C O U RS E IN

G ENERA L L ING U IS T ICS

F ERDI N AND DE S A U S SU RE

Edite d b y C HARLES BALLY an d

A L B ERT SEC H EHAYE

In co lla b o r a t i o n wit h
A L B ERT R EID L ING ER

Tra n s la te d fro m t he by W ADE BAS KI N

PHILOSOPHI CAL LIBRARY

New Yo rk
 C O P YR IG H T , 1 9 5 9, BY

T H E P H IL O S O P H ICAL L IB R AR Y , INC .

15 E A ST 4O TH STR EE T , N EW YO R K C IT Y

P r in t e d in t h e Unit e d S t at es of Ame ric a.

 C O N T EN T S

’
Translator s Introdu ction
Preface to the First E dition

I NTR O DU C T IO N
C h ap t e r
I A Glance at the Histo y f Ling istics
r o u

II S bj ect Matter and S cope f Ling istics ; Its R elations

. .

. u o u

with O ther S ciences

IIIO bj ect of Lingu istics
.

1 D efinition o f Langu age

2 Place o f Langu age l n the Facts O
.

. f S peech .

3 Place o f Lan gu age In H u man Facts ; S e m io l ogy

I
.

V Lingu istics o f Lan guage and Lingu istics o f S peaking

.

V Internal and E xternal E le m ents of Langu age

I
.

V Graphic R epresentation o f Langu age

.

1 Need for S tu dying the S u bj ect

2 Infl u ence o f Writing ; R eason for Its A y
. .

. scendanc
over the S poken Form
3 S ystem s o f Writing
4 R easons for the D iscre p ancy between Writing a n d
.

Pronu nciation
p
5 R esu lts o f the D iscre ancy
II
. .

V Phonology
.

1 D efinition
.

2 Phonological Writing
3 V alidity of E vidence F u rnished by W
. .

. riting

1 80 2 05 4
vi C O N TE N T S

AP P EN DIX

P RI N C IP LES OF P H O N O L O GY
C h ap t e r
I Phonological S pecies
.

1 D efinition of the Phoneme

.

2 The V ocal A pparat u s and its F u nctioning

.

3 C l assifi cation o f S o u nds A ccording to Their O ral

.

A rtic u l ation
II Phonemes l n the S poken C h a
.

. in
1 Need fo r S tu dying S o u nds in the S poken C hain
.

2 Implosion and E xplosion

.

3 D i ff erent C ombinations o f E xplosions and Im

.

plosions in the C hain

h S yllabic Boundary and V ocalic Peak
i

C riticism o f Theories o f S yllabication

w
p

c Length o f Implosion and E xplosion

s

x Phonemes of A pertu re 4 ; D iphthongs ; Q u estions

i

abou t Transcription
E ditor s N ote
’

P AR T O NE

GE NERA L P R I N C IP LES
I Nat u re o f the Lingu istic S ign
.

1 S ign Sign ifi e d Sign ifi e r

I
.
, ,

2 Principle : The A rbitrary Nat u re of the S ign

II
.

3 Principle
. : The Linear N at u re o f the Sign ifi er

Imm u tability and M utability o f the S ign

1 Imm u tability
.

2 M u tability
.

S tatic and E vol utionary Lingu istics

1 Inner D u ality of A ll S ciences C oncerned W ith
.

V al u es
2 Inner D u alit an
. d th e H istory o f Lin guistics
y
3 Inner D u a l ity Ill u strated by E xa m ples
.
 C O N TE N T S vii

The D i fference b etween the Two C lasses Ill u strated

by C o m parisons
The Two Lin guistics C ontrasted A ccording t o Their
Methods and Principles
S ynchronic Law and D iachronic Law
Is There a P an c h ro n ic V iewp oint ?
C onsequ ences o f the C onf u sing o f S ynchrony and
D iachrony
9 . C oncl u sions

P AR T T W O

SYN C H R O N I C L I N GU I ST I C S
Generalities
The C oncrete E ntities of Langu age
1 D efinition of E ntity and U nit
.

2 Method O f D elimitation
.

3 Practical D iffi c u lties o f D elimitation

.

4 C oncl u sion
.

Identities R ealities V al u es
, ,

Lin guistic V alu e

1 Langu age as O rgani z ed Tho u ght C ou pled with
.

S ou nd
2 Lingu istic V al u e from a C onceptu al V iewpoint
.

3 Lingu istic V al u e from a M aterial V iewpoint

.

4 The S ign C onsidered in Its Totality

.

Syntagmatic and Associative R elations

1 D efinitions
.

2 S yntagmatic R elations
.

3 A ssociative R elations
.

Mechanism of Langu age

1 S yntagm atic S olidarities
.

2 S imu ltaneo u s F u nctioning O f the Two Types o f

.

Grou pings
3 A bsol u te and R elative A rbitrariness
.
viii C O N TE N T S

Chap t e r
V II . Grammar and Its S u b divisions
1 D efinitions : Traditional D ivisions
.

2 R ational D ivisions
V III
.

. R ole o f Abstract E ntities in Grammar

P AR T T H R EE

D IAC HR O N I C L I N GU I ST I C S
Generalities
Phonetic C hanges
1 Their A bsol u te R egularity
.

2 C onditioned Phonetic C hanges

.

3 Points o n Method
.

4 C a u ses of Phonetic C hanges

.

5 The E ff ect o f Phonetic C hanges Is U nlimited

.

Gra mm atical C onsequ ences o f Phonetic E vol u tion

1 Breaking of the Grammatical Bond
.

2 Efi a c e m e nt o f the S tru ctu re o f Words

.

3 There are No Phonetic D ou blets

.

4 A lternation
.

5 Laws o f A lternation
.

6 Alternation and Grammatical Bond

.

Analogy
1 D efinition and E xa m ples
2 Analogical Phenomena A r e No t C h a
.

. nges
3 Analogy as a C reative Force 1 n Langu age
. .

V Analogy and E vol u tion

.

1 H o w an Analogical Innovation E nters Langu age

.

2 Analogical Innovations as S ympto m s o f C hanges

.

in Interpretation
3 Analogy as a R enovating and C onservative Force
.

Folk E ty m ology
A ggl u tination
1 D efinition
.

2 A ggl u tination and Analo gy

.
 C O N TE N T S

C h ap t er
V III . D iachronic U ni
ts Identities and R ealities
, ,

Appendices to Parts Three and Fo u r

1 S u bj ective and O bj ective Analysis
.

2 S u bj ective Analysis and the D efining o f S u bu nits

.

3 E tymology
.

O
P AR T F UR

G E O G R AP H I C A L L I N GU I ST I C S
C oncerning the D iversity of Languages
C omplications o f Geographical D iversity
1 C oexistence o f S everal Langu ages at the S ame
.

Point
2 Literary Lan guage and Local I diom
.

C a u ses o f Geographical D iversity

1 Time the B asic C a u se
.
,

2 E ff ect o f Time o n C ontinu ou s Territory

.

3 D ialects H ave No Natu ral Bou ndaries

.

4 Langu ages H ave No Nat u ral Bo u ndaries

.

S pread o f Linguistic Waves

1 Intercou rse and Provincialism
.

2 The Two Forces R ed u ced to O ne

.

3 Lingu istic D i ff erentiation o n S ep arate Territories

.

PAR T FIVE

C O N C ER N I N G R ETR O SP EC T IV E L I NGU I ST I C S
The Two Pers p ectives o f D iachronic L inguistics
The O ldest Langu age and the Prototy p e
R econstru ctions
1 Their Natu re and Aim
.

2 R elative Acc uracy o f R econstru ctions

.

IV The C ontribu tion o f Langu age to Anthropology and

.

Prehisto ry
1 Langu age and R ace
.

2 E thn ic Unity
.
 C O N TE N T S

C h a p t er
3 Lingu istic Paleontology
.

4 Lin guistic Type and Mind o f the S ocial Grou p

.

V Langu age Families and Lingu istic Types

Index
 ’
T R A N S L AT O R S
IN T R O D U C T IO N

Few other figur es in the history Of the scienc e of langu age have
co mma nded su ch la sting respect and inspired s u ch varied aeco m
plish m e nt s as Fer di nand de S a u ssur e Leonard B l oomfield j u stly

”
.

cre dited the eminent S wis s professor w ith providing a theoretic

“

fou ndation to the newer trend in lingu istics stu dy and E u ropean ,

scholars have seldo m failed to consider hi s views when dealing

with any theoretical problem B u t the f u ll implications o f his
.

teac hi ngs for both static and evolu tionary stu dies have still to
, ,

be elaborated .

S au ssu re su cceeded in impressing hi s individu al stam p on

al m ost everything withi n hi s reach At the age of twenty while
.
,

still a stu dent at Leip z ig he p u blished hi s m onu m ental treatise

,

o n the Proto Indo E u ropean vocali c system This treatise tho u gh

- -
.
,

based on theories and facts that were comm on property in hi s

day is still recogni z ed a s the m ost inspired and ex hau stive treat
,

ment o f the Proto Indo E u ropean vocalism H e stu died u nder

- -
.

the neogram marians O stho ff and L e s ki e n yet refu ted their atom ,

is t ic approach to lin gu istics in h is atte m pt to fram e a coherent

science of lin gu istics D espite the pau city o f his p u blications ( som e
.

600 pages d u ring his lifetime ) S a u ss u re s influ ence has been far
’
,

reachi ng At Paris where he tau ght S anskrit for ten years ( 1 881
.
,

1 89 1 ) and served as s ecretary of the Lin gui stic S ociety o f Paris ,

h is influ ence on the development O f li ngui stics was d e cisive H is .

fi r s t hand st u dies o f Phrygian inscriptions and Lithu anian dialects

-

m ay have been responsible for so m e o f the qu alities that s u b s e

qu ently endeared him to hi s stu dents at the University o f Geneva
( 1 906 H is u ni qu e insight into the pheno m enon Of langu age
bro u ght to fru ition the best of contemporary thi n k ing and long
years o f patient investigation and penetratin g thou ght .

The dom inant philosophical system o f each age makes its

imprint o n each step in the evol u tion o f lingu istic science The .

nineteenth centu ry had a fragm entary approach to reality whi ch

prevented scholars fro m getting beyond the immediate facts in
x i
x ii T RA N SLAT O R S I N TRO D UC TI O N
’

matters of speech To those investigators language w as simply

.
,

an inventory o r mechanical s um o f the u nits u sed in speaking .

Piecemeal stu dies preclu ded the development o f an insigh t into

the stru ctu re (Ge s ta lte in he it pattern o r whole ) into which the
, ,

fragmentary facts fit The atom istic conception of speech , reflected

.

in the historical stu di e s o f the comparative phil ologists had to ,

give way to the f unctional and stru ctu ral conception of langu age .

S au ssu re was among the first to s e e that langu age is a self con -

t aine d system whose interdependent parts fu nction and acquire

valu e throu gh their relationship to the whole .

By focu sin g attention o n the distinctly hu m an side o f speech ,

i e the syst e m o f langu age S au ss ur e gave u nity and direction to

il
. .
,

his science U ntil the p u b lication o f his work ( later translated

.

into German and S panish ) only those who enj oyed the privilege
,

o f close a s sociation with S au ss u re had access t o hi s theories By .

making available an E nglish translation Of hi s Co urs e I hope to ,

contribu te toward the reali z ation o f hi s goal : the stu dy o f language

in and fo r itse lf
.

T o all those who have given generou sly o f their tim e and talents
in the preparation Of this translation I o ff er heartfelt thanks : to
,

Gerald D ykstra D a ni el Girard Lennox Grey Aileen Kitchi n

, , , ,

and A ndré Martinet Of C olu m bia University ; to C harles B a z e ll of

Istanbu l University ; to He nri Frei R o b ert Godel and E dmond
, ,

S ollberger of the Uni versity o f Geneva ; to D wight Boli nger of the

University of S ou thern C al ifornia ; t o R u lon Wells of Yale Uni
versity ; and to my good friends Kenneth Jimene z Pau l S wart , ,

and Hu gh Whi ttem ore Fo r the shortcomings of the translation

.

I alone am responsible
,

Wade Baskin
 P R EF A C E T O
T H E F IR S T ED IT IO N

We have often heard Ferd inand de S au ssu re lament the dearth o f

principles and m ethods that m arked lingu istics du ring his develop
mental period Throu ghou t his lifetime he stu bbornly contin u ed
.
,

to search o u t the laws that wo u ld give direction t o hi s thou ght

a mi d the chaos No t u ntil 1 906 when he took the place o f Joseph
.
,

e rt h e im e r at the Uni versity of Geneva

Y

was he able to make

,

known the ideas that he had nu rtu red throu gh s o many years .

Althou gh he tau ght three cour ses in general lingu istics—in 1 9 06

1 907 1 908—
,
1 909 and 1 9 1 0—
,
1 9 1 1 —his sched u le forced him to de
vote half o f each cou rse to the hi story and description of the Indo
E u ropean langu ages with the resu lt that the basic part of hi s
,

su bj ect received considerably less attention than it merited .

All those who had the privil ege o f participatin g in his richly
rewarding instru ction regretted that no book had resu lted from it .

After his death we hoped to find in hi s m anu scripts Obligin gly

, ,

m ade available to u s by Mme de S a u ssu re a faithf u l o r at least

.
,

an ade qu ate o u tline of hi s inspiring lectu res At first we thou ght .

that we m ight si m ply collate F de S au ss u re s personal notes and

.
’

the notes Of his stu dents We were grossly m isled We fou nd

nothi ng o r almost nothing —
. .

— that resem bled hi s stu dents note ’

books A s soon as they had served their p u rpose F de S au ss u re

.
,
.

destroyed the ro u gh d rafts of the o u tlines u sed for his lectu res In .

the drawers o f his secretary we fou nd only Older ou t lin es w hi ch ,

althou gh certain ly not worthless cou ld not be integrated into the

,

material of the three cou rses .

O u r di scovery was all the m ore disappointin g since professorial

d u ties had made it i m possible for u s to attend F de S au ssu re s .
’

last lect u res—and these m ark j u st as brilliant a step in hi s career

as the mu ch earlier one that had witnessed the appearance o f his
treatise on the vocalic system of Proto Indo— E u ropean
-
.

We had to fall back on the notes collected by stu dents du ring

the cou rse o f hi s three series of lect u res V ery compl ete notebooks
.

were placed at o u r disposal : for the first two cou rses by Messrs ,
.

x iii
x iv PRE FA C E TO F IR S T EDITI O N

Lo u is C aille L eopold Gau tier Pau l R egard and Albert R iedlinger

— —
, , ,

for the th ird the most important b y Mm e Al b e rt Se c h e h aye .

and by Messrs George D égal lie r and Francis Joseph We are in

. .

debted to M Lou is Brutsch for notes o n o ne speci al point All these

. .

contribu tors dese rve o u r sincere thanks We also wish to express .

o u r profo u nd gratit u de to M J u les R onj at the e mi nent R oma nce

.
,

scholar who was kind enou gh to review the m anu script before
,

printing and whose s u ggestions were invalu able

,
.

What were we to do w ith o u r materials ? First the task o f ,

criticism For each cou rse and for each detail o f the co u rse we
.
,

had to com pare all versions and reconstru ct F de S au ssu re s .

’

thou ght from faint som et imes con fli cting hints For the first two
, ,
.

cour ses we were able to enlist the services of M R iedlinger o ne .

,

of the stu dents who have followed the thou ght o f the master
with the greatest interest ; his work w as most valu able Fo r the .

t hi rd cou rse one of u s A Se c h e h aye performed the same detailed

,
.
,

task o f collating and synthesi z ing the m aterial .

B u t after that ? O ral de l ivery which is Often contra di ctory in ,

form to written exposition posed the greatest d ifli cu l t ie s Besides

,
.
,

F de S au ssu re was one Of those m e n who never stand still ; hi s

.

tho u ght evolved in all di rections witho u t ever contradicting itself

as a resu lt T o p u blish everything in the original form was im p o s
—
.

sible ; the repetitions inevitable in free oral presentation over —

lappin gs and variant form u lations wo u ld lend a motley appear
,

ance to s u ch a p u blication To limit the book t o a s ingle cou rs e

.

and whi ch o n e ?—was to deprive the reader o f the rich and varied
content o f the other two cou rses ; by itself the thi rd the m ost ,

definitive o f the three cou rses wou ld not give a complete accou nt
,

ing of the theories and m ethods o f F de S au ssu re . .

O ne su ggestion was that we pu blish certain particu larly original

passages withou t change T hi s idea was appealing at first b u t
.
,

soon it becam e obviou s that we wou ld be distorting the thou ght

o f o u r m aster if we presented b u t fragm ents of a plan whose val u e

stands o u t only in its totality .

We reached a bolder b u t also we thi nk a more rational solu tion :

, ,

to attem pt a reconstru ction a synthesis by u sing the thi rd cou rse

, ,

as a starting point and by u sing all other m aterials at o u r disposal ,

inclu ding the personal notes o f F de S au ssu re as su pplementary .

,
 PRE FA C E TO F IR S T EDITI O N xv

sou rces The proble m of r e creating F de S au ss ure s thou ght was

-
’

all the m ore diffic u lt becau se the r e —

. .

creation had to be wholly

obj ective A t each point we had to get to the cru x of each p a rt ic u
.

lar thou ght by trying to s e e it s definitive form in the light o f the

whole system We had first to weed o u t variations and irre gu
.

l arit ie s characteristic o f oral delivery then to fit the thou ght into ,

its natu ral fram ework and present each part of it in the order
intended by the au thor even when his intention not always ,

apparent had to be s u rmised

,
.

From thi s work of assim ilation and reconstru ction was born the
book that we o ffer not withou t apprehension to the enlightened
, ,

p u blic and to all friends o f lingu istics .

O u r aim w a s to draw together an organic whole by o m itting

nothin g that might contrib u te t o the overall im pression B u t for

”
.

that very reason we shall probably be critici z ed on two cou nts

,
.

“
First critics will say that this whole is incom plete In his
,
.

teachin g the master never pretended to exam ine all parts o f lin
guis t ic s or to devote the same attention to each of those examined ;
materially he co u ld not Besides his main concern was n o t that
,
.
,
.

G u ided by som e fu ndamental and personal principles which are

—
fou nd everywhere in hi s work and whi ch form the woof Of thi s
—
fabric whi ch is as solid as it is varied h e tried to penetrate ; only
where these principles find particu larly striking applications or
where they apparently conflict wi th some theory did he try to
enco m pass .

That is why certain disciplines su ch as semantics are hardly , ,

‘

tou ched u pon We do n o t feel that these lacu nae detract from the
.

“
overall architectur e The absence of a li ngu istics of speaking is
.

regrettable Thi s stu dy whi ch had been promised to the stu dents
.
,

of the thi rd cou rse wou ld dou btlessly have had a place of honor ;
,

why hi s prom ise cou ld not be kept is too well known All we cou ld .

do was to collect the fleeting im pressions from the ro u gh o u tlines

o f this proj ect and p u t the m into their natu ral place .

C onversely critics may say that we have reprodu ced facts

,

bearing o n points developed by F de S au ssu re s predecessors No t

.
’
.

everything in s u ch an extensive treatise can be new B u t if known .

principles are necessary for the u nderstanding o f a whole shall we ,

be condem ned fo r not having omitted them ? The chapter on

x vi PRE FA C E TO FIR ST EDITI O N

phonetic changes fo r example , inclu des things that have b een

,

said before and perhaps m ore definitively ; b u t aside from the

, ,

fact that thi s part contains many valu able and original details ,

even a s u perficial reading will show to what extent it s omission

wou ld detract from an u nderstanding o f the principles u pon whi ch
F de S au ssu re erects his system o f static linguistics
. .

We are aware o f o u r responsi b ility to o u r critics We are also .

aware O f o u r responsibility to the au thor who proba b ly woul d not

,

have au thori z ed the p u b lication o f these p ages .

This responsibility we accept wholl y and we woul d will ingly

,

b ear it alone Will the critics b e able to distingu ish between the
.

teacher and his interpreters ? We wou ld b e gratefu l to them if they

wou ld di rect toward u s the b lows which it wou ld be u nj u st to heap
u pon o n e whose memory is dear to u s .

Geneva Ju ly
,
1915 . C harle s Bally ,
Albert Se c h e h aye

P RE FAC E T O T HE SE C O N D E DI T IO N
The second edition is essential ly the same as the first The .

editors have made som e slight changes designed to facilitate

reading and clarify certain points . Ch B Alb S . . . .

PRE FAC E T O T HE T H I RD ED I T IO N
With the exception o f a few minu te corrections this edition is ,

the same a s the p receding . C h B Al b S . . . .

 IN T R O D U C T IO N

Ch a p te r I

A GLAN C E AT T HE H I ST O RY OF L I N GU I ST I C S

The science that has b een developed aro u nd the facts of lan guage
passed t h rou gh three stages before findin g it s tru e and u niqu e
obj ect .

First somethi ng called grammar was stu di ed Thi s stu dy in .

,

it iat e d by the Greeks and cont inu ed m ainly by the French w a s ,

based o n logic It lacked a scientifi c approach and was detached

.

from langu age itself Its only aim w a s to give ru les for distin guish
.

ing between correct and incorrect form s ; it w a s a norm ative dis

c ip line far removed from actu al O b servation and its scope was
, ,

limi ted .

