eXlcograp y, . . d

th . ., al with l)honology an

e status of a component of hngUlstiCS . ong .' '. f

f the description 0

grammar, rather than being merely a part 0 . di

1 . . I I" . ti cs SlaVIC stu res,

anguages. In comparative and hlstOrlca mgUls 1 , id ble

. . . h n very consl era

suppressed under the eccentricIties of Mar.r, ave see, '11 ti ue

d h t dencles WI con n - ,

evelopment.86 There is good hope that t ese en. . n

. ". . I a sterIle aberratlOn, a

and that Marnsm Will be remem. bered on Y as . k fantasy

wf . d tyranny can eep

a ul warning of the extent to which rno ern

enthroned in. defiance of fact. . deri some of its

A ..' II's that erlves

general theory of lingmstlc ana ys .. . . I ammar' pro·

characteristics from Prague theory is r strattficat~oll~ ~'dest se~e to

b . . ed m Its WI

pounded by S. M. Lamb (grammar emg us . at . pp 228-9

. f matlOn usage,· s

cover formal analvsis as a whole,.as ID trans or . ' j . uage structure

b I • . it d wlthm ang

e OW),S7 Different levels or strata are posle . wherein the

f s: ple sememlC,

Or the analysis of sentences: lor exam ,

225

226

LINGUISTICS IN THE PRESENT CENTURY

CHAPTER EIGHT

distinctive meaning units of the language are set out in a network of ~elati?ns (e.g . .' tiger', I ,catch', I male', I human', 'agent', 'goal', and

r= ); lexemic, wherein the distinctive lexical units man, catch -ed, tIger ,etc. are linked together in a sentence structure; morphemic, where~n morphemes appear in a successive string; and phonemic, wherein simultaneous bundles of distinctive features make up a string of phonemic units (the man caught the tiger)

. The levels are hierarchically related and linked together by the relanon of representation or realization, in that the lexemic level represents the sememic and is represented by the morphemic, which in turn is represented by the distinctive features of the lowest structural level, the ph?nemic. ,!,he nature of representation varies from simple, when one unit of a higher level is represented by one unit at the next lower lev~l, to, such complex representations as neutralization (two or more uruts not structurally distinguished in representation), composite represen~tion (one unit represented by more than one lower level unit; as in ~llltlple allomorphic representation of a morpheme), zero representsnon, portmanteau representation, etc.

. T:us theory reacts. against the dominant linearity of 'Bloomfieldian' distnbutiona~srn, by ~isplaying the different types of structural relation that ~ay b~ involved m linguistic analysis, and the number of different ways in which a, structure at one level may be related to (realized in, or repr~sented by) a, structure at another.

What can. now be seen as the start of the most radical and influential

movement lineuisf h

in mguistrc t eory and practice that has taken place in

recent years may be 10 t d . - -'

.. - ., ca e In 1957, when Chomsky'S Syntactic struc-

tures was published '. , ..'

. - -, mauguratmg transformational-generative linguis-

tics, so named from th " I d" , . .

f h - e pnncrpa ustmctive method and orientatton

o t e work taken in hand It hid b h '

.' as a rea y een stressed that t e aSSIgn-

ment of changes in th hi . . .

, e istory of a subject to particular years IS

arbitrary and some h t ificial

Bl mfi " wa artl., CI ; work on Praguean Firthian and

00 eldi li ' ,

d. h .,Ian me, s wen, t, on after 1957 and still does go on. What can

an, s ould be said of t ,t: ,-

. .'. ransrormatlOnai grammar (as it is usually desig-

nated) IS that It is in t t f" -

f) - . ' a s a e 0 rapid development and has become the

ocus of attention of so f h -, . '

s h' 1 - f- . me 0 , t ,. e most e. ner, geticand able ling\"JstJc

c 0 ars 0 the present d '. . ,

ove th ld _ ay, m the United States firstly, and nOW all

r . e wor . It seems certai th . . .

th d . .' am t. at ItS effects on the whole of lingUlstIC

eory an. p.ractlce will be deep and lasting.