Next appeared philology A philological school had existed .

mu ch earlier in Alexandria b u t thi s name is m ore often applied ,

to the scientifi c m ovement which was started by Friedrich Au gu st

Wolf in 1 777 and whi ch continu es to t hi s day Language is not its .

sole Obj ect The early phil ologists sou ght especially to correct
.
,

interpret and com ment u pon written texts Their stu dies also led .

to an interest in li ter ary hi story c u stom s in stitu tions etc They

1
, , ,
.

appl ied the m ethods o f criticism fo r their own p u rposes When .

they dealt with li nguistic qu estions it w as for the express pu rpose ,

made In an archaic or obscu re langu age D ou btless these investi .

gat io n s broke the grou nd for hi s t o r cs R it s c h l s stu d ies ’

.

f P l au t us are a ct u all jnl mgu is t c

o g i u t philological criticism is still
s

fi Aori i
e n t o n o n e point : it fo l lows t h e written langu age too slavishly

”
1
t heri k of off n ding o m r d r c rt i n t y li t ic ch r c t ri t ic of
s e s e ea e s, e a s s a a e s s

th e g n l Fr cha r t in d [T ] (T h e b r c k t d b b r vi t io n S Ed
en ar e e a e . r . a e e a e a s .
, .

an d T in dic t w h t h r foo t n o t
r. a e t
e b e t t ri b u t d t S u r t th
e s a re o e a e o a ss u e , o e
edit or f t h e C ur d li g i t iq gén ér l
s o o s e t t h t r n l t or )
n u s ue a e, o r o e a s a .
2 ISTICS

it is concerned with
l it t l
The third stage began when scholars discovered that langu ages
can be compared with o ne another This discovery was the origin
of
“comparative phi lology ”
In 1 81 6 in a work entitled Ub er das
.
.

Conju ga ti o ns s ys te m d er S ans krits p rache Franz Bopp compared ,

S anskrit with German Greek Latin etc Bopp was n o t the first
, , ,
.

to record their similarities and state that all these langu ages belong
to a s ingle fam ily That had been done before him notably by the
.
,

E nglish orientalist W Jones (died in 1 794) b u t Jones few isolated

.
’

statem ents do not prove that the signi fi cance and im portance o f
com parison had been generally u nderstood before 1 81 6 While .

Bopp cannot be credited with the discovery that S anskr it is re

lated to certain langu ages o f E u rope and A sia he did reali z e that ,

the comparison o f related langu ages co u ld becom e the s u b j ect

matter of an independent science T o illu min ate o n e langu age by .

means o f another to explain the forms o f o n e throu gh the form s

,

of the other that is what no o n e had done b efore him

—
.
,

Whether Bopp cou ld have created hi s science s o qui ckly at

—
least withou t the prior discovery o f S anskrit is dou btfu l With .

S ansk rit as a thi rd witness b eside Latin and Greek Bopp had a ,

larger and firm er basis for hi s stu dies Fortu nately S anskrit was .
,

exceptionally well fi t t e d to the role o f illu m inating the comparison

-
.

Fo r example a com parison o f the para di gms o f Latin gen u s

,

(genu s generis gen er e gen era gen erum etc ) and Greek (genos
, , , , ,
.
,

gén eo s gen ei gén ea ge n éOn etc ) reveals nothi ng B u t the pictu re

, , , ,
. .

changes as soon as we add the corresponding S anskrit series ( ganas ,

gan asas ga nasi ga n as n ga n a s am

, ,
A glance reveals the simi
, ,

l arit y b etween the Greek forms and the Latin forms If we a o .

cept tentatively the hypothesis that gana s represents the primi

tive state—and this step facilitates explanation then we conclu de -

that 3 mu st have fallen in Greek forms wherever it occu rred b e

tween two vowels Next we conclu de that s became r in Latin u nder
.

the sam e conditions Gramm aticall y then the S anskrit paradigm

.
, ,

exem plifies the concept of radical a u nit ( gan as ) that is qu ite ,

defi ni te and stable Latin and Greek had the same forms as S an
.

s k r it only in their earlier stages H ere S anskrit is instr u ctive pre .

c is e ly becau se it has preserved all the Indo E u ropean s s O f cou rse

’
- .
4 C O UR S E I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
relations that they discovered Their method w as exclu sively com
.

p a ra t ive not historical O f cou rse comparison is required fo r any

,
.

hi storical reconstru ction b u t by itself it cannot b e conclu sive An d

, .

the conclu sion was all the more elu sive whenever the com parative
philologists looked u pon the development o f two langu ages as a
natu ralist might look u pon the growth Of two plants For example .

S chl eicher who always invites u s to start from Proto Indo Eu ro

,
- -

pean and thu s seems in a sense to b e a confirmed hi storian h as no ,

hesitancy in saying that Greek e and 0 are two grades (S t ufen ) Of

the vocalic system T hi s is becau se S anskrit has a system o f vocalic
.

alternations that s u ggests the notion o f grades S chl eicher su pposed .

that each langu age has to pass throu gh those grades separately and
in exactly the same way j u st as plants of the same species pass
,

throu gh the sam e developmental stages indepe ndently o f o n e

another and s aw a reinf orced grade of e in Greek 0 and a reinforced
grade of a in S anskrit a The fact is that a Proto —
,

Indo E u ropean
’
-
.

alternation was reflected diff erently in Greek and in S anskrit with

o u t there being any necessary equi valence between the gram
‘
mat ical e fle ct s produ ced in either langu age ( see pp 1 5 8 .

The exclu sively com parative method brou ght in a s e t of fals e

notions H avin g no basis in reality these notions simply cou ld not
.
,

reflect the facts o f speech Langu age was considered a specific

.

sphere a fou rth natu ral kingdom ; thi s led to methods of reaso ning
,

whi ch wo u ld have cau sed astonishm ent in other sciences Today .

o n e cannot read a do z en lines written at that time withou t b eing

stru ck by abs u rdities o f reasoning and b y the termin ology u sed

to j u stify these abs u rdities .

B u t from the viewpoint of methodology the mi stakes Of the ,

comparative philologists are not withou t valu e ; the mistakes o f an

inf ant science give a magnified pictu re o f those made by anyone in
the first stages o f scientific research and I shall have occasion t o,

point o u t several o f the m in the cou rse Of thi s exposition .

No t u ntil arou nd 1 87 0 did scholars begin to seek o u t the prin

c ip l e s that govern the l ife of lan guages Then they b egan to s e e.

that similarities between lan guages are only o n e side of the lin
gu is t ic phenom enon that com parison is o nl y a means o r method of
,

reconstru cting the facts .

Lingu istics proper which p u ts comparative stu dies in their

,
 A GLA N C E A T TH E HI S T O RY O F L I NG U I S TI CS 5

proper place owes its origin to the stu dy of the R om ance and
Germanic langu ages R omance stu dies begu n by D ie z —his Gram
,

— —
.
,

m a tik der rom a ische S p c

n n ra h e n dates from 1 836 38 were in
s t ru m e n t al in bring ing ling u istics nearer t o its tr u e Obj ect For .

R omance scholars enj oyed privileged conditions that were u n

known to Indo E u ropean scholars They had direct access to Latin
- .
,

the prototype o f the R om ance langu ages and an ab u ndance o f ,

texts allowed them to trace in detail the evolu tion o f the different
dialects ; these two circu m stances narrowed the field o f conj ectu re
and provided a remarkably soli d frame for all their research .

Germanic scholars were in a similar situ ation Thou gh they co u ld .

not stu dy the prototype directly nu mero u s texts enabled them to

trace the hi story o f the langu ages derived from Proto—
,

Germ anic
throu gh the cou rse o f many centu ries The Germanic scholars .
,

c om ing to closer grips with reality than had the first Indo E u ro -

pean scholars reached different conclu sions ,

.

A first impetu s was given b y the American scholar Whitney the ,

au thor o f L ife a nd Grow th of L a ngu a ge S hortly afterwards

a new school was formed by the neogrammarians (Ju nggra m
ma t ik er ) whose leaders were all Germ ans : K B ru gm ann and H
,
. .

O sthoff ; the Germanic scholars W Brau ne E S ievers H Pau l ; .

,
.
,
.

the S lavic scholar L e s kie n etc Their contrib u tion was in placing ,
.

the resu lts o f com parative stu dies in their his t o ricaLpeg pfi ct ive ‘ p .

and thu s link ip g t h e fa ct s in t he im ord er/Th ank s to them ,

languag e is no longer looked u pon a s an organi sm that develops

in dependently b u t as a p r$uc t p f_the collective m ind o f l ingu istic
liz e d how erroneo u s and in
and com parative philology 2
.

S till in spite o f the services that they rendered the ne o gram

, ,

marians did n o t i lluminate the whole qu estion and the fu nda ,

mental problems O f general linguistics still await solu tion .

2 The chool u ing m or r l i t ic app ro ch t h n h d it p r d c or

ne w s s a e ea s a a a s e e e ss

fought t h t rm inol ogy f t h co m p r t iv choo l nd p ci ll y t h ill o gic l

, ,

”
a

”
e e o e a a e s a es e a e

m t p hor t h t it u d O n n l o n g r d r d t
,

e a s a y L ngu g do t hi or
se . e o e a e o sa , a a e es s
“
th ta ,
l if
or f l gu g t in c l ngu g i n t n e nt i t y d i t
e o an a e, e c . s e a a e s o a an ex s s

o nl y w it h in p k r O n m t n t g t f ho w v r nd co m pro m i
s ea e s e us o o oo a r, e e a a se

indi p n b l T o r qu ir t h t o ly w ord
.
,

i in ord r C r t i n m t phor
s e . e a e a s a re s e sa e . e e a n s

t h t corr po n d t t h f c t o f p ch b u d i t pr t
a es o d t h t t h f ct
e a s s ee e se s o e en a e se a s

no l o g r p r pl
n e u Thi i b y n m n t ru nd in o m in t nc I h ll
e ex s . s s o ea s e, a s e s a es s a

n t h
o it t t o u e o n f t h pr io n co nd m d t t h t t im [ S ]
es a e s e o e ex e ss s e ne a a e . .
6 C O UR S E I N G E N ERAL L I NG U I S TI CS

Chap t e r II

SUB JE C T MA TTER AND S C OP E O F L I N GU I ST I C S ; IT S

RELA T IO N S W I T H O T H ER S C I E N C ES

The su bj ect m atter of linguistics comprises all manifestations o f

hu man speech whether that o f savages or civili z ed nations o r of
, ,

archaic classical or decadent periods In each period the lingu ist

,
.

mu st consider not only correct speech and flowery language b u t all ,

other form s o f expression as well An d that is not all : since he is

.

often u nable to Observe speech directly he m u st consider written

,

texts for only throu gh them can he reach idioms that are remote
,

in time o r space .

The scope o f lingu istics shou ld be

a ) t o describe and trace the hi story o f all o b serva b le langu ages ,

which a m ou nts to tracing the history of fam ilies of langu ages and
reconstru cting as far as possible the m other language o f each
fam ily ;
b ) to determ ine the forces that are perm anently and u niversally
at work in all languages and to dedu ce the general laws to whi ch
,

all specific historical pheno m ena can be redu ced ; arid

c ) to deli m it and define itself .

Lingu istics is very closely related to other sciences that some

tim es borrow from its data so m etimes s u pply it with data The
,
.

lines of demarcation do not always show u p clearly Fo r instance .

,

lingu istics m u st be carefu lly distingu ished from ethnography and

prehistory where lan gu age is u sed m erely to docum ent It mu st
,
.

also be se t apart from anthropology which stu dies man solely from
,

the viewpoint Of his species for langu age is a social fact Bu t m u st

,
.

lingu istics then be co m bined with sociology ? What are the relation
ships between lingu istics and social psychology ? E veryt hi ng in
langu age is basically psychological inclu din g its material and
,

mechanical m anifestations su ch as sou nd changes ; and since lin

,

gu is t ic s provides social psychology with su ch valu able data is it ,

 THE O BJE C T O F LI N GUISTICS 7

no t and parcel of this discipline ? H ere I shall raise many s im

p art
il ar qu estions ; later I shall treat them at greater len gth .

The ties between lingu istics and the physiology o f sou nds are
less di fficu lt to u ntangle The relation is u nilateral in the sense that
.

the stu dy o f langu ages exacts clarifications from the science of the
physiology o f sou nds b u t fu rnishes none in retu rn In any event .
,

the two disciplines cannot be co nf u sed The t hi ng that constitu tes .

lan gu age is as I shall show later u nr elate d to the phonic character

, ,

Of the lingu istic sign .

As for philology we have already d rawn the line : it is distinct

,

from lin gu istics despite points of contact between the two sciences
and mu tu al services that they render .

Finally of what u se is lingu istics ? Very few people have clear

,

ideas o n this point and this is n o t the place to specify them B u t it

,
.

is evident for instance that lingu istic qu estions interest all who
, ,

work with texts—hi storians philologists etc S till more obviou s is

, ,
.

the importance o f lin gui stics to general cu ltu re : in the lives Of

individu als and societies speech is m ore i m portant than anythi ng
,

else That lingu istics shou ld continu e to be the prerogative of a few

—
.

specialists wo u ld be u nthinka b le everyone is concerned with it in

o n e way o r another B u t
—and thi s is a paradoxi cal consequ ence o f
.

—
the interest that is fixed o n lin guistics there is no other field in
which s o many absu rd notions prej u dices m irages and fi ctions , , ,

have spru ng u p From the psychological Viewpoint these errors

.

are o f interest b u t the task o f the lingu ist is above all else to
, , ,

condemn them and to dispel them as best he can .

Ch ap t e r III

T HE O B JE C T OF L I N GU I ST I C S

1 . Definition
f L an gu age
o

What is both the integral and concrete obj ect of lingu istics ? The
qu estion is especially difficu lt ; later we shall s e e why ; here I wish
merely to point u p the difficu lty .
8 C OURS E I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
O ther sciences work with Obj ects that are given in advance and
that can then be considered from different viewpoints ; b u t not
lingu istics S omeone prono u nces the French word n u bare : a
.
‘ ’

s u perficial observer wou ld be tempted to call the word a concrete

lingu istic obj ect ; b u t a more carefu l examin ation wou ld reveal
su ccessively t h ree or fou r qu ite d ifferent things depen d in g o n ,

whether the word is considered as a so u nd as the expression o f an ,

idea as the e qu ivalent o f Latin n u dum etc Far from it being the
, ,
.

obj ect that antedates the viewpoint it wou ld seem that it is the
,

viewpoint that creates the o b j ect ; besides nothi ng tells u s in ,

advance that o n e way o f considering the fact in qu estion takes

precedence over the others o r is in any way s u perior to them .

Moreover regardless o f the viewpoint that we adopt the lin

, ,

gu is t ic phenomenon always has two related sides each deriving its ,

valu es from the other Fo r exam ple .

1 ) A rticu lated sylla b les are acou stical impressions perceived b y

the ear b u t the sou nds wo u ld not exist withou t the vocal organs ;
,

an n for exam ple exists only by virtu e of the relation b etween the
, ,

two sides We sim ply cannot redu ce langu age to sou nd o r detach
.

sou nd from oral articu lation ; reciprocally we cannot define the ,

m ovements o f the vocal organs withou t taking into accou nt the

acou stical im pression ( see pp 38 if ) . .

2 ) B u t su ppose that so u nd were a simple thi ng : wou ld it consti

tu te speech ? NO it is only the instru ment o f thou ght ; by itsel f it
, ,

has no existence At thi s point a new and redou btable relationship

.

arises : a sou nd a co m plex acou stical vocal u nit comb ines in tu rn

,
-
,

with an idea to form a complex physiological psychological u nit -

.

B u t that is still not the com plete pict u re .

3 ) S peech has both an in di vid u al and a social side and we can ,

not conceive o f one withou t the other Besides : .

4 ) S peech always implies b oth an established system and an

evolu tion ; at every mom ent it is an e x isting in stitu tion and a
prod u ct o f the past T o distingu ish between the system and its
.

history between what it is and what it w as seem s very sim ple at

, ,

first glance ; act u ally the two things are s o closely related that we
can scarcely keep the m apart Wou ld we simplify the qu estion by
—
.

stu dying the linguistic phenom enon in it s earliest stages if we

 T HE O BJE C T OF L I NG UI S TI CS 9

b egan ,
fo r exam ple by stu dying the speech of children ? No for in
, ,

dealing with speech it is completely m isleading to assu me that the

,

problem of early characteristics differs from the problem of per

manent characteristics We are left inside the vicio u s circle
. .

From whatever direction we approach the qu estion nowhere do ,

we find the integral obj ect o f li ngu istics E verywhere we are con .

fronted with a dile m m a : if we fix o u r attention o n only one side o f

each problem we ru n the risk o f failing t o perceive the du alities
,

p ointed o u t above ; o n the other hand if we stu dy speech from ,

several viewpoints sim u ltaneou sly the obj ect of linguistics appears ,

to u s as a confu sed mass o f heterogeneou s and u nrelated things

E ither procedu re Opens the door to several sciences—psychology
.

anthropology nor ative gra

,
m m m ar p hi lology e t c whi ch are
,
— ,

distinct from linguistics b u t which might claim speech in View o f

, ,

the fau lty method o f lin guistics as one of their Obj ects ,
.

As I s e e it there is only o n e solu tion to all the foregoin g d ifli

cu l t ie s : fr o m t he ve r y o u t s e t w e m u s t p u t b o t h fe e t o n t he gro u n d of

langu age a n d u se langu age a s t h e n o rm of a ll o the r m a nife s t a tio ns of

sp ee ch A ctu all y among s o many d u alities langu age alone seems
.
, ,

to lend itself to independent defi ni tion and provide a fu lcru m that

satisfies the m ind .

B u t what is langu age [ l a ngu e ] ? It is n o t to b e confu sed with

hu m an speech [ langage ] of which it is only a defi nite part thou gh
, ,

certainly an essential one It is b oth a social produ ct o f the facu lty

.

Of speech and a collection of necessary conventions that have b een

adopted by a social body to permit individu als to exercise that
facu lty Taken a s a wh ole speech is many sided and heterogene
.
,
-

o u s ; straddling several areas s im u lt a n e o u s ly p h ys ic al physio

w

logical and p s yc h o l o gica l it belongs both to the indivi du al and

,
fi

to society ; we cannot p u t it into any category o f h u m an facts for ,

we cannot discover its u ni ty .

Langu age o n the contrary is a self contained whole and a prin

, ,
-

c ipl e O f classification A s soon as we give lan gu age first place among

.

the facts of speech we introdu ce a natu ral order into a m ass that
,

lends itself t o no other classification .

O ne might obj ect to that principle o f classification o n the grou nd

that since the u s e of speech is based on a natu ral facu lty whereas
10 CO URSE I N G E N ERA L L I N GUISTICS
langu age is something ac qu ired and conventional langu age sho u ld ,

n o t take first place b u t sho u ld b e s u bordinated to the natu ral

instinct .

That Obj ection is eas ily refu ted .

First no one has proved that speech as it manifests itself when

, ,

we speak is entirely nat u ral i e that o u r vocal apparatu s was

S
.
, .
,

designed for peakin g j u st as o u r legs were designed for wal kin g .

Lingui sts are far from agreem ent o n thi s point For instance Whi t .

ney to whom language is one Of several social institu tions th inks

, ,

that we u s e the vocal apparatu s as the instrum ent of language

p u rely throu gh lu ck for the sake o f conveni ence : men might j u st
,

as well have chosen gestu res and u sed V isu al symbols inste ad o f
aco u stical symbols D ou btless hi s thesis is too dogmatic ; langu age
.

is not sim il ar in all respects to other social institu tions ( see p 7 3 f . .

and p 7 5. moreover Whi tney goes too far in saying that o ur

,

choice happened to fall o n the vocal organs ; the choice w a s m ore

or less imposed by natu re B u t on the essential point the Am erican
.

linguist is right : langu age is a convention and the natur e o f the ,

sign that is agreed u pon does not m atter The qu estion o f the vocal .

apparatu s obviou sly takes a secondary place in the problem o f

speech .

O ne defin ition Of a rticu la ted sp ee ch might confirm that conclu sion .

In Latin a r ticu lu s means a m em ber part or s u bdivision o f a

, , ,

sequ ence ; applied to speech articu lation designates either the s u b

,

division o f a spoken chain into syllables o r the s u bdi vision o f the

chain o f mean ings into signifi cant u nits ; ge gli ed e r t e S p ra che is u sed
in the second sense in Germ an U sing the second defini tion we can
.
,

s ay that what is nat u ral to m ankind is not oral speech b u t the

facu lty of constru cting a langu age i e a system Of di stinct signs ,

. .

correspon di ng to di stinct ideas .