So rapid, indeed are th h .-

and method. f·' ' e c anges in some of the theoretical concepts

. . s 0 transformat' I

rona grammar, that a definite statement

of its present position would be inadequate and certainly dated withi~ a few years, The main outlines, at least, of transformational-generative linguistics must already be known, or at any rate be readily accessible, to any reader of a book such as this, and reference may be made to the now large body of literature on the subject. What is importan~ in, a historical survey is to place the rise and development of transformatIOnal. 'generative linguistics in the context of preceding and contemporary

work in general linguistics. '

Transformational relations between sentences of djf{erent syntactIc

. . basi n 'Bloom-

structures had been incorporated ill an otherwise aS1ca, y. .

fieldian' type of linguistic description by Harris in two artIcles m 1~5,2 and 1957;88 and it may be pointed out that Chomsky w~s Hams s pupil. In 1957 Chomsky put forward a set of transformational, rul~s in order to make available a more powerful grammar than, III h~s

, . . .. . d"'b ti al (' phrase structure)

opunon, the immediate constituent or ism u lOn' ..

model unaided allowed for. In this, it should be noted. ChomskY,was

, .. ,'- I' . d oncepts and retatlon-

remtroducmg m a more explicitly forma ize way c , .

ships which had been part of traditional European lang~age t~a.chmg

, ' I ule ' IS familia! to

all through its history. The term grammatlca r ... d b

t cnool: It hac een

anyone who has learned a second language as. .', d - to

, fi ldi 'IingUlStlCS m or er

self-consciously dropped from Bloom e ian , " th

, .' rive bias getting In e

avoid any suggestion of normative or. pres~np, f Syntactic

_ .• , • ' B S A encan reviewers 0 .

way of obj ecnve descrtpnon. 9 orne m ,,' b k with the

I I nonary , rea

s.tructures made much of this apparenty re,vo U " the place of a

'. 'f les ' was put 10 ' , -

immediare past, when a grammar 0 ru, 'd' ttention to.the

,. ' -ers pal more a

grammar of lists', but European re~ewe, older European tradition •

continuity of Chomsky'S grammar With the f 'h' work on which

hi ' n aspect a rs

and it must be stressed that t IS IS a .

Ch' id ble emphasis.oo

iomsky himself lays consi era 1 sively with syntax

d almost exc u

Syntactic, structures was con. cerne "'nguists generally u. se

. 1 generative I

and morphology (transformatlona - , . d h ology and they tend

id e to mclu e p on . , h

the term ' grammar' in a Wl e sens . - ic 1) V, eean nOW see t e

b f yntactlc ru es . ,

to treat morphology as a su set 0 S • d I ment in WblCh, trallS-,

ki 'maJor. eve op ,.1

years 1964 and 1965 as roar ,lOg a '. d 'nclude semanticS afiu

. reqUIre to I . , ,

formational-generative tl.leOry was K d postal wrote rn 1964.

. . " . ThuS atz an - I

phonology within Its compass" e is an atte.mpt to revea

• A I' .' " f a natural Janguag'!l1 F rther

ingu rsnc descnptlon 0 . _ f that language. . u '

ak a , mastery 0

the nature of a fluent spe ee s. ,. '~_1 knowledge of the lan~age

. .' s or practu;a.l h ' . t ons

appeals to linguistic lntUltlOfl ille 'timate, because all sue mtul I

are, ideally, unnecessary and I gt

- ---- .."...,_. --..-... .---~~ -

CHAPTER EIGHT

LINGUISTICS IN THE PRESENT CENTURY

d d d the various products

It did not long remain unchallenge ,an to ay .' . .

. 1 f ish theoretlcal diversrty

of the original Chomskyan lmpu se urrns a . .

, " . I '. of the theory In the

which appears unlikely to Yield to any sing e version

foreseeable future.. ri of

, . the most severe restnc lon

The baSIC problem was that, even on . , .

. ,. . " fi f th-conditlonal semantics,

linguistic meamng within the con nes 0 tru '. h d

. , . , .' 11 . . ti . nterpretatlOn to t e eep

It became impracticable to limit a seman IC I h d

t ib tion unless t e ee:p

structure without any surface structure con n u ,

1 d d ith ad hoc components.

structure w.as to be heavily over oa e WI diff l' by

. h se these 1111CU ties

Chomsky himself went part of t ie way to ea idi terial

in proVI mg rna

admitting a distinct role for surface /structure d i . d that

... , . '. '. radical an msistec ..

for semantic interpretation. Others ~ere more '·11 dequate

if . . be made semantlca y a

I the deep structure was ever to ., tation of

, . . 1·· the sernantrc represen .

It would itself become eqUiva en. t to. . . t rpretation,

. ·1 ~ rate semannc III e

the sentence, leaving no ro e lor a sepa ed or ex-

T . h meaning to be convey

he semantic representation, t e· . count of the

, ' t' n a generative ac

pressed, is, on this view, the startmg pOlO 1. k , hut it is in

, . . ' e with Chams y s,

sentence. It IS an attitude at vananc ifi t'onallinguists

general terms noticeably similar to those of the .strah dCat}lle structllreof

. hi Meaning all

and of W. L, Chafe, as set out ill IS . hi transformational-

1 . hei f h come Wit 10 a

anguage,95 though neit er 0 t ese

generative framework. .' e semantics, which

T . r between generatlv

hus was drawn the main me . . . tic representation, Of

asserts the id .. entity of deep structure and s,emll anCh. msky's continuing

. essenua Y 0

meaning, and interpretive semantiCS, .... pretation of a.sYfi. -

t semantiC mten d

position that allows for a separa e. divi remains a fun. a-

, . This IVlswn h

tactically autonomous deep structure. The details and t e

d ' . s of the theory. 'h

mental one between oppose version , ' . t be followed III t e

these hngUlsts mus B e

course of argumentation among .. bl . extent.'J6. ut on

. . "fortruda e III "

speCialist literature, which IS noW. to varioUS disCUSSIOns

recent development must be noticed. In response I cement of the deep

sed the rep a " iti al

and criticisms Chomsky has propo. . b one between Iml

distinctIOn Y ,. merely

structure' and surface structure. The change IS not . ,

h d f ce structures. . 'left when

p r.ase markers' an sur a 'd d: trac,es are

" tro uce . ., . to

verbal; the concept of 'trace IS 10, 1· nts from one position ..

'. . tactiC e erne h as it

transformational rules move syn, tian,91 'Trace t eery,

another and this may restrict their opera . _

is called, is still in its formative stage., f transformational-generat1:e

hi h st schoo s 0 f phonology 10

One area. in w IC. rno t is the place 0 .

I, '. .' b oad agreemen

IngUlshcs remam 10 . r

and performative knowledge should have been made explicit and incorporated into the description of the language; correspondingly, transformationalists attach more importance than did linguists of the Bloomfieldian period to the agreement of their descriptions with the intuitions of native speakers, and linguistic theory must be adequate for this purpose, with resources to explain and justify such descriptions.s- On the other hand transformationalists reject the demand that their theory (or any theory of linguistic description) should itself provide the means of working out the analysis or of specifying discovery procedures.

The aim set by transformationalists to their work is higher than that explicitly set by any previous group of linguists, It amounts to nothing less than presenting in a description of a language everything that is implied by the linguistic competence of a native speaker.

The objectives of the transformationalists are to be attained by framing linguistic descriptions in terms of rules that embody the creative capacity of a native speaker to produce and to understand an infinite number of sentences (all and only the grammatical sentences of the language), most of which he has never uttered or heard before.