Broca discovered that the facu lty o f speech is locali z ed in the

th ird left frontal convolu tion ; hi s discovery has been u sed to s ub
s t a n t ia t e the attrib u tion o f a natu ral q u ali ty to speech B u t we .

know that the same part o f the brain is the center of e ve rything that
has to do with speech inclu ding writing The preceding statem ents
,
.
,

together with Observations that have been m ade in diff erent cases
o f aphasia res u lting from lesion Of the centers of locali z ation see m ,

to indicate : ( 1 ) that the vario u s disorders Of oral speech are bo u nd

12 C OURSE I N G EN ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
to the image to the organs u sed in produ cing sou nds Then the .

sou nd waves travel fro m the m o u th of A to the ear o f B : a p u rely

p h ysi ca l process Next the circ u it continu es in B b u t the order is
.
, ,

reversed : from the ear to the brain the physiological transmission

,

of the sou nd image ; in the brain the psychological association o f

-
,

the i m age with the corresponding concept If B then speaks the

new act will f o ll o w from his brain to A s—e xactly the same cou rse
.
,
— ’

as the first act and pass throu gh the same su ccessive phases whi ch ,

I shall diagram as follows

Audit io n Pho na t io n

Pho no t io n A ud it i o n

The preceding analysis does not p u rport to b e com plete We .

might also single o u t the pu re acou stical sensation the ide n t ifi ,

cation o f that sensation with the latent sou nd image the m u scu lar-
,

image of phonation etc I have inclu ded only the elem ents thou ght
,
.

to be essential b u t the drawing b rings o u t at a glance the di stin o

,

tion b etween the physical ( sou nd waves ) physiological ( phonation

,

and au dition ) and psychological parts (word images and con

,
-

c e pt s)
. Indeed we shou ld not fail to note that the word i mage
,
-

stands apart fro m the so u nd itself and that it is j u st as psycho

logical as the concept which is associated with it .

The circu it that I have ou tlined can be fu rther divided in to

a ) an o u ter part that incl u des the Vibrations of the so u nds w hi ch

travel from the mou th to the ear and an inner part that inclu des
,

everythi ng else ;
b ) a psychological and a nonpsychological part the second in ,

clu ding the physiological produ ctions o f the vocal organs as well
as the physical facts that are o u tside the individ u al ;
 TH E O BJE C T O F L I N GUISTICS 13

c) an active and a passive part : everything that goes from the

associative center of the speaker t o the ear O f the listener is active ,

and eve rything that goes from the ear o f the listener to hi s associ
ative center is passive ;
d ) finally everything that is active in the psychological part Of
,

the circ u it is exec u tive (c s ) and everything that is passive is

,

receptive (s e) .

We shou ld also add the associative and c o ordi nating facu lty-

that we find as soon as we leave isolated signs ; this facu lty plays
the dominant role in the organi z ation of langu age as a system ( see
p p 1 22
.

B u t to nderstand clearly the role of the associative and c o

u

ordinatin g facu lty we m u st leave the individu al act which is only

, ,

the em bryo of speech and approach the social fact

,
.

Among all the individu als that are linked together by speech
som e sort of average will be se t u p : all will reprodu ce —
,

n o t exactly

Of cou rse b u t approximately —

,
the sam e signs u ni ted with the
same concepts .

H o w does the social crystalli z ation o f langu age come abo u t ?

Which parts of the circu it are involved ? For all parts pro b ab ly do
not participate equ ally in it .

The nonpsychological part can be rej ected from the o u tset .

When we hear people speaking a langu age that we do not know ,

we perceive the sou nds b u t remain ou tside the social fact becau se
we do not u nderstand them .

Neither is the psychological part o f the circu it wholly r e s p o n

sible : the execu tive side 1 s m 1 s s in g fo r execu tion is never carried
,

o u t by the collectivity E xec u tion is always individ u al and the

.
,

individ u al is always its master : I shall call the execu tive side
s p e a kin g [ p ar o l e ] .

Throu gh the fu nctioning of the receptive and c o ordinating -

facu lties im pressions that are perceptibly the sam e for all are made
,

o n the minds o f speakers H o w can that social prod u ct be pict u red

.

in su ch a way that langu age will stand apart from everyt h ing else ?
If we cou ld embrace the su m of word images stored in the minds
-

o f all individu als we co u ld identify the social bond that consti

,

t u t e s langu age It is a storehou se filled by the m embers o f a given

.

comm u nity thro u gh their active u s e of speaking a gram matical ,

 14 C OUR S E I N G E N ERA L LI NG U I S TI CS
system that has a potential exi stence in each b rain or m ore , ,

specifically in the brains o f a grou p Of individu als For langu age

,
.

is not complete in any speaker ; it exists perfectly only within a

collectivity .

In separatin g langu age from speaking we are at the same t ime

separating : ( 1 ) what is social fro m what is individu al ; and ( 2 ) what
is essential from what is accessory and m ore or less a c c id e nt al .

Langu age is not a fu nction o f the speaker ; it is a produ ct that is

passively assimilated by the individu al It never re qu ires p re m e di .

t a t io n and reflection enters in only for the p u rpose o f classification

, ,

whi ch we shall take u p la ter ( pp 1 22 if ) . .

v
- S peaking o n the contrary is an individ u al act It is wilfu l and
, ,
.

intellectu al Withi n the act we sho u ld distingu ish between : ( 1 ) the

.
,

com b inations by which the speaker u ses the langu age code for
expressing his o w n thou ght ; and ( 2) the psychophysical m echa
nism that allows h im to exteriori z e those com binations .

Note that I have defined things rather than words ; these d e fi n i

tions are not endangered by certain am bigu ou s words that do not
have identical meanings in different langu ages For instance
“
German Sp ra ch e means b oth langu age and speech ; R ede ” .

” ,

” ”
“
almost corresponds to speaking b u t adds the special connotation

”
“ “
of di scou rse Latin s erm o designates both speech and speak
.

“
ing while lin gua means langu age etc N o word corresponds
, ,
.

exactly to any of the notions specified ab ove ; that is why all d e fi ni

tions of words are made in vain ; starting from words in defining
thi ngs is a bad procedu re .

To su mm ari z e these are the characteristics o f langu age

,
:

1 ) Langu age is a well d e fi n e d obj ect in the heterogeneou s mass

-

o f speech facts It can be locali z ed in the li m ited segm ent of the

.

speaking circ u it where an au ditory image becomes associated with

-

a concept It is the social side o f speech o u tside the individu al who

.
,

can never create nor modify it by himself ; it exists o nl y by virt u e

o f a sort o f contract signed by the m e m bers o f a co m m u nity More .

over the in di vidu al m u st always serve an apprenticeshi p in order

,

to learn the fu nctioning o f lan gu age ; a child assimilates it only

gradu ally It is su ch a distinct thing that a m an deprived of the
.

u se of speaki ng retains it provided that he u nderstands the vocal

signs that he hears .

 THE O BJE C T O F L I N GUISTICS 15

2)Language u nlike speakin g is somethi ng that we can st u dy

, ,

separately Altho u gh dead langu ages are no longer spoken we can

.
,

easily assim ilate their lingu istic organism s We can dispense with .

the other elements of speech ; indeed the science o f lan guage is ,

possible only if the other elem ents are exclu ded .

3 ) W hg reas j p e e ch j s as d e fine d is fi
,

homo geneou s It is a system o f signs in which the only essential

.

“ ‘
n - fl n
. "‘ H

t hi h g 1 s the u nion of meanings and sou nd images and in which

nu

-
,

both parts of the sign are psychological .

4 ) Langu age is concrete no less so than spea k ing ; and thi s is a ,

help in o u r stu dy Of it Lingu istic signs thou gh basically psycho .

,

logical are not abstractions ; associations which bear the stam p of

,

—
collective approval and whi ch added together constitu te langu age
— are realities that have their seat in the brain Besides lingu istic .
,

signs are tangible ; it is possible to redu ce them t o conventional

written symbols whereas it wo u ld be impossible to provide de
,

tailed photographs o f acts of speaking [ a c te s d e p aro l e ] ; the pro

n u n c ia t io n of even the s m allest word represents an infinite n u m ber

o f m u sc u lar m ovements that cou ld be identified and p u t into

grap hi c form only with great difficu lty In langu age on the con .
,

t r ary there is only the sou nd image and the latter can be trans
,
-
,

lated into a fixed V isu al i m age For if we disregard the vast nu mber .

o f m ovements necessary for the reali z ation of sou nd im ages in -

speaking we see that each sou nd im age is nothing m ore than the
,
-

s um of a limited n u m ber of ele m ents o r phonemes that can in tu rn

be called u p by a corresponding nu mber of written symbols ( see

pp 6 1. The very po ssibility o f pu tting the t hi ngs that relate
to langu age into graphi c form allows dictionaries and gra mm ars to
represent it accu rately for langu age is a storehou se Of so u nd ,

images and writing is the tangible form o f those images

,
.

3 .
f L angu age in Hu man Fa ct s : S e mio logy
P lace o

The foregoing characteristics o f langu age reveal an even more

im portant characteristic Langu age once its bou ndaries have b een .
,

marked o ff within the speech data can be classified am ong h u m an ,

phenomena whereas speech cannot ,

.

We have j u st seen that langu age is a social institu tion ; b u t s e v

eral featu res set it apart from other political legal etc institu tions , ,
. .
 16 C O UR S E I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
We m u st call in a new type of facts in order to il lu m inate the
special nat u re o f langu age .

Langu age is a system O f signs that express ideas and is therefore ,

comparable to a syste m of writing the alphabet of deaf m u tes ,

-
,

symbolic rites polite form u las military si gnals etc B u t it is the

, , ,
.

most important o f al l these system s .

A s cien ce t ha t s t udie s t h e life of s ign s wi t hin so cie ty is conceivable ;

it wou ld be a part of social psychology and consequ ently of general
‘
psychology ; I shall call it s emio lo gy (from Greek s emeion
a

S emiology wou ld show what constitu tes signs what laws govern ,

them S ince the science does not yet exist no one can s ay what it
.
,

wo u ld be ; b u t it has a right to exi stence a place staked o u t in a d ,

vance Lingu istics is only a part of the general science of semiology ;

.

the laws discovered by sem iology will be applicable to lingu istics ,

and the latter will circu mscribe a well d e fine d area withi n the mass -

of anthropological facts .

To determ ine the exact place o f semiology is the task o f the

psychologist 4 The task of the li ngu ist is to find o u t what makes
.

langu age a special system wi thi n the mass o f sem iological data .

This issu e will be taken u p again later ; here I wish m erely to call
attention to o n e t hi ng : if I have su cceeded in assigning lingu istics a
place among the sciences it is b ecau se I have related it to sem i
,

ology .

Why has semiology not yet b een recogni z ed as an independent

science with it s own obj ect like all the other sciences ? Linguists
have been going arou nd in circles : langu age better than anythi ng ,

else o ffers a basis for u nderstanding the semi ological problem ; b u t

,

langu age mu st to p u t it correctly be stu died in itself ; heretofore

, ,

language has almost always been stu died in connection with som e
t hi ng else from other Viewpoints
,
.

There is first o f all the s u perficial notion of the general p u b l ic :

people s e e nothing m ore than a nam e giving system in langu age -

( see p thereby prohibiting any research into its tru e natu re

. .

3
ho d
S e mio lo gy s u l n o t b e co f d i h
n us e w t s ema n t i s , w st u es c hich
a n ge s in di ch
i
m e an n g, a n d w hich S
auss u e r did r
n o t t e at m e t all ; t h e hodic y
u n a m e n t al f d
p ri cip of
n le s e m an t s is ic for d p
mu l at e o n a ge 7 5 [ Ed ]
p
. .

4
Cf A Navill e , Cla s sifica ti o n de s S ci en ce s , ( 2nd 1 04 [ Ed ] Th e
co p
. . . . .

s io o y or
e o f se m l g ( s e mi t o ic
s ) is t e a t e r
a t l e n gt d in a le s s
’
h Ch r Morri
r
S ign s , L a n gu a ge a n d B e ha vio ( Ne w Y k : e nt or P r ic
e -H a ll , [T r ] .
 L I NG U I S TI CS O F L A NG U A G E AND OF S PEA KI NG 17

Then there is the V iewpoint of the psychologist who stu dies the ,

sign m echanism in the individ u al ; this is the easiest m ethod b u t

-
,

it does n o t lead beyond individu al execu tion an d does not reach

the sign whi ch is social
,
.

O r even when signs are stu died from a social V iewpoint only the ,

traits that attach langu age to the other social instit u tions—those
—
that are m ore o r l ess volu ntary are e m phasi z ed ; as a resu lt the ,

goal is b y passed and the

-
,

systems in general and o f

In short the characteristic that distingu ishes semiological sys

,

tem s from all other institu tions shows u p clearly only in langu age
where it manifests itself in the t hi ngs whi ch are stu died least and ,

the necessity or specific valu e of a sem iological science is therefore

not clearly recogni z ed B u t to me the langu age problem is m ainly
.

semiological and all develop m ents derive their significance from

,

that important fact If we are to discover the t r u e natu re O f lan

.

gu age we mu st learn what it has in com mon with all other semi
ological system s ; lingu istic forces that seem very im portant at
first gl ance the role o f the vocal apparatu s) will receive onl y
secondary consideration if they serve only to set langu age apart
from the other syste m s Thi s procedu re will do more than to
.

clarify the lingu istic problem By stu dying rites cu stoms etc as
.
, ,
.

signs I believe that we shall throw new light o n the facts and point
,

u p the need for inclu ding the m in a science of se m iology and

explaining them by it s laws .

Ch ap t e r I V

L I N GUI ST I C S OF LAN GUA GE AND L I N GU I ST I C S

O F S P E A KI N G

In setting u p the science o f langu age within the overall stu dy o f

speech I have also ou tlined the whole of lingu istics Al l other ele
,
.
18 C O URS E I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
ments o f speech—those that constitu te speaking freely sub o rd i -

nate themselves to the first science and it is by virtu e o f this s u b ,

ordination that the parts O f li ngu istics find their natu ral place .

C onsider fo r exam ple the prod u ction O f sou nds necessary for
, ,

speaking The vocal organs are as external to langu age as are the
.

electrical devices u sed in transm itting the M orse code to the code
itself ; and phonation i e the execu tion Of sou nd—
,
. .
, images in no way ,

affects the system itsel f Langu age is com parable to a symphony

.

in that what the sym phony actu ally is stands com pletely apart
from how it is performed ; the mistakes that mu sicians make in
playing the sym phony do not comprom ise this fact .

An argu ment against separating phonation from langu age might

be phonetic changes the alterations o f the so u nds which occ u r in
,

speaking and whi ch exert su ch a profou nd influ ence o n the fu t u re

o f langu age itself D O we really have the right to pretend that lan
.

gu age exists independently o f phonetic changes ? Yes for they ,

aff ect only the material su bstance of words If they attack langu age .

as a system of signs it is only ind irectly throu gh su bse qu ent

, ,

changes o f interpretation ; there is nothin g phonetic in the phe

n o m e n o n ( see p
. D eterm ini ng the cau ses of phonetic changes
may be of interest and the stu dy o f so u nds wil l be helpfu l on this
,

point ; b u t none of this is essential : in the science o f langu age all ,

we need do is to observe the transformations of sou nds and to

calcu late their effects .

What I have said abou t phonation applies to all other parts o f

speaki ng The activity o f the speaker sho u ld be stu di ed in a n u m
.

ber o f disciplines which have no place in lingu istics except thro u gh

their relation to langu age
—
.

The stu dy of speech is then twofold : its basic part having as its
obj ect langu age which is p u rely social and independent o f the
— —
,

individu al is exclu sively psychological ; its secondary part w h ich

has as it s Obj ect the individ u al side of speech i e speak ing incl u d
ing phonation —
,
. .
,

is psychophysical .

D ou btless the two Obj ects are closely connected each depending ,

o n the other : lan gu age is necessary if speaking is to be intelligible

and prod u ce all its e ff ects ; b u t speaking is necessary for the estab
lis hm e n t o f langu age and historically its act u ality always com es
,

first H o w wo u ld a speaker take it u pon himself to associate an idea

.
20 C O UR S E I N G EN ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
that science m u st n o t be confu sed with l ingu istics proper whose ,

sole Obj ect is langu age .

I shall deal only with lingu istics of lan guage a n d if I s u b ,

se qu ently u se material belonging t o speaking to illu strate a point ,

I shall try never to erase the bo u ndaries that separate the two
domains .

Chap te r V

I N TERN AL AND E XTER NA L ELE ME N TS

OF LA N GUA GE

My definition of langu age presu pposes the exclu sion o f everything

—
“ ”
that is o u tside its organism o r system in a word o f everyt hi ng
known as external lingu istics B u t external lingu istics deals with
.
,

many important t hin gk t h e very ones that we th ink o f when we

begin the stu dy o f speech .

First and forem ost come all the points where lingui stics borders
o n ethnology all the relations that link the hi story of a langu age
,

and the history of a race o r civili z ation The close interaction o f

.

langu age and ethnography brings to m ind the bonds that j oin lin
guis t ic phenomena proper (s e e pp 7 The c ultur e of a nation
.

exerts an infl u ence o n its langu age and the langu age o n the other
, ,

hand is largely responsible fo r the nation

,
.

S econd com e the relations between langu age and political hi s

tory Great historical events like the R om an con qu est have an
.

incalcu lable in flu ence o n a host Of linguis tic facts C oloniz ation .

,

which is onl y o n e form that c on qu est m ay take brings abo u t ,

changes in an idiom by transporting it into different s u rrou ndings .

All kin ds o f facts cou ld be cited as su bstantiat ing evidence Fo r .

instance Norway adopted D anish when s h e u ni ted poli tically with

,

D enmark ; the N orwe gians are trying today to throw O ff that

lin guistic infl u ence The internal politics Of states is no less im
.

portant to the life O f langu ages ; certain governm ents ( lik e the
S wiss) allow the coexistence of several idiom s ; others ( like the
French ) strive for lingu istic u nity An advanced state of civili z ation
.
 I N TER N A L AND E XTER N A L E L E M E N T S O F L A NG UA G E 21

favors the development o f special langu ages (j u ridical language ,

scientific term in ology ,

H ere we com e to a thi rd point : the relations between langu age

and all sorts o f institu tions ( the C hu rch the school A ll these
, ,

institu tions in tu rn are closely tied t o the literary develop m ent o f

a langu age a general phenomenon that is all the more inseparable
,

from political history A t every point the literary langu age over
.

steps the b ou ndaries that literatu re apparently marks o ff we need

only consider the influ ence o f sa lon s the cou rt and national , ,

academ ies Moreover the literary langu age raises the important
.
,

qu estion o f conflicts between it and local dialects ( see pp 1 9 5 .

the lingu ist m u st also exam ine the reciprocal relations of b ook
langu age and the vernac u lar ; for every literary langu age be ing the ,

produ ct o f the cu ltu re finally breaks away fro m its natu ral sphere
, ,

the spoken langu age .

Fin al ly everythin g that relates to the geographi cal spreading o f

,

langu ages and dialectal splitting belongs to external lingu istics .

D ou btless the distinction between internal and external lingu istics

seems most paradoxi cal here since the geographical phenomenon
,

is s o closely l inked to the existence of any langu age ; b u t ge o gra p h i

cal spreading and dialectal splitting do not actu ally a ff ect the inn er
organi sm o f an idiom .

S ome have m aintained that the foregoing issu es simply cannot

be separated from the stu dy o f langu age proper The viewpoin t

”
.

has been prevalent especially since the placin g o f s o m u ch em phasis

“
on R ealia 5 Ju st as the inner organism o f a plant is modified by
.

alien forces (terrain , climate etc ) does n o t the gramm atical

, .

organism depend constantly on the external forces of lingu istic

change ? It seems that we can scarcely give a satisfactory e x p l a
nation o f the technical terms and loan words that ab ou nd in lan -

gu age withou t considering their develop m ent Is it possible to .

distingu ish the natu ral organic growth o f an idiom from its arti
,

fi c ial forms su ch as the literary langu age which are d u e to ex

, ,

ternal and therefore inorganic forces ? C om m on langu ages are

,

always developing alongside local dialects .

5
R e a lie n is u s e in d G r
e m an t o r fr
t o all m a t e ri l f c t O f l if t h e h p
O
e e a a s e, s a e,

di io
m e n s ns , a n d t h e l k e i of c
b je t s , t hi n gs , e t c . Cf t h nu m ro u w ork
. e e s s in
G r
e m an e n t t lei d R e all e x ic o n [ T r ] . .
22 C O URS E I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
I b elieve that the stu dy O f external lingu istic phenomena is most
fru itfu l ; b u t to say that we cannot u nderstand the internal lin
gu is t ic organis m withou t stu dying external phenom ena is wrong .

Take as an exam ple the borrowing o f foreign words We Observe .

from the o u tset that borrowing is not a constant force in the life of
a langu age In certain isolated valleys there are dialects that have
.

never taken a single artificial term from the o u tside S hou ld we say

”
.

that su ch idio m s are o u tside the con ditions Of norm al speech and
“
that they re qu ire teratological stu dy inasmu ch as they have
°

never su ffered a d mixtu re ? M ore im portant still a loan word no ,

-

longer cou nts as su ch whenever it is stu died within a system ; it

exists only throu gh its relation with and Opposition to words , ,

associated with it j u st like any other genu ine sign Knowledge of

,
.

the circumstances that contrib u ted to the developm ent of a lan

gu age generally speak ing is never indispensable For certain
— —
.
, ,

langu age s C g Z end and O ld S lavic even the identity Of the

.

original speakers is u nknown b u t lack Of s u ch inform ation in no ,

way hinders u s in stu dying these langu ages internally and learning
abou t the transformations that they have u ndergone In any case .
,

separation O f the two viewpoints is mandatory and the more ,

rigidly they are kept apart the better it will be ,

.

The best proof O f the need for separating the two viewpoints is
that each creates a distinct method E xternal lingu istics can add .

detail to detail withou t being cau ght in the vise of a syste m E ach .

writer for instance wil l gro u p as he sees fit facts abo u t the spread
, ,

ing o f a lan gu age beyond its territory If he looks for the forces .

that created a literary lan guage b eside local dialects he can always ,

u s e simple enu m eration If he arranges the facts m ore o r less

.

syste m atical ly he will do thi s solely fo r the sake Of clarity

,
.

In internal l ingu istics the pictu re d iffers completely Ju st any .

arrange m ent will not do Langu age is a system that has its o w n
.

arrange m ent C omparison with chess will bring o ut the point In

. .

chess what is external can be separated relatively easily from what

,

is internal The fact that the gam e passed from Persia to E u rope
.

is external ; against that everything having to do with its syste m

,

and ru les is internal If I u s e ivory chessm en instead Of wooden

.

ones the change has no effect o n the system ; b u t if I decrease or

,

5 ‘
Pe r t a i n i n g t o t he st u dy O fm on t e r
s s,
’
se e p . 5 4, foo t n o t e .
[Tr ]
.
 G RAPHI C REPRE S E N TATI O N O F LA NG UA G E 23

“ ”
increase the nu mber O f ches smen this change has a profou nd e ff ect
,

on the gram m ar of the gam e O ne m u st always di stinguish b e

.

tween what is internal and what is external In each instance one .

can determine the natu re o f the phenom enon by applying this

ru le : everythin g that changes the system in any way is internal .

Ch a p te r VI

GRA PH I C RE P RESE N TA T IO N OF LAN GUA GE

1 . Need fo r S t ud yin g t he S u bj ect

The concrete Obj ect Of lingu istic science is the social produ ct
deposited in the brain o f each indi vid u al i e langu age B u t the ,
. . .

p rod u ct diff ers with lingu istic grou ps : we have to work with Ia n
gu ages The lingu ist is obli ged t o acqu aint him self with the greatest
.

possible nu mber Of langu ages in order to determin e what is u ni

versal in them by Observing and comparing them .

B u t we generally learn abo u t langu ages only throu gh writing .

E ven in stu dying o u r native language we constantly make u se of ,

written texts The necessity Of us ing written evidence increases

.

when dealing with rem ote idiom s and all the more when stu dying ,

idiom s that no longer exi st We wou ld have direct texts at o u r dis

.

posal in every instance only if people had always done what is now
being done in Paris and V ienna There sam ples o f all langu ages
.
,

are b eing recorded E ven so recorded specimens cou ld be made

.
,

available to others only thro u gh writing .

Writing thou gh u nrelated to its inner system is u sed continu ally

, ,

to represent langu age We cannot simply disregard it We m u st be

. .

acqu ainted with its u sefu lness shortcom ings and dangers
, ,
.

2 . I flu e nc e of Writing;
n R e aso ns fo r I ts A s ce nd a nce
o ve r th e S p o ke n Fo r m
Langu age and writing are two distinct system s o f signs ; the
second exists for the sole p u rpose Of representing the fi rst The .

l ingui stic Obj ect is n o t both the written and the spoken forms O f
24 C OUR SE I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
words ; the spoken form s alone constitu te the Obj ect B u t the .

spoken word is so intim ately bou nd to its written image that the
latter manages to u su rp the main role People attach even m ore .

importance to the written im age o f a vocal sign than to the sign

itself A sim ilar m istake wo u ld be in t hi nking that more can be
.

learned abo u t so m eone by looking at hi s photograph than by

viewing hi m directly .

This illu sion which has always existed is reflected in m any of

, ,

the notions that are cu rrently bandied abou t on the s u bj ect O f

langu age Take the notion that an i di om changes m ore rapidly
.

when writing does not exist N othi ng cou ld be fu rther from the
.

tru th Writing m ay retard the process o f change u nder certain

.

conditions b u t its absence in no way j eopardi z es the preservation

,

Of langu age The oldest written texts o f Lithu ani an whi ch is still
.
,

spoken in eastern Pru ssia and in a part Of R u ssia date from 1 5 40 ,

b u t the langu age O f even that late period off ers a more faithf u l
—
pictu re Of Pro t O Indo Eur opean than does Latin Of 300 B C This
-
. .

o n e exam ple is eno u gh to show the extent to whi ch langu ages are

independent of writing .

C ertain very slight linguistic facts have been preserved witho u t

the help of any notation D u ring the whole O ld H igh German
.

period people wrote t o ten fu o le n s t Oz e n ; near the end o f the twelfth

, , ,
‘
centu ry the form s t O te n fue len appeared b u t s t Ozen s u bsisted H o w
, ,
.

did the difference originate ? Wherever the u m lau t occ u rred there
—
,
*
was a y in the following syllable Proto Germ anic had d a up ya n .
,
* *
fo lyan b u t s ta u tan At the very beginning Of the literary period
,
.

( abo u t 800) the y becam e s o weak that no trace o f it appears in

writing for three centu ries ; still a slight trace had rem ained in the
,

spoken form ; that is how it miracu lo u sly reappeared as an u mlau t

aro u nd 1 1 80! Withou t the help Of writing a slight difference in ,

pronu nciation w as accu rately transm itted .

Thu s langu age does have a definite and stable oral tradition that
is independent of writing b u t the influ ence of the written form
,

prevents o u r seeing this The first l ingu ists confu sed langu age and
.

writing j u st as the h um anists had done before them E ven Bopp

,
.

failed to distinguish clearly between letters and sou nds H is works .

give the impression that a langu age and its alphabet are in s e p a
 G RAPHI C REPRE S E N TATI O N O F L A NG UA G E 25

rable H is immediate su ccessors fell into the same trap ; the tran
.

scription t h ( for the fricative cau sed Grim m to think not only
that th was a dou ble so u nd b u t also that it was an asp irated occlu
sive and he accordin gly assigned it a specific place in hi s law of
,

consonantal m u tation or L a u t ve rs chie b u ng (se e p S cholars

”
.

still confu se langu age and writing Gaston D escham ps said that
.

“
Berthelot had saved French from rui n becau se he had Opposed
spelling reform !
B u t how is the influ ence Of writing to b e explain ed ?
1 ) First the graphic form o f words strikes u s a s being somet hi ng
,

perm anent and stable better su ited than sou nd to acco u nt fo r the
,

u ni ty of langu age thro u gho u t ti m e Thou gh it creates a p u rely

.

fictitio u s u nity the su perficial bond of writing is m u ch easier to

,

grasp than the only tru e bond the bond Of sou nd ,

.

2 ) M ost people pay m ore attention to visu al im pressions simply

becau se these are sharper and more lasting than aur al impressions ;
that is why they show a preference for the form er The graphic .

form manages to force itself u pon the m at the expense o f sou nd .

3 ) The literary langu age adds to the u ndeserved importance Of

writing It has its di ctionaries and gramm ars ; in school children
.
,

are ta u ght from and by m eans of b ooks ; langu age is apparently

governed by a code ; the code itself consists o f a written se t of strict
ru les of u sage orthography ; and that is why writing ac qu ir es pri
,

mary importance The resu lt is that people forget that they learn
.

to speak before they learn t o write and the natu ral sequ ence is ,

reversed .

4 ) Finally when there is a disagree m ent between langu age and

,

orthography settlem ent Of the disp u te is d ifli c u l t for everyone

,

except the lingu ist ; and since he is given no voice in the m atter ,

the written form almost inevitably wins o u t for any so lu tion ,

s u pported b y it is easier ; thu s writing assu m es u ndeserved im

portance .

3 . Writin g
S ys t e ms of
There are only two systems of writing :
1 ) In an ideographic syste m each word is represented by a single
sign that is u nrelated to the so u nds O f the word itself E ach written .
26 C OURS E I N G E N ERA L LI NG U I S TI CS
sign stands fo r a whole word and conse qu ently fo r the idea ex , ,

p ressed by the word The c l assic example Of an ideographic system

.

o f writing is C hinese .

2 ) The system com m only k nown as phonetic tries to repro

du ce the s u ccession Of sou nds that make u p a word Phonetic .

systems are so m eti m es syllab ic so m eti m es a l phabetic i e , b ased , , . .

on the irred u cible elem ents u sed in speaking .

M oreover ideographic systems freely become mixtu res when

,

certain ideogram s lose their original valu e and become symbols Of

isolated sou nds .

The statem ent that the written word tends t o replace the spoken
o n e in o u r minds is tru e Of both syste m s Of writing b u t the te nd ,

ency is stronger in the ideographi c system T O a C hi nese an .

,

ideogram and a spoken word are b oth symbols O f an idea ; t o him

writing is a second langu age and if two words that have the sam e ,

sou nd are u sed in conversation he m ay resort to writing in order ,

to express hi s thou ght B u t in C hinese the m ental su bstitu tion Of

.

the written word fo r the spoken word does not have the annoying
conse qu ences that it has in a phonetic system for the su bstitution ,

is absolu te ; the sam e graphic symbol can stand for words from
different C hinese dialects .

I shal l limit discu ssion to the phonetic system and espe cially to ,

the o ne u sed today the system that stems from the Greek
,

alphabet ’ .

7
corr p o nd n c e b t w n S u ure y t e m O f t r n cript io n n d t h t
Th e es e e ee a ss
’
s s s a s a a

r co
e d d b y t h e I nt e rn t io n l P ho n t ic A oci t io n i roughl y as foll ow :
mm e n e a a e ss a s s

S A USSU RE IP A S A USSU RE IPA

p [13 ] p in 1 [1] le t
b b
[ ] b in r [r] ru n

m [m ] ma n i [i] r e p e at
t [t ] ten 11 [u ] b oo t
(I [ d ] d ig ii [y ] Fr n c h p
e ur

n [n ] no t e, e [8 ] p et
k [ k ] c at (3, é [e ] ch o t ic
a

g [ g] ge t e [5] Fr ch vin
en

n [ n] t hi n g 9 [0 ] ough t
f [ f] fo x 9 [o ] n t t io n
o a

v [ v ] vix e n O [5 ] Fr ch b n
en o

b [ 6 ] t hin 6 [ oe ] Fr n ch l
e seu

5 [ 5 ] t he n 6 Fr ch cren eu se

a [s ] s in g 8 [63 ] Fr n ch u n
e
28 C O UR S E I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
S ch ex amples cou ld be m u ltiplied indefinitely For instance
u
‘ ‘
.
,

why sho u ld the French write mai s b u t and fai t fact when the ’ ’

words are pronou nced me and fé? Why does 0 Often have the valu e
of s ? The answer is that French has retained ou t m oded spellings .

S pell ing always lags behind pronu nciation The Z in French is .

today changing to y; speakers s ay éve yer mo u ye r j u st as they say

‘
e ss u yer w ipe
’ ‘ ’
n e t to ye r clean ; b u t the written fo rms O f these words
, ,

‘ ‘
,

are still éve ille r awaken m o u i l le r soak ,

’
.
’

A nother reason for discrepancy between spelling and pron u nci

ation is this : if an alphabet is b orrowed fro m another lang u age its ,

resou rces may not be appropriate fo r their new fu nction ; expedi

ents will have to be fo u nd (e g the u se Of two letters to designate . .

a single sou nd ) Take the voiceless dental fricative b O f the Ger

.

manic langu ages S ince Latin had no sign for this sou nd t h was
.
,

u sed The Merovingian king C hil p e ric tried to add a special symbol
.

fo r t hi s sou nd to the Latin alphabet b u t his atte m pt was un su c ,

c e s s fu l and th won acceptance D u ring the Middle A ges E nglish .

had a closed e (e g s e d ) and an Open e (e g led ) ; since the alphabet

. . . .

failed to provide di st inct symb ols fo r the two sou nds the spellings ,

s e e d and l e ad were devised French u ses the do u ble symbol c h to .

stand for h u shing 5 etc ,

.

The influ ence Of etymology also helps t o widen the gap between
spelling and pronu nciation It has been especially strong d u ring .

certain period s ( e g the R enaissance ) E ven a false etym ology

. . .

Often forces itself into the spellin g o f a word : d was in serted in

‘
French p o id s weight as if the word were derived from Latin’

m
p on d us ; p o id s act u a l ly co es fro m pe n s u m Whether the app li
8
.

cation O f the principle is correct m atters little ; the fallacy is in

spelling words according to their etymology .

O ther reasons for the di screpancy are n o t s o Obviou s ; som e

absu rdities cann ot be exc u sed even o n etym ological grou nds Wh y .

was thu n u sed instead of t u n in Germ an ? The h was said to re p re

sent the aspiration that followed the initial consonant ; b u t it wo u ld
have to be inserted wherever aspiration occ u rs and many similar ,

words were never written with h ( Tu ge nd Ti sch , ,

8
. s s ,
‘ ‘
Cf En gl i h i land d e rive d fro m ig i lan d and la nd l an d b ut infl ue n c d s
’ ’
e

b y is l an d d o u b t d riv e d fro m O l d Fr e n ch d ou t r b u t l at e r ch a n ge d t o c o n
e, e e

form w i t h L t i n d bit r [ T ]
,

a u a e . r .
 G RAPHI C REPRE S E N TATI O N O F LA NG UA G E 29

5 .
f th e Dis crep an cy
R es u l ts o

T O classify the inconsistencies O f writing wou ld take too long .

O ne sa lient disadvantage is the m u ltiplicity Of symb ols that stand

for the sam e sou nd For 5 French u ses j g ge (jo li pretty ge le r ‘ ’

‘
.
, , ,
’
free z e ge a i ,
for z b oth z and s ; for s c g and t (n a tio n , , ,

s e ( acqu i e s ce r : ( a cqu ie s ga n t
sg
‘
a: (d isc ten and for k it u ses 0 qu k ch c c e gu ( a cqu érir
’
, , , , ,

C onversely a single sym bol stands for several valu es : t stands fo r

”
,

t o r s g fo r g o r 5 etc
,
9
,
.

“Ind rect spel ings also m erit o u r attention There is no do ble

i l u .

consonant in Z e tte l Te ller etc ; German u ses tt ll etc fo r the sole

, ,
.
, ,
.

p u rpose of indicating that the preceding vowel is Open and short .

Thro u gh a sim ilar aberration E nglish adds a final sil ent e to

lengthen the preceding vowel : mad m ad e The e which act u ally ,
.
,

a ffects only the precedin g syll able creates a second syllable for ,

the eye .

These irrational spell ings sti l l stand for som ethin g in langu age ;
b u t others have neither rim e nor reason French has no dou ble
‘
.

consonants except the O l d fu tu res m o u rra i ( I) shall die co u rra i ’

‘I) shall ru n etc ; yet illegitim ate dou ble consonants abou nd in
,
’
(
‘ ‘
.
,
’
the orthography Of the langu age ( b o u rru su rly s o ttis e foolish
‘
,
’ ’
ness so ufi rir su ffer
, ,

Being u nstable and striving always for regu larity writing m ay ,

vacillate at times ; the resu lt is fl u ctu ating orthograp hi es that stem

fro m e fforts to re cord sou nds at different perio ds Take e r tha e rdh a .
, ,

e r da o r t hr i dhr i d r i in O ld H igh Ger m an : th dh d stand for the

, , , , ,

sam e phonic elem ent B u t which elem ent ? Writin g does not provid e .

the answer The com plication that arises is this : confronted with
.

two spellings for the same word we cannot always decide whether ,

two pronu nciations are actu ally represented S u ppose that texts Of .

neighboring dialects show the spelling a s ca for a word in one Of the

dialects and a s ch a for the sa m e word in the other ; if the so u nd is
the sam e the transcriptions point to an orthographic fl u ct u ation ;
,

if n o t the d ifference is phonological and dialectal as in the Greek

, ,

forms p at e o p aizd o p a idd o O r two su ccessive periods may be

, ,
.

9
The s e an di cr
b et ween p cy p llin g nd pro n n ci t io n i f co u r e m or
s e a u a s o s e

st ri
kin g in E n gli s t a n in h h Fr ch t w p rf c t ly rim i g o d
en : w ri t t e n
o e e n s un s ar e

fi gh t a n d bit e ; 0 s t an s t he d for m o nd b ot h sa d k; t
e s [T ] u as 3 an e c . r .
30 C O U RS E I N G E N ERAL L I NG U I S TI CS
in volved The E nglish fo rms hwa l kwee l etc were late r replaced
.
, ,
.

by wha t whee l etc D oes this poin t t o a graphic change o r t o a

, ,
. .

phonetic change ?
The prece din g discu ssion boils down t o thi s : writing o b scur es
langu age ; it is n o t a guise fo r langu age b u t a di sgu ise That fact is
‘
.

clearly illu strated by the spel ling o f French o i s e a u bird No t o ne .

’

spoken so u nd (waz o) is indica t ed by it s own sym b ol H ere writing .

fails to record any part Of the pictur e Of lan gu age .

Another re sul t is that the less writing represents what it is

s u pposed to represent the stronger the tendency to u se it as a
,

basis becomes Grammarians never fail to draw attention to the

.

writte n form Psychologically the tendency is easily explained

” ”
.
, ,
“
b u t its consequ ences are annoying Free u se of the words pro .

“
no u nce and pronu nciation sanctions the ab u se and reverses
the real legitimate relationship between writing and langu age
,
.
“

Whoever says that a certain lette r mu st be pronou nced a certain

way is mistakin g the written image of a sou nd for the so u nd itself .

Fo r French o i to be prono u nced w a this spelling wo u ld have to ,

exist independently ; actu ally wa is written o i T O attrib u te the .

oddity to an exceptional pronu nciation of o and i is also mislea d in g ,

fo r this implies that langu age depends o n its written form and that
certain liberties may b e taken in writing as if the graphic symbols ,

were the norm .

False notions a b ou t the relationship between sou nd and graphic

sym b ols appear even in gram m atical ru les as in the case of French ,

h S ome words that b egin with an u naspirated vowel are written

‘
.

with h thro u gh remembrance o f their Latin forms : h o mme man ’

( formerly o me ) becau se o f Latin homo B u t in words of Germanic

‘
.

’
ori gin initia l h w as actu ally p ronou nced : hache hatchet hareng
‘ ‘
, ,
’ ’
herring ho n te shame etc As long as asp iration was u sed words
, ,
.
,

o f Germ anic ori gin obeyed the laws govern ing initial consonants :
‘ ‘
speakers said de u ha che s t w o hatchets te he re ng the herring ; ,
’ ’

other words obeyed the laws governing initial vowels ; speakers

-
‘ -
‘
said de u z o mme s two men l omme the man For that period the
’
,
’ ’
.

“
ru le Liaison and e l ision do not occu r before aspirated h was
, ,

correct B u t nowadays the formu la is m eaningless A spirate d h no

. .

longer exists unl ess the la b el is applied to something which is n o t

 3
. G RAPHI C REPRE S E N TATI O N O F LA NG U A G E 31

a sou nd b u t which prevents liaison and elision A gain we are .

in volved in a viciou s circle and h is b u t a fi ctitiou s Offspring of

,

writing .

The pronu nciation Of a word is determ ined not by its spelling , ,

b u t by its history The fo rm of a word at a partic u lar mo m ent

.

stands for a mom ent in its enforced evolu tion Precise laws govern .

its evolu tion E ach step is determin ed by the preceding step The
. .

only thing to consider is the o ne most Often forgotten : the evolu tion
o f the word it s etymology ,
.

The nam e o f the town o f A uch is os in phonetic transcription

”
.

That is the only French word in whi ch final ch stands fo r s B u t we .

“
explain nothing by saying Final ch is pronou nced 5 onl y in A uc h
,
.

The onl y qu estion tha t concerns u s is thi s : H o w coul d Latin Au s eu

have changed to oi ? O rthography is u nimportant
‘
.

S hou ld French'gageure wager be pronou nced with 0 o r u ? S ome ’

‘
speakers say : ga z or fo r h e u re hou r is prono u nced or O thers s ay : ’ '

‘
.
,

N o it is gazur for ge is equ ivalent 5 as in ge ole j ail The argument

,
'
, ,
.
’

is pointless The real iss u e is etym ological : gageu re was formed from
‘ ‘ ‘
.

’ ’ ’
gage r earn j u st as t o u r n ur e fi gu re was formed from t o u rn e r tu rn ;
only gaz ur is j u stifiable ; gaz or is d u e solely to the e qu ivocal nat u re
' '

O f writing .