It is in the infinitely creative aspect of the native speaker'S knowledge of his language that Chomsky and other transformational-generative linguists distinguish their conception of competence from what they consider the more static Saussurean conception of langue, and by which they contrast the creativity of generative linguistics from the more limited taxonomic objective of the' Bloomfieldians', an objective that the Bloomfieldian generation certainly did not abjure.OJ But their insistence on the fact that their data, though a finite corpus, was a fair sample of the language would have enabled them to claim that they also made provision for the infinite creativity of a natural language, though they certainly gave less prominence to such concepts as syntactic recursion and lexical innovation.s-

In 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax represented the phase in transformational-generative theory when, as we now know, it was for the last time possible to maintain a basic unity within it. The attractive conception of a relatively abstract deep structure providing through its semantic interpretation for the meaning of the sentence, and through a succession of transformations generating the surface structure without an~ change in meaning being effected by them, and of surface structure being the input to the phonological rules, whose output was the uttered sentence, was rather rashly given the title of the I standard theory'.

230

CHAPTER EIGHT

a generative grammar and the manner in which it is to be set out.98 Broadly, phonology comprises a set of later rules converting syntactic s~rface structures into uttered or transcribed sequences of phones. Since 1959, when M. Halle published his Sound pattern of RtlSSian,99 the phon~l~gic~l rules have generally been framed in terms of Prague School distinctive features. For a decade the acoustically designated features set out by Jakobson (p. 222, above) were the features used, but in 1968 Chomsky and Halle gave their reasons for a return to an articulatory set, not, to be sure, those of Trubetzkoy and the early Prague School, but one none the less based primarily on the shapes and movements of the articulatory organs involved in their production.t'? The concept of the distinctive feature, first formalized by Trubetzkoy a?d the early Prague School, has proved to be one of the most significant and enduring analytic concepts in linguistics, and distinctive feature theory is still being actively researched and developed. If any ~ne ~o~cept holds the key to an understanding of the vicissitudes of ImgUlstlc theory in the present century it is this.

Distinctive features in phonology are, of course, a universal set from .whi~h languages make different selections in different permitted combinations, The analogy of phonological features with features at other levels, together with the rationalistic universalist leanings of most transformational-generative linguists (p. 126, above) has given encouragement to a renewed search for language universals in other compone-nts. of a gra~mar.IOI It is generally agreed that at the level of syntax slgm~cant universals will be found in deep structure or its counterpart m other versions of the theory. Interestingly the' Bloomfie1dians', who so much stressed the individual differences between languages, concentrated all their formal analysis on what would now ~e c~led surfac~ structures, just where transformational-generative linguists are readiest to recognize the main field for linguistic diversity.

The. que~t for language universals is matched by the search among

some linguists for a "uni I b "h" . .

rversa ase, wether in syntax or 10 semantics-

Some linguists follow!" , . .. -

. ' , , ng generative semantics lines look for such a

base In a, sort of naru 1 r ic und ,I • •

fa , ,,' ra ogre un erlymg all languages, a notion not sa

ar removed from the ea I' und I ". ' h

. r ier un er ymg universalist logic of tt e

scholastIC modistae (p 76 b ) Thi .

- , . , a ave . 1S can be seen as part of a wlder

movement towards the' I f linsui

1 . . " . lllVO vement 0 mguists WIth aspects of formal

iogic in their semantic studies.w-

Anot~er product of this same quest has been the theory of a universal

underlvinz case system fir t d b F" .

J' a , .s propose y illmore In 1968, ThIS was

LINGUISTICS IN THE PRESENT CENTURY

231 not just a theory of case in the traditional sense of the term, in which case is part of the surface structure in those languages in which it appears, but one involving a universal set of syntactic and semantic relationships holding between the main verb, conceived as the nucleus and various noun phrases associated with it in such basic relations as agent, instrument, beneficiary, locative, object, etc. These relationships are represented differently in the surface structures of different languages by such means as word order and the surface case inflections of languages like Latin, Sanskrit, and Finnish. The resemblance of the cases in this theory to the klirakas of the Indian grammarians may by noticed (pp. 145-6, above).I03