B u t the tyranny o f w ritin g go es even fu rther By imposing itself .

u pon the masses spelli ng influ ences and m odifies langu age Thi s
,
.

happens only in highly l iterate langu ages where written texts play
an im portant role Then vi s u al images lead to wrong pronu nci
.

at io n s ; su ch m is takes are really pathological

10
S pell ing practices .

cau se mistakes in t h e p r o nu n c ia t io n o f many French words For

'

instance there were two spellings for the su rna m e Lef evre ( from
,

Latin fa b e r ) o ne popu lar and simple the other learned and ety
, ,

m o l o gic al : L efevre and L efeb vre Becau se 2) and u were not kept .

apart in the Old system Of writing L efeb vre was read as L efeb u re , ,

with a b that had never really existed and a u that was the resu lt
o f a m bi gu ity N o w the latter form is actu ally pronou nced
.
,
.

Mispronu nciations d u e to spelling will probably appear more

frequ ently as time goes o n and the nu m ber Of letters pronou nced
,

1°
P a tho lo gy w as g e n ur e n iv
in en c r cy Fr ch b y Li t t ré It w as use d s u b se

y
.

qu e nt l b y Gillié ro n a nd D ar ms t e t e r as w e ll by S u u
as a ss re . Se e n ot e 6 .
[ Tr ].
32 C O UR S E I N G E N ERA L L I NGU I S TI CS
by speakers will probably increase S ome Parisians a l ready pro
‘
.

nou nce the t in sep t femmes seven wo m en ; D arm s t e t e r foresees

11 ’

‘
the day when even the last two letters o f vin gt twenty will be ’

—
pronou nced tru ly an orthographic monstrosity .

S u ch phonic deformations belong to langu age b u t do not stem

from its natu ral fu nctioning They are du e to an external influ ence . .

Lingu istics should p u t the m into a special compa rtment fo r o b s e r

vation : they are teratological cases 12
.

Chap t er VII

P HO N O L O GY 13

1 . De fi
ni t io n

Whoever consciou sly deprives himself Of the perceptible image

of the written word r u ns the risk Of perceiving only a shapeless and
u nmanageable mass Taking away the written form is li ke d e p riv
.

ing a beginning swim m er of hi s life belt .

T o su bstit u te im m ediately what is natu ral for what is artificial

wou ld be desirable ; b u t thi s is impossible witho u t first stu dying
the so u nds o f langu age ; apart from their graphic symbols so u nds ,

are only vague notions and the prop provided by writing thou gh
, ,

deceptive is still preferable The first lingu ists who knew nothing
,
.
,

about the physiology of articu lated sou nds were constantly falling ,

into a trap ; to m e it means a first step in the dir ection Of tru th for
, ,

the stu dy Of sou nds them selves fu rnishes the desired prop Modern .

Th e
11
p ro
n u n at ci io
n [ s e ] is n o w b s l e s e nt O o c t he t e n
. Cf
t w ar
. r d o d pro
n o u n c in g t h e t in oft e n [ T r ]

bio o
. .

12
S r i oo y r
a u ss ur e s t e m n l g is e m n s e n t o f t h e
’
i ic ic p r
l g al a l a n e O f Gill iér o n c
( e g in P a t h o lo gie e t t he ra p e u t iqu e ve r b a les , a s ,
’

P ri[Tr ]
i io of pho o o y
. . .

S
13
r r odifi
a u ss u e l at e m p e s an d e x a n s h is d
e n t ndfi n l g ( se e
p ci y p p
a ll Gr
34 , 42 ff , 1 1 7 ff an d o fo o d nl O yM
a m m n t h as ll w e
ric i i O f
es e . . .

S r pr c ic
’
ih
a t pho o o y
E n gl s a n d A m e a n l n gu s t s t e n u s e n l g to
dy O f o d or dy O f
a u ss u e s e .

i dic
n hi oric
at e t h e st al st u f c io i
s un s t h e st u t h e un t n n g o f
o d
s u n s in a p r ic r a t pho ic for
u la l a n gu age ,dy od i i
ne t s t h e st u o f t he m al t e s

o d d p i
o f s un s u s e pho ic corr po i
in s e ak n g, a n d Fr ch
nem s ( es n d ng t o en p ho no lo gie
an d G r for dy
e m an P h o n o lo gie ) di i c iv o d
t h e st u O f t he st n t e s u n s o f l a n gu a ge .

[ Tr ] .
 PH O N O L O G Y 33

lingui sts have finally seen the light ; p u rsuing for their o w n ends
investigations started by others ( physiologists theoreticians o f ,

singing ,
they have given lingui sts an au xi liary science that
has freed it fro m the written word .

The physiology of sounds ( German L au t o r S p ra chp hysio lo gie )

is often called phonetics ( French p h o ne tiqu e Ge rman Ph o ne tik) T o
’

, .

me t hi s nam e seems inappropriate Instead I shall u se p ho n o logy

.
, .

Fo r phonetics first designated—and should continu e to designate

the stu dy o f the evolu tions o f so u nds Two absolu tely distinct dis
!
.

c ip lin e s sho u ld not be l u mped together u nder the sam e nam e .

Phonetics is a historical science ; it analyses events and changes ,

and moves th rou gh time Phonology is ou tside time for the ar

.
,

t ic u l at o ry mechani sm never changes .

The two stu dies are distinct b u t not opposites Phonetics is a .

basic part o f the science of langu age ; phonology—this bears

—
repeating is only an au xiliary discipline and belongs excl u sively to
speaking ( see pp 1 7 if ) Ju st what ph o n a t io nal m ovements co u ld
. .

acco m plish if langu age did n o t exist is not clear ; b u t they do not
constitu te langu age and even after we have explained all the m ove
,

ments o f the vocal apparatu s necessary for the prod u ction of each
au ditory impression we have in no way illu minated the problem
,

o f langu age It is a system based on the mental opposition o f au di

.

tory im pressions j u st as a tapestry is a work of art produ ced by

,

the visu al oppositions o f threads o f different colors ; the important

thing in analysis is the role of the oppositions not the process ,

thro u gh w hich the colors were Obtained .

An o u tline o f the phonological system is given in the Appen d ix ;

here I am trying m erely to determ ine the extent to which p h o
n o l o gy can hel p ling u istics to escape the del u sions of writing .

2 . Writing
Ph o n o lo gic a l
The linguist needs above all else a means of transcribing a rt icu
lated sou nds that will ru le o u t all am bigu ity A ct u ally cou ntless .
,

graphic system s have been proposed .

What are the requ ire m ents for a tru ly phonological system of
writing ? First there shou ld be o n e symbol fo r each ele m ent O f the
,

spoken chain This req u irement is not always considered Th u s

. .

E nglish phonologists concerned with classification rather than

,
34 C OURSE I N G E N ERAL L I NG U I S TI CS
analysis have two and three letter symbols for certa in so u nds
,
-
.

S econd there shou ld be som e means for m aking a rigid distinction

,

between implosive and explosive sou nds (s e e pp 4 9 ff ) . .

A re there gro u nds for su bstit u ting a phonological alphabet for

a syste m already in u s e ? H ere I can only broach this interesting
su bj ect I think that phonological writing sho u ld be for the u se of
.

lin gu ists only First how wou ld it be possible to m ake the E nglish
.
, ,

Ge rmans French etc adopt a u n iform system ! Next an alphabet

, ,
.
,

applicable to all langu ages wou ld probably b e weighed down by

m —
diacritical arks ; and to s ay nothing o f the distressing appear
ance of a page of phonological writing—attempts to gain precision
wou ld Obviou sly conf u se the reader by obscu rin g what the writing
was designed to express The advantages wou ld not be su fficient .

to compensate fo r the inconveniences Phonological exactitu de is .

not very desirable o u tside science .

R eading is another issu e We read in two ways : a new o r u n .

known word is spelled o u t letter by letter ; b u t a com m on ordin ary ,

word is em b raced by a single glance independently of its letters , ,

so that the image o f the whole word acqu ires an ideographic valu e .

H ere traditional orthography takes revenge It is u sefu l to dis

‘ ‘
.

’
t in gu is h between French t an t s o m u ch and t e m p s weather ;
’

‘
e t and
‘
e s t is
’ ‘ ’‘ ‘
and a it have ; du of the and d u had to ; it d eva it ’ ’ ’

‘ ,
’ ‘ ,

he owed and i ls d eva ie n t they owed etc Let u s hope only that
14
,
’
.

the m ost flagrant abs u rdities o f writing will be eliminated Al .

tho u gh a phonological alphabet is helpfu l in the teaching o f Ian

gu ages its u se sho u ld not be generali z ed
,
.

3 . Va lidi t y of Evide n ce Fu rnis h ed b y Wri t in g

O ne m u st n o t think that spelling reform shou ld immediately
follow the reali z ation that writing is deceptive The genu ine c o n .

t rib u t io n of phonology is in providing precau tionary m easu res for

dealing with the written form thro u gh which we m u st pass in order
to reach langu age E vi dence fu rnished by writin g is vali d only
.

when interpreted We m u st draw u p for each lan guage stu died a

.

p ho no lo gi ca l s ys t em i e a description of the sou nds with whi ch it

,
. .

fu nctions ; for each langu age operates o n a fixed nu m ber of well

differentiated phonemes Thi s system is the only se t o f facts that
1‘
.

Cf E nglis h s o w and s ew ; t o t o o and tw o ; du e and dew e t c [ Tr ]

.
, , , . .
36 C O UR SE I N G E N ERA L L I N GUISTICS
are safe in assuming that it also existed du ring the preceding period .

We do not know exactly what z stands fo r in a word like O ld H igh

Germ an w ae e r ; b u t o u r gu ideposts are the older form wa t er on the
o n e hand and Modern Germ an Wa s s e r o n the other The z m u st be .

a sou nd half way between t and s ; we can rej ect any hypothesis
-

that fails to consider b oth t and s ; to hold that z stands fo r a palatal

so u nd for exam ple wou ld be i m possible for only a dental a rt ic u
, , ,

lation can logically come between two other dental articu lations .

b ) There are several types o f co n te mp o r a r y e vide n ce S pelling .

differences fu rnish one o f m any types D u ring one peri od we find .

that O ld H igh German has wae e r zehan e z an b u t never wa e e r , , ,

c e h an
,
etc When we find the form s e s a n and es s a n w a s e r and
.
,

w a s s er etc however we easily concl u de that the sou nd O f 2 was

,
.
, ,

close to 3 b u t different fro m the sou nd that c stood for du ring the
sam e period The s u bsequ ent appearance of su ch form s as w a e e r
.

proves that the t w o originally distinct phonem es becam e somewhat

m ingled .

Poetic texts are invalu able docu ments in the stu dy o f p ro

n u n c ia t io n They f u rnish m any types of i nf o rm ation depending o n
.
,

whether the system o f ve rs ifi c a t io n is based on the n u m ber of s yl

l ab l e s qu antity o r similarity of so u nds ( alliteration assonance
, , , ,

and ri m e ) Greek indicated certain long vowels in writing (e g

. . .

6 transcribed t o) b u t n o t others We m u st cons u lt the poets in

, .

order to find o u t abou t the qu antity of a i and u Thu s ri m e allows , ,

.

u s to determ ine u ntil what period the final consonants of O ld

‘
French gra s and faz ( Latin fa ci o I do ) were di fferent and from ’

what moment they were bro u ght together and m erged R i m e and
‘
.

’
assonance also show that e derived from Latin a (e g p er e father
‘ ‘
. .

from p a t re m t e l su ch from ta le m m e r sea from m a re ) was n o t

,
’
,
’

pronou nced like other e s These words never appear in rim e or

’

‘ ‘
.

assonance with e ll e s h e ( from i lla ) ve r t green ( from virid e m)

’ ’

‘ , ,

b e lle bea u tifu l ( from b e l la ) etc

’
.
,

Finally there is the evidence fu rnished by the spelling of loan

words pu ns cock and bu ll stories etc In Gothic fo r example
, ,
- -
,
.
, ,

k aw t sj o reveals information abou t the pron u nciation of c a u tio in

.
‘
Vu lgar Latin That French r o i king was pronou nced r we at the
’

end of the eighteenth cent u ry is attested by the following story

cited by Nyr o p (Grammair e his toriqu e de l a l an gu e fra n gais e ,
 PH O N O L O G Y 37

p 1 7 8) A
. woman who had b een bro u ght before the revolu tionary
trib u nal was asked whether s h e had not said in the presence o f
“
witnesses that a king (ro i) was needed ; s h e replied that s h e was
not speaking of a kin g like C apet or t h e others at all b u t of a
‘
,

r o u e t m a i t r e spinni ng wheel
’
.

All the foregoing procedu res help u s to acq u ire so m e knowledge

o f the phonological system o f a period as well as to interpret and

u se profitably the evidence f u rnished by writing .

In dealing with a living langu age the only rational m ethod

,

consists o f ( a ) setting u p the system of sou nds as revealed by direct

Observation and ( b ) Observing the system o f signs u sed to re p re
sent—imperfectly—these soun ds Many gramm arians still hold
,

to the o ld method that I have critici z ed and sim ply tell how each
letter is pronou nced in the langu age they wish to describe By u sing
.

the older m ethod however they cannot present clearly the pho
, ,

n o l o gica l system of an idiom .

Nevertheless great strides in the right direction have already

,

b een taken and phonologists have m ade an im portant contrib u tion

,

toward reforming o u r ideas abo u t writing and spel ling .

 A P P E N D IX

P r i n ci p l e s of P h o n o lo g y

Ch ap t er I

P HO N O L O G I CA L S PE C I ES

1 De fi f t h e P h o n e me
n i t io n o

”
.

[ For this part we were able to u s e a stenographi c reprodu ction o f

three le ctu res given b y S au ssu re in 1 897 Thé orie de la syllabe
“
, ,

in whi ch he als o tou ches u pon the general principles discu ssed in
C hapter I ; m oreover m u ch of the m aterial in his personal notes
,

deals with phonology ; o n many points the notes illum inate and
III
,

( E ditors
’
complete the data fu rnished by C o u rses I and .

Many phonologists limit the m selves almost exclu sively to the

p h o n a t io n a l act i e the produ ction o f sou nd by the vocal organs
,
. .

( larynx mou th etc ) and neglect the au ditory side Their method
, ,
. .

is wrong N ot only does the a u di tory impression come to u s j u st

.

as directly as the image of the m oving vocal organs b u t it is also ,

the basis Of any theory Au ditory impressions exist u nconsciou sly

.

before phonological un its are stu died ; o u r ear tells u s what b t etc , ,
.

are E ven if all the m ovem ents m ade by the m ou th and larynx in
.

pronou ncing a chain o f so u nds co u ld be photographed the o h ,

server wou ld stil l b e un able to single o u t the su b divisions in the

series o f articu latory m ovem ents ; he wou ld not know where one
sou nd began and the next o ne ended Withou t the au ditory im .

pression how can we s ay that in fa t fo r instance there are three

, , ,

u nits rather than two o r fo u r ? B u t when we hear a so u nd in a

spoken chain we can identify it im mediately ; as long a s there is

,

an im pression o f homogeneity the sou nd is u niqu e What matters

,
.

is not the length o f the so u nd ( of fo l and fil l) b u t the qu ality of the

.

impression The sou nd chain is n o t divided into e qu al beats b u t

.
-

into hom ogeneou s ones ; each b eat is characteri z ed by u nity of

impression and that is the natu ral point o f departu re fo r
,

phonology .
 PH ON O LO GI CA L S PE C IE S 39

H ere the early Greek alphabet is noteworthy sim ple . E ach

sou nd is represented in Greek by a single graphic sign and each ,

sign always stands for the same sim ple sou nd The Greek alphabet .

w a s an ingeni o u s discovery that was later handed down to the

‘ ’
R o m ans In the transcription of b arb a ro s barb arian each letter
.
,

corresponds to a hom ogeneou s beat

B A P B A P O E

In the drawing a b ove the hori z ontal line stands for the phonetic ,

chain and the short vertical bars in di cate passage from o n e sou nd
,

to another In the early Greek alphabet there are no co m plex

.

graphs like E ngl ish s h fo r 3 no interchangeable letters for single ,

sou nds like c and s fo r s no single signs for dou ble so u nds like at fo r
—
,

k s A one to one ratio between sou nds and graphs the necessary
- -

and s u fli cie nt basis for a good phonological system o f writing —

.

was
reali z ed almost com pletely by the Greeks 1
.

O ther nations did n o t grasp this principle and their alphabets ,

do not analy z e the spoken chain according to its hom ogeneou s

au ditory beats The C ypriots for exam ple stopped at more c o m
.
, ,

plex u nits like p a ti do etc S u ch notation is called syllabic b u t , , ,

.
,

this nam e is hardly acc u rate since there are still other types of
syllables (e g p a k t ra The S em ites indicated only the con
. .
, ,

sonants They wou ld have transcribed a word like b ar b a ro s as

.

BR BR S .

D elim itation of the so u nds of the spoken chain can be based onl y
o n a u di tory im p re ss 1 0 n s ; b u t description o f these so u nds is an

entirely d iff erent process D escription can be carried o u t only o n .

1 To b h y w ro t X
e 0 for k h t h p h ; ! EP O t
su e ,r t e d for p he ; e s an s ro

l t r i nn ov t io n ; rch ic i cri p t io
, , ,

b ut t hi i s s a a e r d KHAPIE d n t a a a ns ns ea an o

XA PIZ T h m i crip t io n h v t w e sa ign for k k p p e d k pp

ns b ut s a e o s s a a an a a,

it u t io n i d iff r nt t w r l diff r n c i p ro ci t io n w r i vo lv d
.
,

th e s a s e e : o ea e e es n nun a e e n e

p
,

k b in g o m t i m l t l n d o m t im v la r ; b id k pp l t r d i
pp r d Fin ll y—
e s e es a a a a s e es e es e s, a a a e s
~ nd t h i i m or b t l poi n t —in rly Gr k nd L t in
i n cript io n do ub l con on t i O ft n in dic t e d b y i m pl l t t e r ( g
a ea e . a a s s a e su e ea ee a a

s s a e s an s e a a s e e e . .

L t i f i w rit t n FUISE) ; t hi i n i nfr c t io n of t h pri cip l i c t h

do b l l t t w b t —b t t h t
a n u ss e , e s s a a e n e s n e e

u e 8 as s t ho m o go o w h ll
ea s ea s a a re no e ne u s , as e s a se e

l t r
a e d t h t m k di t i n c t im pr
, an aio ; b t t h m i t k i c u b l inc
a e s e ss ns u e s a e s ex sa e s e

th tw
e o d h ve co mm o n char c t ri t ic ve n t ho u gh t h y
o s un s a di t inc t
a a e s e e a re s

( cf p p 5 1 if ) [ S ]
. . . .
40 C OURSE I N G EN ERAL L I NG UISTI CS
the basis Of the articu latory act for it is i m possible to analyz e the ,

u nits O f so u nd in their own chain We m u st go back to the m ove .

ments involved in phonation ; there a given so u nd Obvio u sly cor ,

’
responds to a given act : b ( au ditory beat ) b ( artic u latory beat ) .

The first u nits Obtained by c u tting the spoken chain are m ade u p
o f b and b ; they are phone m es ; a phoneme is the s um of the au di
’

tory irn p re ss io n s and articu latory movements the u nit heard and ,

the u nit spoken each con di tioning the other : thu s it is a com plex
,

u nit with a foot in each chain .

The elem ents first obtained throu gh analysis o f the spoken chain
are like the link s o f this chain : they are irred u cible m om ents that
cannot be stu died ou tside the time that they occ u py A grou ping .

like ta for instance will always be o n e mo m ent plu s another o n e

, , ,

fragm ent of a certain length plu s another Against this the ir .

,

redu cible t taken separately can be stu died in the abstract ou tside
, , ,

time We can speak of t in general as the T species ( I u s e capitals

.

to indicate species ) o f i in general as the I species etc if we c o n

, ,
.

sider only the distinctive character o f a sou nd and neglect every

thing that depends o n su ccession in tim e S imilarly a mu sical .
,

series do re m i can be treated only as a concrete series in time

, , ,

b u t if I select one of its irred u cible ele m ents I can stu dy it in the ,

abstract .

H aving analy z ed a su fficient nu mber o f spoken chains fro m

different langu ages the phonologist can identify and classify the
,

elements with which each langu age operates Then if he ignores .

,

acou stically u nimportant variations he wi ll find that the num ber ,

of species is not indefinite S pecial works list these species and

.

describe them in detail Here I wish m erely to show the simple

2
.
,

invariable principles u pon whi ch any su ch classification is based .

B u t first let m e s ay a few words abou t the vocal apparatu s the ,

possible fu nctioning of the different organs and the role of these ,

sam e organs as produ cers o f sou nd .

2 Cf Si v r
. e e s, Gr u n dzu ge d e r P h o n e t ik , t fif h . p
e d , 1 902 ; Je s e s e n , L e h r b u h r c
d e r P h o n e t ik , seco d
n e d , 1 9 1 3 ; R o u d e t , Eleme n t s de p h o n ét iqu e gen e ra le ,
.
’ ’

1 9 1 0 [ Ed ]
. .
 PH O N O L O G I C A L S PE C IE S 41

2 Th e Vo ca l A p p a ra t u s a nd It s Fu n c tio ning
.
3

1 ) I lim it description of the vocal apparatu s to a schem atic

drawing in which A designates the nasal cavity , B the oral cavity ,

and C the larynx (with the glottis 8 between the two vocal cords ) .

In the mou th the parts of the vo c al apparatu s that shou ld be

singled o u t are these : the lips or and a ; the tongu e 6—7 (6 designat
,

in g the point and y the rest ) ; the u pper teeth d ; the palate made ,

u p o f the bony hard palate f h in the front and the m ovable mem
-

brane o r soft palate i in the back ; and finally the u vu la 6 , ,

.

The Greek letters indicate organs that are active d u ring art icu
lation ; the Latin letters identify the passive parts .

The glottis a m ade u p Of two parallel m u scles o r vocal cords

, ,

opens when the cords are drawn apart and closes when they com e
together C o m plete closu re does not occ u r ; the opening is some
.

times wide som etimes narrow When the opening is wide allowing
,
.
,

3
S r
au ssu e s
’
b ri f d
e es crip t io n
h as e e n s u ppb d ri
l e m e n t e b y m at e al b a s e o nd
Je s p e rs e n s L e h rb uc h d e r Ph o n e t ik ,
’
m w fro hich
we a e a ls hv
b o orro d
we t he
pri n cip d i
l e u s e in se t t ng u p t h e t a b le of p ho
ne m e s b e l w ( s e e o pp
44 ff ) B u t . .

w e ar e m e e l ar y c rryi
ng o ut
’
S r i
a u ss u e s n t e n t , a n d t h e ea e r d r
m ay b e a s s u e rd
h
t at t e s e a h ddi io do
t ns n o t a lt e h is t r ho h
u g t in a ny w a y [ Ed ] . .
42 C OURSE I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
the air to pass freely no vibration is heard ; voicing occu rs when
,

air passes throu gh a narrow Opening cau sing the cords to vibrate , .

There is no other alternative in the norm al e m ission of so u nds .

The nasal cavity is a co m pletely im mobile organ ; the stream of

air can be stopped only by raising the u vula 5 ; it is an open or a
closed door .

The oral cavity o ffers a wide range of possibilities ; the li ps can

be u sed to increase the length of the channel the j aws can be ,

pu ffed o u t o r drawn in and a great variety o f m ove m ents o f the

,

lips and tongu e can be u sed to contract or even to close the cavity .

The role played by the sam e organs in produ cing sou nds is
directly proportional t o their m obility ; u niform ity in the fu nction
ing of the larynx and nasal cavity is matched by diversity in the
fu nctioning of the oral cavity .

Air that is expelled from the lu ngs first passes throu gh the
glottis It is possible to produ ce a laryngeal sou nd by tightening
.

the vocal cords b u t the larynx cannot produ ce phonological

,

varieties that allow u s to separate and classify the sou nds of lan
gu age ; in thi s respect the laryngeal sou nd is u niform Perceived
,
.

directly as it emi tted by the glottis the sou nd seems to have an

almost invariable qu ality .

The nasal channel serves as nothing more than a resonator for

the vocal vibrations that pass throu gh it It does n o t fu nction as .

a p rodu cer o f sou nd .

The oral cavity on the contrary fu nctions b oth as a produ cer

, ,

o f sou nd and as a resonator When the glottis is wide open there

.
-
,

is no laryngeal vibration ; the sou nd that is heard originates in the

oral cavity ( I leave to the physicist the task o f deciding whether
it is a sou nd o r m erely a noise ) B u t when tightening o f the vocal
.

cords cau ses the glottis t o vibrate the m ou th serves m ainly to ,

modify the laryngeal sou nd .

In short the factors involved in the produ ction o f sou nd are

,

expiration oral articu lation vibration o f the larynx and nasal

, , ,

resonance .

B u t si m ple enu meration does not identify the di fferential prop

e t ties o f phonem es In classifying phonemes what constitu tes them
.
,

is of mu ch less importance than what distingu ishes them fro m each

other A negative force can be more important in classifying a
.
44 C O URS E I N G E N ERA L L I NG UI S TI CS
therefore the most important thing is to determ ine the possible
,

varieties of oral articu lation .

3 . Cl ifi ti f S o u nd s A cco rding to Their O ra l Articu la tio n

a ss ca on o

uS o nds are
generally classed according to the place of their
artic u lation My point of departu re will be different R e gardless
" ‘
. .

o f where artic u lation takes place there is always a certain a p e r tu r e ,

,

i e a certain degree of openi ng that ranges between two extre m e s

. .
, ,

com plete closu re and m axim u m opening O n that basis and pro .
,

c e e din g from m ini m u m to maxim u m apertu re so u nds will fall into ,

seven categories that I shall designate by the nu m bers 0 1 2 3 4 , , , , ,

5 6 O nly within each category shall I di strib u te phone m es into

,
.

different types according to their place of articu lation .

I shall conform to cu rrent term inology even tho u gh it is im

perfect o r incorrect at m any points : words like gu ttu ral palatal , ,

dental liqui d etc are all more o r less illogical A m ore rational
, ,
. .

plan wou ld be to divide the palate into a certain n umber of areas .

Then by focu sing attention o n lin gu al articu lation it wou ld always ,

be possible to specify the m ain point o f contact In devising a .

form u la I shall draw u pon t hi s notion and u se the letters o f the

,

sketch o f the vocal apparatu s (s e e p 4 1 ) the number of the aper .

t u re is placed between a Greek letter (indicating an active organ )

and a Latin letter ( indicating a passive organ ) Thu s BO e m eans .

that com plete closu re is maintain ed while the tip of the tongu e is
placed against the u pper alveolar ridge .

Finall y within each articu lation the different species o f pho

,

—
nemes are m arked by concomitant featu res laryngeal soun d and
—
nasal resonance which differentiate by their absence as well as
by their presence .

The two accom panying featu res and the form u la provide a
simple rational means o f cl assifying phonemes O f cou rse o n e
,
.
,

shou ld not expect t o find here phonem es that have a com plex o r
special character regardless of their practical importance (e g the
,
. .

aspirates p h dh etc ; the aff ricates t s dé pf etc ; palataliz ed con

’

. .
, , , , ,

sonants ; weak vowels like 0 o r m u te e N o r shou ld one expect ,

to find sim ple phonem es that have no practical importance and

that are not considered differentiated so u nds .
 PH O N O L O G I C A L S PE C IE S 45

A Z e ro Ap er t u re : O c clu sives
.

O cclu sives inclu de all phonemes prod u ced by com plete closu re ,

the airtight b u t brief sealing of the oral cavity This is not the place .

to disc u ss whether a sou nd is prod u ced when closu re o r release

occur s ; actu ally it may b e produ ced in either way (see pp 5 1 ff ) . .

The three m ain types of occl u sives are nam ed according to their
places o f artic u lation : labials ( p b m ) ; dentals ( t d n ) ; and
, , , ,

gu ttu rals ( k g n) , ,
.

The first type is art icu lated with the lips ; for the second the tip ,

o f the tongu e is placed against the front of the palate ; for the third ,

the b ack o f the tongu e m akes contact with the back part o f the
palate .

Many langu ages notably the Indo E u ropean m ake a distin o

,
-
,

tion between two gu ttu ral articu lations one palatal ( in the f h ,
-

area ) and the other velar (in the i area ) b u t el sewhere (e g in ,

. .

E nglish ) the difference goes u nnoticed and the ear likens a back
k ( su ch as the sou nd o f c in c a r t ) to a front k ( as in kin g) .

The following table gives the formu las for the variou s occlu sive
p hone m es

LABIA L S DE N TA L S G U TT U RA L S
(n)

fiO e BO e BO e
l N

l l

Nasal m ,
n, and n are really voiced nasali z ed occlu sives ; in pro
no u n c ing a mb a , o n e raises the u v u la to close the nasal fossae in
shifting from m t o b .

In theory each type has a voiceless nasal—a nasal sou nd u n

,

acco m panied by glottal vibration ; thu s voiceless m occ u rs after a

voiceless sou nd in the S candinavian langu ages ; French also has
voiceless nasals b u t speakers do n o t look u pon the m as differential
,

elements .

Nasals are put inside parentheses in the table ; althou gh the

46 C O UR S E I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
mou th is c ompletely closed d u ring their articu lation the opening ,

Of the nasal channel gives them wider apertu re (s e e C lass C ) .

B Ap er t u r e 1 : Frica tives o r S p iran t s

.

The phone m es o f C lass B are characteri z ed by incomplete closu re

which allows the air to pass throu gh the oral cavity The nam e .

spirant is all t o o general ; while the word fricative tells nothi ng

abou t the degree o f closu re it does su ggest friction resu lting from
,

the exp u lsion o f air ( Latin fricare ) .

The phonem es o f C lass B u nlike those o f C lass A do not fall into

, ,

three types First labials proper ( corresponding t o p and b ) are

.
,

rarely u sed ; I shall disregard them ; they are ordinarily replaced by

labiodentals which are produ ced by contact between the lower lip
,

and u pper teeth (f and v) D entals are divided into several va .

r ie t ie s depending o n the shape which the tip o f the tongu e takes

”
,
’
on making contact ; withou t going into detail I shall u se 6 B and , , ,

B to designate the different shapes of the tip o f the tongu e Am ong .

the sou nds that involve the palate the ear generally singles o u t a ,

front articu lation ( palatal ) and a back artic u lation ( velar ) 4

.

DE N TA L S

E n gl is h
P A LA TA LS G U TTU RA L S t h in t hin g
ih in t h en
in s a y s

8 in o s e r
s h in s h o w

g in o u ge r
G r e m an c h in i ch
N or h G r t e m a n g in lie ge n

G r e m an c h in B a ch
N or h G r t e m a n g in Ta ge

F i t hful t h i m t hod S u u r did n o t t h i nk it n c ry t m

4
a o s e , a ss e e e ssa o ak e t he
m di t i c t io
sa e for C l A in pi t f t h im por t n c of t h t w
s n n, a ss s e o e a e e o se ri es

K n d K in P ro t o I n do E u ro p n Th o m i io n i d l ib r t [ Ed ]
,
- -
1 a 2 ea . e ss s e e a e . .
 PH O N O L O G I C A L S PE C IE S 47

Is there a so u nd am ong the fricatives to m atch n m n etc

among the occlu sives—i e a nasal v z etc ? It is easy to i m agine
, , , .

.
. .
, ,

that there is ; for instance a nasal v is heard in French in ve n t e r

‘
,

invent ; b u t in m ost langu ages the nasal fricative is not a dis

’

t i c t ive sou nd
n
5
.

C . A p e rt u re 2 : Na sa ls (s e e above p ,
. 4 6)

D Ap e rt ure 3 : Liqu ids

.

Two kinds of articu lation are classed as li qu ids .

( 1 ) In lateral articu lation ( in dicated by l in the form u las below )

the tongu e rests against the front palate b u t leaves an opening on
b oth sides It is p ossible t o single o u t according to the place o f
.
,
’
articu lation dental l palatal l and gu ttu ral o f velar t In most
, , ,
.

langu ages lateral phonemes are voiced in the same way as b z etc , ,
.

S till a voiceless lateral is not impossible ; it e x ists even in French

, ,

where an t that follows a voiceless phonem e m ay be pronou nced

‘
witho u t the laryngeal so u nd (e g the l o f p lu ie rain against the . .
’

l o f b le u b u t speakers are not conscio u s o f the difference .

There is no point in discu ssing nasal l whi ch is very rare and ,

n o n d iff e re n t ia t in g altho u gh it does occ u r especially after a nasal

, ,

so u nd ( e g the l in French b ra n lan t

. .

( 2) In vibrant artic u lation (indi cated by y in the formu la below)

the tongu e is held farther from the palate than for I b u t a variable ,

nu m ber of contacts between the tongu e and palate m akes the

apertu re for V ibrants e qu ivalent to the apert u re for laterals .

Vibration is prod u ced in two ways : with the tip o f the tong u e
thru st forward against the alveolar ridge ( trilled r ) o r with the ,

back o f the tongu e in contact with the palate ( a dorsal r o r b u rr ) .

What was said abo u t voiced or nasal laterals is also applicable to

V ibrants .

v
’
3 i—h v 3i
’

o
The
5
Fr ch r d m i
en

d n t l a l a n gu e it co n ci n c
a
ea s,

s e
a s en

e .
”
[T ]
gé n é
r .
r al e la fric t iva
’
e n as a l e n e s t p as nu s o n.
48 C O URSE I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
Beyond apertu re 3 we enter into a new field ; from co n so n an t s we
,

pass to vo we ls U p to this point I have not brou ght up the di s

.
,

tinction between the two for a very simple reason : the p h o n a t io n al

m echanism is the sam e for both The form u la for a vowel is c o m .

parable in every way to the form u la for a voiced consonant From .

the viewpoint o f oral articu lation no distinction need be m ade , .

O nly the acou stical e ff ect is different Beyond a certain degree O f .

apertu re the m ou th fu nctions m ainly as a resonator : the tim bre

,

o f the laryngeal sou nd stands o u t and oral noise decreases H o w ,

.

m u ch O f the laryngeal sou nd is cu t o u t depends o n how tightly the

mo u th is closed ; the wider the mo u th is opened the m ore noise ,

lessens ; thu s sou nd predominates in vowels throu gh a p u rely

m echanical process .

E A p er t u re 4: i , u ,
. it

The vowels o f C lass E req

ire mu ch more closu re than the other
—
u

vowels alm ost as mu ch as consonants C ertain conse qu ences that .

will appear later j u stify the nam e sem i vowels whi ch is generally -
,

given to phonem es o f C lass E .

The phoneme i is pronou nced with retracted lips and front

articu lation u with rou nded l ips (O ) and back articu lation and
, ,

a with the lip position o f u and the articu l ation of i .

Like all other vowels i u and a have nasali z ed forms H ere

, , ,
.

we can di sregard them since they are rare It is worth noting .

,

however that the sou nds written in and u n in French are really not
,

nasali z ed i and u ( see below ) .

Is there a voiceless i i e articu lated withou t a laryngeal sou nd ?

,
. .

The sam e qu estion arises for u and it and for all vowels S u ch ,
.

phonem es corresponding to voiceless consonants exist b u t are

, ,

not to be confu sed with whi spered vowels i e vowel s articu lated , . .
,
’
with the glottis relaxed V oiceless vowels are like the aspirated h s
.

that are pronou nced before them : in h i an i with no vibration is ,

first heard then a normal i

,
.

F A p e rt u re
. 5: e, o , o
 PH O N E M E S I N THE S P O KE N C HAI N 49

The articu lation Of the phonem es o f C lass F corresponds exactly

to the articu lation of i u it Nasali z ed vowels occ u r fre qu ently
‘ ‘
.
, ,

( e g French e O 5 as in p in pine p o n t bridge b r un

’ ’
.
, ,
.
, ,

V oiceless forms are the aspirated h o f h e h o h o , ,

.

N B Many langu ages single o u t several degrees o f apertu re

. .

within C lass F ; French fo r instance has at least two series one

‘ ‘
,
‘ , ,

closed ( e 0 {1 as in d é thimble d o s back d e u re two ) and the ’ ’ ’

°

‘ ‘
, , , ,
'
other open ( e g o as in m er se a m o rt death m e u rt re
, , ,
’
,
’

G A p e r t u re 6 : a
p r r T hi vo w l
.

T h e a h as m ax m u m a e t u ei s e

m , (i— s li g t l
.

h a s a n as al z e i d for h y m or n e co

r c d
t a t e , t o b e su e and a r— voic l form e e ss ,

t h e h o f ha .

Chap te r II

PH O N E MES IN T H E S PO KE N C HA I N

1 . Ne ed fo r S tu dying S o u n d s in t h e S p o ke n Cha in
D etailed
analyses of speech sou nds can be fo u nd in special
treatises especially in the works of E ngl ish phoneticians
,
.

D o detailed analyses alone fu l fill the a u x iliary role O f phono l ogy

in the science of lingu istics ? S u ch a m ass of detai l s has no valu e in
itself ; only synthesis m atters The lingu ist does not need to be a
.

consu m m ate phonol ogist ; he asks only to be given certain data

that are necessary for the stu dy o f langu age .

The method of phonology is particu larly fau lty at one point

phonologists too often forget that langu age is m ade u p not only o f
50 C O UR S E I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
sou nds b u t al so of expanses of spoken so u nds ; they still do n o t
d evote enou gh attention to the reciprocal relations o f so u nds .

These relations are not im m ediately discernible ; syll ables are

easier to identify than their sou nds We have seen ( pp 2 5 ff ) that . . .

some primitive systems of wr iting noted syllabic uni ts ; o nl y later

was the alphabetic syste m devised .

Besides it is never a sim ple u nit that proves e m barrassing in

,

lingu istics If at a partic u lar moment every a b ec ame o in a par

.

t icu l ar langu age nothing wou ld resu lt from the change ; the lin
,

gu ist m ay sim ply record the phenom enon witho u t trying to explain
it phonologically The science of so u nds becomes invalu able only
.

when two o r m ore ele m ents are involved in a relationshi p based

u pon their inner dependence for the variations of each element ,

are lim ited by the variations of the other element o r ele m ents ; the
single fact that there are two elem ents calls for a relationship and
a ru le—and this is qu ite d ifferent from a si m ple statem ent In .

trying to find a phonological principle this science is then contra ,

dicting itself by showing partiality to isolated sou nds Two pho .

nemes are enou gh to lead to bewilderm ent In O ld High Germ an .

,

for instance h agl b a lg w agn la ng do n r d o rn later becam e h a ga l

, , , , , , ,

b a lg w a ga n ta n g d o nna r d o rn ; the resu lt differs according to the

, , , ,

natu re and the order Of the phonem es involved ; som etim es a vowel
occu rs between the original consonants so m eti m es the co m bina ,

tion is left intact B u t how can the law be formu lated ? Where did
.

the difl e re n ce originate ? D ou btless in the co m binations of the c o n

sonants (gl lg gn etc ) contained in the words E ach com bination
, , ,
. .

obvi ou sly contains an occlu sive that is either preceded or followed

by a li qu id o r a nasal Bu t what does that prove ? As long as we look
.

u pon g and n as ho m ogeneo u s q u antities we cannot u nderstand ,

why the mere order o f contact in g n and n g shou ld aff ect the - -

resu lts .

Beside the phonology of species there is then room for a c o m ,

p l e t e ly d ifferent science that u ses binary com binations and se

q ue n c e s o f phone m es as a point of depart u re and t hi s is som ething ,

e lse entirely In the stu dy Of isolated sou nds to note the position
.
,

o f the vocal organs is s u ffi cient ; the aco u stical qu ality of a phone m e

is not an issu e fo r it is dete rmi ned by the ear ; as for artic u lation
, ,
52 C O UR S E I N G E N ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
This distinction holds for all other occlu sives and for fricatives
(affa ) nasals (amma ) liqu ids (a lla ) and for all phonemes in general
, ,

inclu ding all vowels except a (a 66a ) .

C losu re has been termed im p l o si o n and release ex p lo si on A p is .

either i m plosive ( p) o r explosive ( p) We m ay speak in the sam e .

sense o f c lo s ing and op en ing so u nds .

D ou btless we can single o u t besides implosion and explosion an , ,

interval d u ring which occlu sion is prolonged at will ; and if a

phonem e has wi der apertu re ( cf the l o f a l la ) the e m ission of the .

so u nd itself continu es while the vocal organs remain motionless .

Generally all spoken chains contain interm e di ate stretches that I

,

shall call ho ld s o r s is t an t s B u t they are like implosive articu lations .

for their e ffect is the sam e I n the following pages I am going to

,

consider only implosions and explosions 6 .

The m ethod I have ou tlined wou ld be u nacceptable in a com

prehensive treatm ent o f phonology b u t it is j u stifiable in a sketch ,

designed to redu ce the essentials o f syllabication to as simple a plan

as p ossible I do not pretend to resolve thereby all the difficu lties
.

bro u ght abou t by dividing the spoken chain into syllables b u t ,

simply to provide a rational basis for stu dying the problem .

O ne fu rther remark O pening and closing m ove m ents necessary .

for the emi ssion o f sou nds m u st not be confu sed with the different
apertu res of the sou nds them selves A ny given phonem e can be .

both im plosive and explosive b u t apertu re does not influ ence ,

implosion and explosion in the sense that the two m ovem ents b e
com e less distinct as apertu re increases In i u it the difference is .
, ,

still qu ite apparent ; in a iia we can detect a closing i and an Openin g

'
i si m ilarly in a uua a ilu
. a the implosive sou nd and the following
, ,

explosive sou nd differ so sharply that writing som etimes breaks it s

regul ar pattern and records the difference ; E nglish w German j , ,

S u u r t r t m t O f ho ld i n f t h m o t d b t b l poin t in hi
3
a ss e s
’
ea en s s o e o e s e a a e s s

t h ory T pr v n t c r t i o b j c t io n ho l d n o t t h t ny i t nt ( e g
rt ic ul t io of f ) i t h r ult f t w forc : ( 1 ) t h pr u r O f i
e . o n
e e e a n e s o e s u e a a s s a . .

th t i th
is t n c O f t h org
a n e a a n s e es o o es e e ss e a r

a g in t t h oppo i n g org n
a s e nd (2 ) t h r s a t h y t i g ht e n
s a e es a e e ans as e

t q u li
o e t h pr a ur ze A ho l d i t hu o nl y co t in u d im pl o ion T h t i w h y
e e ss e s s n e s a s

ho ld nd im pl o iv oun d f
. .

th ff c t i t h
e e e m t hro gho u t w h n v r
s e sa e u e e e a a an s e s o

th m
e sa p ci u t t r d in
e s e q nc A ccordingl y t un i t e t h t w t yp
e s ar e e e se ue e .
, o e o es

o f r t ic l t io
a in u a m ch ic l ndn co t ic l t it y i n t ill o gic l
o ne e an a a a us a en s o a

t h co t r ry i o p po d t
.