The incorporation of a semantic theory in one form or another within transformational-generative linguistics is just one facet of the much greater interest in semantics on the part of almost all linguists in recent years, and it is in marked contrast to accepted American practice, at least, in the preceding' Bloomfieldian' era (pp. 208-9, above). Linguistic studies of meanmg have been extended to include much that would be considered by some as falling outside the realm of semantics and into that of pragmatics, though it is hard to draw an agreed dividing line between the two, and in terms of Firth's contextual theory (p. 213, above) the distinction had little sign ifican ce. Social and circumstantial presuppositions, conversational conventions, the nature of 'speech acts', and differences in focus and cmphasis connected with word order, 01) all of which there is now a considerable body of writing, are manifestations of this trend in p.resent.-d~y linguistics, which is by no means confined to those working within

transformational-generative theory.

Transformational-generative linguistics started as. part ?f synchronic, descriptive, linguistics, and this is still its primary interest. But the conception of a grammar as a set of ordered rules has led to a reconsideration of historical linguistics, at least as far as t~e representation of linguistic change is concerned. In 1966 R. D. King wrote

I . . I I' ,,' ,1 g these lines in which

t ie first textbook on hlstonca lIlgmstlCS a on" ,

h' id d I ges in a subset of the

c ,anges In a language are conSI ere, as Clan, .'

rules, or in the order of the application of the rules, that constitute Its

grammar (in the wide sense of that term).lD4 , .,

. . h t d f the histof}' of Img:utstlcs

Interventions by Chomsky U1 t e s u y 0 -

have arisen from his conviction that much of his approach to language

. b . 11 f lizcd development of traditional European

IS, asrca y, a more orma "

. (d - ht dd of Sanskritic Indian practice, p. 146,

practice an , one mIg a, -

232

CHAPTER EIGHT

LINGUISTICS IN THE PRESENT CENTURY

233

above). While rightly praising the scientific rigour of Bloomfield and his followers, he has criticized them for setting their sights too low in contenting themselves with taxonomy and for an excessive and unnecessarily exclusive empiricism in their concentration on methodology.l05 His own preferred links are with the rationalists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and with the creative emphasis of Humboldt (pp, 126-7, 174-5, above); it would not be hard to draw attention to similarities in certain respects between Chomskyan views and those of the scholastic grammarians. All this has not been without sharp controversy; it has certainly increased current interest in the history of the subject. 106

The historian must leave his narrative when he reaches the contemporary situation, but history does not thereupon stand still. He tries to understand and to interpret the past, and to see the present as its product; but his efforts do not justify him in setting himself up as a prophet. How.ever, some comprehension and tppreciation of the history of linguistic science will enable him to study future movements and controversies with a greater sympathy, tolerance, and insight. To relate one's immediate interests to the trials and the achievements of fellow workers in past ages should lead to more balanced judgments and less intemperate enthusiasms. This may further justify the selection of the transformationa1ist school to close a survey of the history of linguistics, since several of its members look both to the new discoveries that their theory enables them to make and to the links that it, has with the lingu~stic enquiries of earlier generations. Language is perhaps the most specifically human of mankind's faculties. In striving towards the understanding and know ledge of language, man has throughout his intellectual history been seeking more fully to attain self-knowledge, and to obey the injunction that faced the visitor to Apollo's temple at Delphi.o» the centre of the ancient Greek world, where our civilization finds its source:

rNQ81 ~EAYTON.

J. R. FIRTH, 'The English school of phonetics', TPS 1946, 92-132. -~, Papers in linguistics 1934-1951, Oxford, 1957·

z. S. HARRIS, Methods in structural linguistics, Chicago, 195 I. .

. d" bl ~ d tion: a selectIOn from the

E. J. A. HENDERSON (ed.), The tn upensa e jo[m a .

writings of Henry Sweet, London, J971. .)