E p lo io
x s n, on b o t h b y d fi n i t io n it i
e n a rl
, s se o : e s a e e ase .

S l o S c t io n 6 [ Ed ]
ee a s e . .
 PH O N E M E S I N THE S P O KEN C HAI N 53

and often French y (in ye ux ‘

etc ) stand fo r ope ni ng sou nds
eyes ’
.
,

in Opposition to u and i which are u sed for a and i B u t when the

,
.

apertu re is wider (e g e and o ) it is hardly possible to distingui sh

. .

between i m plosion and exp l osion in practice althou gh a di fference ,

is theoretically conceivable ( cf a cca a OOa ) Finally as we have

.
,
.
,

already seen m axim u m apertu re wipes o u t all difference ; a has

,

neither im plosion nor explosion .

The table o f phonem es m u st therefore be redou bled except for ,

a and the following list of irred u cible u nits s e t u p :

,

p p etc ,
.

f etc .

m m etc ,
.

r r,etc .

i g etc
,
.

e e etc
,
.

a .

Far from discarding the distinctions sanctioned b y spel lin g (a i) , ,

I shal l carefu lly preserve them (w y) ; j u stifi cation for my view,

point will be fou nd below ( see S ection

Fo r the first time we have broken away from abstraction No w .

for the first time we have fou nd the concrete irredu cible u nits that ,

occu py a place and correspond to a beat in the spoken chain : p was

nothi ng except an abstract u nit linking the com m on characters o f
p and p the only u nits that actu ally exist In the sam e way the
,
“
still higher abstraction o f labiality links together P B M We ” .
,

may speak o f P as if it were a z oological species ; there are m ale and

female representatives of the species b u t there is n o ideal specimen ,
.

Before we had been singling o u t and classifying the abstractions ;

,

b u t we had to go beyond the abstract to reach the concrete .

Phonology m ade a great mistake in considering abstractions real

u nits withou t exam ini ng m ore carefu lly the definition o f the u nit .

The Greek alphabet was su ccessfu l in singling o u t the abstract

—
elements an accom plishment that presu pposes a most rem a rk
able analysis ( se e p still the analysis Of the Greeks was in
.
,

com plete for it was not carried o u t fu lly

,
.

Exactly what is an u nqu alified p ? C onsidered in time as part o f

the spoken chain it is neither specifically p nor p and still less pp
, , ,
54 C O UR S E I N G E N ERAL LI NG U I S TI CS
thi s com b ination being clearly decom posable and if we consider it
o u tside the spoken chain it is a thing which has no independent ,

existence and with which we can do nothing By itse l f what does .

,

a co m bination like l g m ean ? T w o abstractions cannot form a

mom ent in time B u t to talk abou t lk lk lk lk and thu s to draw
.
, , , ,

together the genu ine elem ents Of speaking is qu ite diff erent Then .

we s e e why two elem ents su ffice to e m barrass traditional pho

n o l o gy and the impossibility Of working with a b stract phonological
— —
,

u nits as it did is dem ons t rated .

O ne theory states that in any sim ple phonem e considered in the

chain p in p a o r a p a ) implosion and explosion ( apa ) occ u r
,

s u ccessively D ou btless any release m u st be preceded by closu re

. .

To take still another example in pronou ncing rp I m u st first estab ,

lish clos u re for r then artic u late an Opening r while closu re for p is
,

being form ed by the lips B u t I need only specify my viewpoint in

.

order t o answer that obj e ction In analyz ing a ph o n at io n al act I .

,

shall consider only the diff erential elem ents that make a distinct
impression o n the ear allowing delim itation o f the acou stical u nits
,

o f the spoken chain O nly the aco u stic m otor u nits are to be con
.
-

s id e r e d ; hence the artic u lation o f explosive r along with implosive

p is none x istent to me fo r it prod u ces no perceptible sou nd or at

, ,

least is not im portant in the chain o f phonem es O ne m u st a pp re c i .

ate this basic point fu lly in order to u nderstand the develop m ents
that follow .

3 Diffe re n t Co mbin a t ion s

.
f Ex p lo si on s and I mp lo sion s in the Ch ain
o

C onsider now what may resu lt from each sequ ence Of the four
combinations o f im p losives and explosives that are theoretically
possible : ( 1 ) (2 ) ( 3) ( 4)
1 ) Ex p lo s ive Im p lo s ive Com bin a tio n
-
Withou t breaking
the spoken chain we can always j oin explosive and implosive pho
,

nem es : kr pt gm etc ( e g S anskrit krta E nglish pi ty Proto

, , ,
. . .
,

Indo E u ropean ymt o

- *
O f cou rse som e com binations l ike kt , ,

etc have n o practical acou stical effect b u t the fact remains that
.
,

the articu lating o f an opening k leaves the vocal organs in the right
position fo r m aking closu re at any given point The two ph o .

national move m ents do no t interfere with each other .

2 ) Imp lo s ive Ex p lo si ve Com b in a t io n

- Under the sam e con
 PH O N E M E S I N T HE S P OK E N C HAI N 55

i —
d it o s and
n with the sam e reservations—it is always possible to
j oin i m plosive and explosive phone m es : im ki etc (e g Greek , ,
. . .

ha im a E nglish a c t ive
, ,

O f cou rse the su ccessive artic u latory moments d o not follow each
other s o nat u rally as they do in the reverse order of co m bination 1 .

The diff erence between initial i m plosions and explosions is this :

explosion which tends to neu trali z e the vocal organs does not
, ,

engage the following m om ent ; b u t implosion sets u p a definite

position that cannot be the point of departu re for j u st any ex
plosion For that reason one m u st always resort to som e facilitating
.

move m ent to p u t the organs necessary for articu lating the second
phonem e into the right position While exec u ting s in sp for .
,

instance the lips m u st close to prepare for Opening p B u t ex

, .

p e rie n c e shows that the facilitating move m ent has no appreciable

e ff ect It prod u ces only a fu rtive so u nd that in no way interferes
.

with the s u ccession o f the chain .

3 ) Imp lo s ive Lin k Two consecu tive explosions can be pro

d u ce d b u t if the second belongs to a phoneme o f less o r of equ al
,

apertu re the i m pression o f acou stical u nity that resu lts in the
,

opposite case o r in the sequ ences O f combinations 1 and 2 will be

missing : pk can be pronou nced (pka ) b u t these so u nds do not form ,

a chain fo r the P and K species have the sam e apertu re T hi s

,
.

rather u nnatu ral pronu nciation wou ld resu lt from stopping after
the first a of ch a pha 7 O n the contrary pr gives the impression of
-
.
,

continu ity ( o f p rice) ; nor does rg cau se di ffic u lty ( cf French rien
. .

Why ? Becau se at the very instant the first explosion

occ u rs the vocal organs have already assumed the right position
,

for exec u ting the second explosion withou t interfering with the
aco u stical e ffect of the first ; thu s the organs are already in position
fo r the r Of p ric e while p is being pronou nced B u t it is i m possible .

to pronou nce the reverse series r p not becau se this is m echanically ,

i m possible ( we can prepare for p whi le artic u lating Opening r) b u t ,

becau se the m ovem ent O f the r com ing against the sm aller aper ,

t u re of p wou ld be im perceptible Two separate m ovem ents wo u ld

, .

7
To b r co m b in t io n of p l o iv p ho n e m h vi g t h m p rt u re
e su e a s ex s e es a n e sa e a e

are v ry co mm o n i o m l g g ( g i i t i l kt in Gr k ; cf kt in ) ; l
e n s e an ua es e n a ee e o a

y t p ro n o u n c t h y l c k co u t ic al u n it y
. . .

t ho gh t h
u co m b i n t io
e se a n s are e a s o e, e a a s .

( S t h fo ll o w i g o t )
ee e n n e .
56 C O UR S E I N G EN ERA L L I NG UI S TI CS
be req uired to make rp au dible and the emission wo u ld be inter ,

ru p t e d .

continu ou s explosive link may inclu de m ore than two elements

A
provided that each su ccessive apertu re is wider than the prece di ng
o n e ( e g krwa ) A side from a few special cases w hi ch I cannot dis
. . .

c u ss in detail the natu ral limit o f the possible nu mber o f ex

8
,

plosions is the n u mber o f degrees o f apertu re distinguishable in

practice .

4 ) Imp lo s ive Lin k The reverse law governs the im plosive

link : whenever a particu lar phonem e 1 s more Open than the follow
ing one the impre ss ion of Continu ity persists ( e g ir n) ; if thi s
,
. .
,

condition 1 s not m e t —if the foll owing phonem e 1 s m ore open o r has
—
the sam e apertu re pronu nciation is still possi b le b u t the Impres ,

sion of c ontinu i t y is lacking : sr in a srta is basically the sam e as pk

in cha p ka ( see p -
This pheno m enon parallels the o n e a n .

a lyz e d in the explosive link in every way : in n the l by virtu e o f its

’

narrower apertu re exem pts r from explosion ; in a link like rm , ,

m ade u p o f phonemes with di fferent points of artic u lation m does ,

not exem pt r from exploding b u t brings abo u t the sam e resu lt by

covering it s explosion com pletely O therwise as in the reverse .
,

order mt the fu rtive mechanically indispensable explosion breaks

, ,

the spoken chain .

A n i m plosive link like an explosive o n e obviou sly can inclu de , ,

more than two elem ents if each has wider apertu re than the foll ow
ing one ( cf d i st) . .

Leaving aside the breaking o f links we t u rn now to the norm al ,

continu o u s chain—one that m ight be termed physiological—a s rep

3
Thro h d lib r t ov r im p lifi t i n S u r co n id r he r e o nly t h
ug e e a e e -
s ca o ,
a u ss e s e s e

d gr f p rt u r f t h pho m
e ee o a e t t h pl c nd
e p cific n t u r f it
o e ne e , no e a e a s e a e o s

a r t ic ul t io n (w h t h r voic l
a voic d vib r nt or l t r l
e e Co n c lu io n e e ss o r e , a a e a ,
s s

dr w n fro m t h pri cip l of p rt r l o n

a e t pp lic b l w i t ho u t
n c p t io n
e a e u e a e ar e n o a a e ex e

t o ll c t u l c
a a I q n c l ik t r y for in t n c
a a se s . o nly w i t h diffic ul t y n
n a se ue e e a, s a e, ca

th fir t t hr
e s l m t b pro o n c d w i t ho u t b r k i g t h ch in ti y
ee e e en s e n u e ea n e a :
'
a

(u l y p l t li
n e ss th r d m rg a a a wi t h it ) ; b t t h t hr
zes l m t e t yan e es u e ee e e e n s In r

m k a p rf c t p l o iv l i k ( f l o p 63 co n c rn ing m t i r t i w
e a e e ex s e n o . a s . e eu r r e , e c . r a,

on t h co nt r ry o ff r n diffic u l t y Li k l i k p m l
e a t w h r it i d iffic l t
e s o n s e a, e c e e s u

void p ro o ci g t h n l im p l o iv ly ( pml ) ho ul d l o b cit d Th

, ,
. .

to a n un n e as a s e a s a s e e e

plo io n n in t nt n o u t t h t
.
,

a b rr n t c
e a ho w u p p ci ll y i
as e s s es e a n ex s , a s a a e s ac a

t o l r at s b o l t ly n hin dr n c e
e e a [ Ed ]
s u e o a s . .
 PH O N E M E S I N T HE S P O K E N C HAI N 57

resented by French p art icu li ere me n t p a r l i k u l y e r m a s .

The chain 1 s characteri z ed by a su ccession o f gradu ated links cor

responding to a s u ccession o f releases and closu res o f the vocal
organs .

The norm al chain thu s defined m akes possible the following

observations whi ch are of capital im portance .

4 . S ylla bic B o und ary a nd Vo ca lic P e a k

Passing from an implosion to an explosion In a chain of sou nds
m m
a m

p—
f
ro
“ w a n a n.
t h at m arks the syllabic bou ndary ( e g . .

the ih Of p art ic u liere me n t ) The regu lar coincidence of a m echanical

.

principle and a definite aco u stical e ffect assu res the im plosive
explosive combination of a right to existence in phonology Its .

character persists regardless Of the species that com pose it It .

constitu tes a type that contains as many species as there are

possible com binations .

The syllabic bou ndary sometim es occu rs at different points in

the sam e series o f phonem es depending o n the speed of passage ,

from i m plosion ‘
to explosion In a rdra for
. instance ,
neither the
,

di vision ardra n o r the division ardro breaks the chain for both the ,

implosive li nk d i d and the explosive link dr are gradu ated The .

sam e wo u ld apply to ulyé o f p art ic u liére men t (g iv e o r ulyé

Next we notice that in pass ing from silence to ini tial implosion
—e g a r t in a r tis t—o r from explosion to implosion
,

. . e g p a rt . .

—
in p art icu liere me n t the sou nd where the initial implosion occu rs
is distingu ished from neighboring sou nds by its o w n vocalic e ffect .

In no way does the vocalic e ffect depend o n the wider apertu re o f

the sou nd a fo r in prt r produ ces the sam e effect ; it is inherent in
, ,

initial im plosions regardless of their phonological species i e their ,

. .
,

degree of apertu re ; whether the i m plosion com es after a silence or

after an explosionm atters little A sou nd that m akes a vocalic .

im pression is a vo ca lic p ea k .

V ocalic peaks have also been called s o n an t s and all other so u nds ,

in the sam e syllable co n s on a n t s [ con s on a n te s ] V owels and con

-
.

sonants [ con s o nn e s ] designate different species ( see p sonants

.

9
N ot e t h e di ff e r e n c e In t h e s yllab ic at io n o f E n gl i s h p a rt icu la rly [ par t ik
ln lar Ii] [T r . .
58 C OUR SE I N G EN ERA L L I NG U I STI CS
and con sonants on the other hand designate fu nctions within
-
, ,

syllables The du al system o f terminology clears u p the confu sion

.

that has existed for a long time Thu s the I species is the sam e in
‘ ‘ ‘
.

’ ’
French fid e le faithfu l and p ie d foot ; it is a vowel ; 1 0 b u t it is a
sonant in fi déle and a c o n so n an t in pi e d An alysis shows tha t -
.

sonants are always implosive while non sonants m ay be either -

i m plosive ( e g i in E nglish b o i written b o y) o r explosive ( e g g in

. .
, . .

French pye written p ie d) Analysis only confirm s the distinction

,
.

s e t u p between the two classes R egu larly e o a are sonants b u t .

, , , ,

this is m erely a coincidence : havi ng wider apertu re than any of the

other sou nds they are always at the beginning of an i m plosive
,

chain C onversely occlu sives which have m inim u m ap ertu re are

.
, ,
' l
“

always con sonants In practice phonemes o f a p e rt u re s 2 3 and 4

-
.
, ,

( nasals liqu ids and semivowels ) play either role depending o n

, , ,

contigu ou s so u nds and the natu re o f their articu lation .

5 . C it i i m
r f Th eo ri e s of S ylla bica tio n
c s o

The c ar perceives syllabic division in every spoken chain ; it also

perceives a sonant in every syllable O ne can accept both facts and .

still wonder why they sho u ld hold tru e D i fferent explanations .

have been O ff ered .

1 ) N oticing that som e phonem es are more sonorou s than others ,

som e scholars have tried to base syllables on the sonority of pho

nemes B u t how is it that sonoro u s phonem es like i and u do not
.

necessarily form syllables ? Besides where does sonority stop since

fricatives like 8 are syllabic (e g p s t ) ? I f only the relative sonority
,

. .

of sou nds in contact is at stake how can o n e explain su ch c o m

b in a t io n s as w l ( e g Proto I nd o E u ropean w lko s
,
*
. where
.
- -

the least sonoro u s ele m ent is syllabic ?

2 ) E S ievers was the first to show that a so u nd classed as a
.

vowel does not necessarily make a vocalic im pression (e g we s aw . .

above p 5 2 f that y and w are nothi ng except i and u ) ; b u t one

”
. .
, ,

who asks why a sou nd sho u ld have a du al fu nction—o r a d u al a c o u s

“ —
tical e ff ect for fu nction means j u st that is given this reply

”
,

the fu nction o f a given so u nd depends o n whether the so u nd re

“
c e ive s the syllabic accent
This is a viciou s circle I f I am free u nder all circu mstances to
.

1°
Cf E ngli s h fee [fij] and few [fju ] [ Tr ]
. . .
60 C OURSE I N G EN ERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
sities D etermining what is wilfu l and what is physiological is often
.

difficu lt B u t phonation depends on a su ccession o f implosions and

.

explosions and this is basic in syllabication

,
.

6 .
f Imp lo s io n a n d Ex p los io n
L e ngth o

O u r explanation o f syllables in terms of the f u nctio ning o f

explosions and im plosions leads to an important obse rvation that
is sim ply a generali z ation o f a m etrical fact We can separate two .

types of long vowels in Latin and Greek : those long by natu re

(m at e r ) and those long by position (fac t u s ) Why is fac cou nted long .

in fac t u s ? beca u se O f the c t co m bination ? N o for if the com bination ,

alone determined length every syllable beginning with two con ,

sonants wou ld also be long ; b u t t hi s is not tru e ( cf c lien s .

,

The real reason is that explosion and im plosion are basicall y

diff erent with respect to length The first is always s o rapid that .

it cannot be measu red by the ear ; for that reason also it never ,

m akes a vocali c i m pression O nly implosio n is measu rable ; hence .

we feel that we dwe l l longer o n the vowel where implosion begins .

Besides we know that vowels which occ u r before a com bination

,

o f an occlu sive o r fricative and a liqu id are treated in two ways :

the a in p a t ron m ay be either long or short ; the principle is the sam e

in either instance A ctu ally if and tr are pronou nced with equ al
.

ease the first m ethod o f artic u lation allows a to re m ain short ; the
second creates a long syllable The sam e d u al treatm ent of a is not .

possible in a word like fa ctu s ; at can b e prono u nced b u t 62 cannot ,

.

7 . P h onem es f Ap ertu re 4; Dip htho ngs ; Q u e s t ion s

o a b ou t

Tr a n s crip t io n
Finally the phonemes o f apertu re 4 call for some addi tional
,

re m arks We have seen that contrary to what happens with other

.
,

so u nds u sage h as sanctioned a dou ble se t o f graphs (w

,
a u 12 ,

y i i i ) for,
the phonemes o f apert u re 4 ( see p The reas on .

is sim ple : in gro u ps like a iya a u wa the distinction between release ,

and closu re is m ore striking than elsewhere ; i and it m ake a clear

vocalic impression i and i t a consonantal impression Withou t
,
12
.

of p r r 4 m u t n t b co n fu d wit h t h oft p l t l fric t iv

12
Th e i a e tu e s o e se e s a a a a e

(
e . or h G rm n li g n ) a p honologic l p ci t h t h ll t h
g t h e g in N t
. e a e e ,
a s e es a as a e

ch r c ri ic co n o n nt [ S ]
a a te st s of a s a . .
 P H O NE M E S I N THE S P O KE N C HAI N 61

pretendin g to explain the fact I wish to point o u t that consonantal ,

i is never accom panied by closu re : the i in a i never has the sam e

eff ect as the y in a iya ( cf E ngli sh b o y and French p ied ) ; thro u gh
.

p osition then
, y is a consonant
,
and i a vowel fo r these variations ,

of the I species do not occ u r indiff erently The same rem arks apply .

to u and w a and w ,
.

The preceding discu ssion clarifies the qu estion of the di phthong .

It is only a special kind o f implosive link ; arm and auta are a b s o

lut e ly parallel ; only the apert u re o f the se cond element is diff erent .

A diphthong is an i m plosive link in which the second phone m e is

relatively Open m aking a specific acou stical impression We m ight
,
.

s a y that the sonant continu es in the second e l e m ent o f the com

bination C onversely a combination like lya is distingu ished fro m

.
,

a co m bination like lra only by the degree o f apert ur e of the last

explosive T hi s m eans that what phono l ogists cal l ascending dip h
.

thongs are not really di phthongs b u t expl osive i m plosive co m bina -

tions in which the fir st el ement does not produ ce a specific a c o u s

tical eff ect even thou gh it is relatively open ( iga) C o m binations .

like 120 ia with the accent o n a and i (e g b u o b lia b in certain

, ,
. .
,

Germ an dialects ) are also false diphthongs that fail to make the
,

impression o f u nity prod u ced by on at etc ; we cannot prono u nce , ,

.

126 as im plosive implosive and avoid break ing the link w ith
o u t cal ling in some device to i m pose an artificial u nity on the

co m bination
O u r definition of the diphthong—which relates it to the general
.