L. HJRLMSLEV, -Prolegomena to a theory oj language (tr. F. J. WHITFlJo:LD ,

Baltimore, 1953 (first published in Danish, 1943)·

M. IVle, Trends in linguistics, The Hague, 1965, 69-242• 6

H, JAKOBSON - Selected ~rJriti7l(1s I .. phonological studies, The Hague, 19 2.

'. ': ., h di ) London 1947·

D. JONES, An outline oj Engltsh phonettcs (sixt e morn, ,

_'-. The phoneme: its nature and use, Cambridge, 1950. . ,,'

, . . . . . "h e ,.. !lfaUTe Plz01kuqlle

--, 'History and mearung of the term p onem ,

July to December 195 r, supplement.

M. JOOS (ed.), Readings in linguistics, New York, 1958• Brussels and

- /. . tie moderne

M. LEROY, Les grands courants de La ingutsttque ,

Paris, 1963, 61-178. ) St kholrn 1964.

. . .' (t E CARNEY· DC ,

B. MALMBERG, New trends %n Imgltlsttcs r. . , (d) Trends in

d J WHATMOUGH e ., .

C. MOHRMANN, A. SOMMllRFELT, an. 'u ht J961•

European and American linguistics 19Jo-196n, tree T' d . iodern

ERFEL T (ed.) ren 5 in 11

c. MOHRMAN:'oI, F. NORMAN, and A. SOMM ••

linguistics, Utrecht, 1963.

F. R. PAl:.MER (ed.), Prosodic analysis, London, 1970.

E. SAPIR, Language, New York, 1921. ) B kelev.1951.

S I d .. (d G MANDELBAUM, er .

-, . e ecte wrttmgs, e . D. • I. (~ h dition) Paris, 1949.-'

I· ... '" genera e tourt e . •

F. DE SAUSSURE, Cours de mgms'''I.ue . J' I source book/or the

. .f li . tics' a btograp nca

T. A. SEBEuK (ed.) j'orlmlts OJ ,wgu~s. . d London 1966.

, .. 6 963 Bloommgton an ' ,

history oj westemlingwstlcs I74 -I ,

--, Historiography of linguistics, 7I7-120~. TeLP 7 (1939) (translated N. s. TRUBETZKOY, Grundziige der Phonorog.1E, Pari 949. English trans-

.. d. PhonologIC, ans, I

by J. CANTINEAU, PrmClpes e d L Angeles, 1969)'

I . Berkeley an os

anon by c. A. M. DALTAXE, . Bl rningtol1, 1966.

J. VACHEK. The linguistic school of Prague, 00 1

S, 'TPS 1946• (77-20• .' I c of the

c. L. WRENN, 'Henry ",eet, . h 5) speCial vo urn

. . . ., lvsi (varIOUS aut or ,

Studies m lingnistic ana y$15 .• _

<> d -7 . . IlzgJIIs-

Philological Society, Oxfor , 19;,. - tllors) Alithropo1oglC(J n

. .,. '.1 bv varrOus flU "

HIStory oj linguistics (arne es .

tics 5. I (1963).

FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION

H. AHENS, Sprachwislemchajt: der Gang ihrer Entwickhmg von dey Antike

his ZUY Gegemoart, Freiburg/Munich (second edition) 1969,403-739.

L. BLOO;\.lFIELD. Language, London, J935.

N. CHO:\1SKY, Syntactic structures, The Hague, 1957.

_'-, CllTrent issues ill linguistic theory, The Hague, 1964. ---, Aspects of the theory oj SYTlta."'(, Cambridge, Mass., 1965.

NOTES . ,. 'Illwir wurk may be found

- lent ;;cholars nn, . h e devoted

T. Further details OIl PI'Ol11tJ . G 1964, whic ar

6 and MALI\·lBER,. . zed from a

in IVIC, 1965, LEROY', 19 3: wry JinguistlCS, sun ey

d t 'enheth-cen

to nineteenth- an'"

historical point of view.