—
principle o f implosive links shows that it is not as o n e m ight ,

think an incongru ou s so m ething n o t to be classed a m ong phono

,

logical pheno m ena ; there is no need for p u tting it into a special

category The u niqu eness of the diphthong is really of no interest
.

o r importance ; the important thin g is to determine not the end of ,

the sonant b u t its beginning

, .

E S ievers and m any other lingu ists m ake a distinction in writing

.

between i u it r n etc and i u it r n etc (i

, , , , ,
. u n s il b is che s i
, , , , ,
.
,

i s i lbi s c he s i ) ; they write m ir t a mair t a mia r t a w hi le I write , ,

mir ta m a ir t a m yar t a H aving noticed that i and y belong to the

, ,
.

same phonological species they wanted especially to have a single ,

generic sign for both ( still cling ing to the notion that a chain of
so u nd is co m posed of species in j u xtaposition ) Their transcription .
,
62 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
thou gh based on oral evidence is illogical and el iminates the very ,

distinction that sho u ld be made : ( 1 ) opening i u y w ) are c o n , ,

fu sed with closing i u (e g they cannot distingu ish between n e wo

,
. .

and n e u o ) ; conversely closing i u are sliced in two ( of mir ta and

, ,
.

mair t a ) Here are so m e exa m ples of diffic u lties that resu lt fro m
.

u sing S iever s syste m First O ld Greek dw i s and du i s against r h ew o

’ ’

.
,

and rhe um a The two oppositions occ u r u nder exactly the sam e
.

phonological conditions and are u su ally indicated by the same

grap hi c sym bols The u is either opening (w) o r closing (u ) depend
.

ing u pon whether the following phone m e is m ore Open o r m ore

closed B u t the transcription duis du is r he no rh e um a wipes o u t
co m pletely these oppositions S i m ilarly in Proto Indo —
.
, , ,

Eu ropean .
,
-

the two series m ate r m atra i m at e re s m atrs u and s un e u s u ne w a i

, , , , ,

s une w e s s un u su are strictly parallel in their d u al treat m ent o f both

,

r and u In the second series at least the opposition between im p l o

.
,

s ive s and explosives is crystal clear in writing B u t the transcription .

'
that I have critici z ed (s un e y s un e ua i s un e ue s s unu s u ) obscu res , , ,

the opposition E xisting distinctions between opening and closing

.

sou nds (u w etc ) sho u ld not only be preserved b u t extended to

, ,
.

cover the whole syste m Thu s we shou ld write mate r m at pa i .

, ,

m at e pe s mat rs u ; then the fu nctioning o f syllabication wou ld stand

,

o u t ; vocalic peaks and syllabic bo u ndaries wou ld be revealed .

Edi t o r s No t e The theories discu ssed above throw light o n

’
.

several problems some of which S au ssu re tou ched u pon in his

,

lectu res We shall give a few exam ples

. .

1 ) S ievers cites b eri t nn nn ( Germ an b e rit te n en ) as a typical

exam ple to show that a single sou nd m ay alternately fu nction twice
as a sonant and twice as a n o n sonant ( actu all y n fu nctions only -

once as a con sonant and the word shou ld be transcribed b e ri tnn n

-

” ”
, ,

b u t that m atters little ) No exa m ple wou ld show more clearly that
.

“
so u nd and species are not synonymo u s For if we dwell on the .

n i e im plosion and s is t an t artic u lation the resu lt is only a long

,
. .
,
’
syllab l e To create an alternation of sonantic and con sonantic n s
.
-
,

we wo u ld have to pass from i m plosion ( first n ) to explosion ( second

n ) and back to i m plosion ( third n ) S ince the two i m plosions are .

preceded by no other im plosion both are sonantic

‘ ‘
.
,
’
2 ) In French words like me u r tr ie r m u rderer o u vrie r worker
’
, ,
 PH O NE M ES I N THE S P O KEN C HAI N 63

etc .
,
—
final t i
r er, —i
vr e r formed onl y one syllable regardless o f how

they were actu all y pronou nced ( of p 5 6 note ) Later speakers . .

,
.
,

began to pronou nce them in t w o syllables (m e u r t ri e r with o r - -

,

withou t hiatu s i e —
‘
,
lrié or lt iyé) The change was bro u ght abou t
. . .
,
“
not by placing a syllabic accent o n the i element b u t by chang ,

ing its explosive articu lation to implosive .

f
The vu lgar pronu nciation o o u vrie is o u vérie r This change is
r
13

similar to the divi di ng of —

.

vr ie r into t w o syllables b u t here the ,

second elem ent (r ) rather than the third changed its articu lation
'
and be cam e a sonant : u vryé u vry e An e s u bsequ ently developed .

in front of sonantic r .

3 ) We m ight also cite the well known case o f prosthetic vowels -

in front of 3 followed by a consonant in French : Latin s c ut um

is cutu m
‘
French es cu é cu s hi eld H ere s k is a broken link
,
.
’

(se e p . sh is m ore nat u ral B u t im plosive 3 serves as a vocalic

.

peak when at the beginning of the sentence or when the preceding

word ends in a consonant with weak apert u re Prosthetic i and e .

only exaggerate the sonantic qu al ity o f 8: any perceptible phono

logical characteristic tends to become m ore pronou nced whenever
speakers try to preserve it The sam e phenom enon is responsible
‘
.

for e s clan dre scandal and the vu lgar pron u nciations e s qu e le tt e

’

‘ ‘
,

e s t a t u e ( S tandard French s qu e le t t e skeleton

’ ’
s t a t u e stat u e ) it also
‘
,
’
shows u p in the vu lgar pron u nciation o f the preposition d e O f
‘
,
’ ’
transcribed e d : u n o eil e d t a nch e a tench s eye Throu gh syn cope .

d e ta n ch e becam e d t an c h e ; b u t to be perceptible in this position

’

d mu st be irn p l o s ive (dla nc he) ; the resu lt w as again the develop

ment o f a prosthetic v e l .

4 ) It is scarcely necessary to com e back to Indo E u ropean s o -

nants and to ask for example why O ld H igh German ha gl changed

, ,

to h a ga l whi le b a lg remained intact Here the l the second ele m ent .

,

o f an i m plosive link ( b alg) fu nctioned as a con sonant and had no

,
-

reas on to change it s fu nction B u t the l o f ha gl also im plosive w as

.
, ,

a vocalic peak Being sonantic it developed a m ore Open prosthetic

.
,

vowel ( an a if we accept spelling as evidence ) The vowel becam e .

less di stinct with the passage o f time however and today H age l is , ,

13
Cf Engl is h b u rgl r
. a .
[ Tr ] .
64 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I STI CS
again prono unced hagl The qu ality Of the l is responsi b le fo r the
.

di fference between the pron u nciation o f the Germ an word and

‘
French a igle eagle : H age l has a closing I while the French word
’

h as an Ope ning I followed by a m u te e

 PA R T O N E

Gen er a l P r i n ci p l e s

Ch ap t er I

N ATURE O F T HE L I N GU I ST I C S I G N

1 . S ign , S ign ifie d , S ign ifi e r

S when red u ced to its elem ents as
om e people regard langu age , ,

a nam ing process only—a list o f words each corresp ondin g to the
-
,

thing that it nam es For exam ple :

This conception is Open to criticism at several points I t assu mes
.

that ready m ade ideas exist before words ( on thi s po int see below
-
, ,

p 11. it does not tell u s whether a nam e is vocal or psychological

in natu re (ar b o r for instance can be considered from either view
, ,

point ) ; finally it lets u s assume that the linking o f a nam e and a

,

m —
thing is a very si ple Operation an assu mption that is anyt hing
b u t tru e B u t this rather naive approach can bring u s near the
.

tru th by showing u s that the lingu istic u nit is a do u ble entity one ,

form ed by the associating o f two term s .

A RB O R

EQ UO S

We have seen in considering the speaking circ u it ( p 1 1 ) that - .

b oth term s involved in the lingu istic sign are psychological and are
65
66 C O U R S E I N G ENERAL L I NG U I S TI CS
u nite d in the b rain b y an associative bond This point m ust be .

e mphasi z ed
” The ling istic sign u nites no t a thing and a na m e b u t a concept
.

1
u , ,

and a sou nd image 1 The latter is not the m aterial sou nd a p u rely
-
.
,

ph ysical thing b u t the psychological im print o f the sou nd the

”
, ,

impression that it makes on o u r senses The so u nd image is sensory -

and if I happen to call it material it is only in that sense and by

.
,
“
, ,

way o f opposing it to the other term of t h e association the concept , ,

which is generally more abstract .

The psychological character o f o u r sou nd im ages becomes ap -

p arent when we Observe o u r own speech Withou t m oving o u r lips .

o r tongu e we can talk to o u rselves or recite m entally a selection o f

”
,

verse Becau se we regard the words o f o u r langu age as sou nd

.

“
im ages we m u st avoid speaking O f the phone m es that m ake u p
,

the words This term which s u ggests vocal activity is applicable

.
, ,

to the spoken word only to the reali z ation of the inner im age in ,

disco u rse We can avoid that m is u nderstanding by speaking o f the

.

s o u n d s and s yl la ble s o f a word provided we re m e m ber that the

names refer to the sou nd i m age -

.

The lingu istic sign is then a two sided psychological entity that -

can be represented b y the drawing :

The two eleme nts are inti m ately u nited and each recal ls the

”
,

other Whether we try to find the m eaning o f the Latin word a r b o r

.

“
o r t h e word that Latin u ses to designate t h e concept tree it is ,

1
Th e t e m ou n d im g m y m t b t r t ric t d in m u c h b id
r s - a e a se e o e oo es e as as es e
t h r pr
e e t t io n f t h
e se n a oun d of w ord t h r is l o t h t f it rt ic ul t io n
o e s s a e e a s a o s a a ,

t h m c ul r m g
e us a f t h ph n t i n l
1 a t B t for F d S
e o r l g g
e o a o a ac u e au s s u e an ua e 18

p t ory
. .

e s sen t i ll y d o i t hi g r c iv d fro m w i t ho t ( p Th o und

a
c ll n c t h e n t u r l r pr t t io O f t h w ord
a e s , a n e e e u se e . e s

im ag e p is ar e x e e e f c t of a a e e se n a n e as a a

p ot e nt i l l gu g o ut id ny c t u l f it in p k i g Th m ot or id
a an a e, s e a a a u se o s ea n e s e 18
t hu im p l i d or in n y v n t occ u p i o nly ub ordin t ro l w it h r p c t
.

s e , a e e es a s a e e es e
,

to th o und im ge [ Ed ]
e s -
a . .
 8 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG UIS TI CS
tha t it cou ld be represented e qu ally by j u st any other sequence is
proved by diff erences among lan guages and by the very existence
o f d i ff erent langu ages : the si gnified
“
ox
”
has as its signi fier b o f - -

o n o n e side of the border and o k s ( O c hs ) o n the other

- -
.

NO o ne dispu tes the principle o f the arbitrary natu re o f the sign ,

b u t it is often easier to discover a tru th than to assign to it it s

proper place Principle I dom inates all the linguistics o f langu age ;
.

its c onsequ ences are num berless It is tru e that not all of the m are
.

equ ally obviou s at fir st gla nce ; only after many detou rs does one
discover them and with them the prim ordi al importance o f the
,

principle .

O ne remark in passing : when semiology becom es o rgam z e d as

a science the qu estion will arise whether o r not it properly in clu des
,

modes of expression based o n com pletely natu ral signs su ch as ,

pantomime S u pposin g that the new science welcomes them it s

.
,

m ain concern will still be the whole grou p o f syste m s groun ded o n
the arbitrariness of the sign In fa ct every means o f expression u sed
—
.
,

in society is based in principle o n collective behavior o r what

amo u nts to the sam e t hi ng—
, ,

o n convention Polite form u las for .

,

instance thou gh Often im bu ed with a certain natu ral expressive

,

ness ( a s in the case o f a C hinese who greets hi s emperor by bowing

down to the grou nd nine times ) are nonetheless fixed by r u le ; it is
,

this ru le and not the intrinsic valu e o f the gestu res that obli ges one

the m ost c o mplex and un iver sal

‘ '

the most characteristic ; in thi s sense lingu istics can becom e the
m aster pattern fo r all branches of semiology althou gh langu age is
-

only o ne particu lar se m iological system

word s ymb o l h a s been u sed to designate the lingu i stic sign ,

o r m ore specifically what 1 s here called the signifier Principle I m

,
.

partic u lar weighs against the u se Of this term O ne characteristic .

o f t h e symbol is that it is never wholly arbitrary ; it is not empty ,

for there is the ru dim ent o f a natu ral bond between the signifier
and the signifi ed The symbol o f j u stice a pair o f scales cou ld not
.
, ,

be replaced by j u st any other symbol su ch as a chariot ,

.

The word a rb it ra ry also calls for com m ent The term shou ld not .
 N AT URE OF THE LI N GUISTIC S I GN 69

im p ly that the choice o f the signifi er is left entirely to the speaker

( we shall se e below that the individu al does not have the power to
change a sign in any way once it has become established in the
lin gu istic comm u ni ty ) I mean that it is u nm otivated i e arbitrary ,
. .

in that it actu ally has no natu ral connection with the signifi ed .

In conclu di ng let u s consider t w o obj ections th at m ight be raised

to the estab l ishment o f Principle I
1 ) O n o ma to p o eia might be u sed to prove that the choice o f the
si gnifi er is not always arbi t ra ry B u t onomatopoeic formations ar e
-

never organic elem ents of a lingu istic syste m Besides their number .
,

is m u ch sm aller than is gener ally s u pposed Words like French

‘ ‘
.

fo u e t whip o r gla s knell m ay strike certain ears with su ggestive

’ ’

sonority b u t to se e that they have not always had this property

,

we need onl y examine their Latin form s (fo u e t is derived from fagu s
‘ -
’ ‘
beech tree gla s from c la s s ic u m so u nd o f a The qu a l ity
,

Of their present sou nds o r rather the q u ality that is attrib u ted to
,

them is a fortu itou s resu lt o f phonetic evolu tion

,
.

As for au thentic onom atopoeic words ( e g glu g glu g tic k t o ck . .

-
,
-
,

not only are they limited in nu m ber b u t also they are chosen ,

somewhat arbitrarily for they are only approximate and more o r

,

less conventional im itations Of certain so u nds ( cf E nglish b ow b o w .

-

and French o u ao u a ) In addition once these words have been intro

.
,

d u ce d into the langu age they are to a certain extent s u bj ected to

,

the same evolu tion— phonetic m orphological e t c z—that other , ,

words u ndergo ( cf p ige o n u lti m ately from Vu lgar Latin p i pio

.
, ,

derived in tu rn from an onom atopoeic form ation ) : Obviou s proof

that they lose som et hing o f their original character in order to
assu me that o f the lingu istic sign in general which is u nm otivated ,
.

2 ) In t erj e c t io n s closely related to onomatopoeia can be at

, ,

tacked o n the sam e grou nds and com e no closer to refu ting o u r
thesis O ne is te m pted to se e in them spontaneo u s expressions O f
.

reality dictated s o to speak by nat u ral forces B u t for most inter

, ,
.

je ct io ns we can show that there is no fixed bond between the ir sig

n ifi e d and their signi fier We need only compare two langu ages on
.

this point to s e e h o w m u ch su ch expressions differ from o n e lan

gu age to the next (e g the E ngli sh e qu ivalent o f French a t e ! is
. .

o u ch l ) We know m oreover that many interj ections were once

.
, ,
70 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
words with specific m eanings ( of French dia ble ! mordieu !
‘
darn ! ’

‘ ‘
.

’
golly ! from m o rt D ie u God s death etc
’ ’
,

O nom atopoeic form ations and interj ections are of secondary

i m portance and their symbolic origin is in part Open to dispu te
, .

3 . P rin cip le II : Th e L in ear Na t u re

f th e S ign ifi e r o

The signifier being au ditory is u nfolded solely in time from

, ,

which it gets the followin g characteristics : ( a ) it represents a span ,

and ( b ) the span is m easu rable in a single dimension ; it is a line .

While Principle II is obviou s apparently l in guists have always ,

neglected to state it dou btless becau se they fo u nd it too simple ;

,

nevertheless it is fu ndam ental and its conse qu ences are incal

, ,

c u l ab l e Its importance e qu als that o f Principle I ; the whole

.

mechanism of lan guage depends u pon it ( see p 1 22 f In contrast .

to visu al s ign ifi e rs (nau tical signals etc ) which can O ffer s imu l ,
.

t a n e o u s gro u pings in several dim ensions a u ditory s ignifi e r s have ,

at their command only the dim ension o f time Their ele m ents are .

presented in su ccession ; they form a chain Thi s featu re becom es .

readily apparent when they are represented in writing and the

spatial line o f graphic m arks is s u bstitu ted for su ccession in tim e .

S om etim es the linear natu re o f the signifier is not Obviou s When .

I accent a syllable for instance it see m s that I am concentrating

, ,

more than one significant elem ent o n the sam e point B u t this is an .

illu sion ; the syllable and its accent constitu te only one ph o n at io n al
act There is no d u ality within the act b u t only d iff erent o p
.

positions to what precedes and what follows ( o n this s u bj ect s e e ,

p .

2
Cf Engli
. sh go o dness! an d z o u n ds ! ( fro m Go d
’
s wo u nds ) .
[ Tr ]
.
 Chap te r II

I MMUTAB I LI TY AND MUTAB I L I TY O F T HE S I GN

1 . Immu ta b ili ty
The signifier thou gh to all appearances freely chosen with re
,

spect to the idea that it represents is fixed not free with respect , , ,

to the lingu istic comm u nity that u ses it The m asses have no voice .

in the m atter and the sign ifier chosen by lan gu age cou ld be r e

”
,

placed by no other This fact which see m s to em body a c o n t ra d ic

”
.
,
“
tion m ight be called collo qu ially the stacked deck We say to

”
.
,
“
langu age : C hoose ! b u t we add : It m u st be thi s sign and no
other No individu al even if he willed it cou ld modify in any
.
, ,

way at all the choice that has been m ade ; and what is m ore the ,

com m u nity itse l f cannot control s o m u ch as a single word ; it is

bo u nd to the existing langu age .

NO longer can langu age be identified with a contract p u re and

simple and it is precisely from this viewpoint that the lingu istic
,

sign is a partic u larly interesting obj ect o f stu dy ; for lan gu age
fu rnishes the best proof that a law accepte d by a commu ni ty is a
thing that is tolerated and not a ru le to which all freely consent .

Let u s first see why w e cannot control the lingu istic sign and then
draw together the i m portant conse qu ences that issu e fro m the
phenom enon .

No matter what period we choose o r how far back we go lan ,

gu age always appears a s a he ritage o f the preceding period We .

m ight conceive of an act by w hi ch at a given mom ent nam es were

, ,

assigned to th ings and a contract was form ed between concepts

and sou nd im ages ; b u t su ch an act has never been recorded The
- .

not ion that thi ngs mi ght have happened li ke that was pro m pted
b y o ur aW e s s n L t h e fi b It m y M O f the sign

m
. a

NO society in fact knows or h as ever known la

, ,
mer than
as a prod u ct inherited from preceding generations and o n e to b e ,

accepted as su ch ~That is why the qu estion o f the origin of speech

.
72 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
is not s o important as it is generally assu m ed to be The q u es .

is not even worth asking ; the only real obj e ct of lingu istics 1 8
norm al regu lar life__Q fmn e x is t mg i d iqg iA
,

state is always the prod u ct o f historical forces and these forces ,

explain why the sign is u nchangeable i e why it resists any ,

. .

arbitrary su bstitu tion .

N othing is explained by saying that langu age is som ething

inherited an d leaving it at that C a n not existing and inherited
.

laws be m odified fro m o n e m om ent to the next ?

To m eet that obj e ction we mu st p u t langu age into it s social
,

setting and frame the qu estion j u st as we wo u ld fo r any other

social institu tion H o w are other social institu tions transm itted ?
.

T hi s m ore general qu estion inclu des the qu estion of immu tabili ty .

We m u st first determine the greater o r lesser amou nts o f freedom

that the other institu tions enj oy ; in each instance it will be seen
that a diff erent proportion exists between fixed tradition and the
free action Of society The next step is to di scover why in a given
.

category the forces of the first type carry more weight or less
,

weight than those of the second Fina l ly comin g back to langu age
.
, ,

we m u st as k why the h istorical factor of transmission domi nates it

entirely and prohi bits any su dden widespread change .

There are m any possible answers to the qu estion Fo r example .

,

o n e m ight point to the fact that su cceed ing generations are not

su perim posed o n one another like the drawers o f a piece o f fu rni

tu re b u t fu se and interpenetrate each generation e m bracing ih
, ,

—
d ivid u al s o f all ages with the resu lt that m odifications o f langu age
are not tied to the su ccession o f generations O ne might also recall .

the s u m of the efforts re qu ired fo r learni ng the m other langu age

and conclu de that a general change wou ld be impossible A gain .
,

it m ight be added that reflection does not enter into the active u se
of an id io m s p e a k e rs are largely u nconsciou s of the laws o f lan
k

gu age ; and if they are u naware o f them how cou ld they modify ,

them ? E ven if they were aware o f these laws we may be su re that ,

their awareness wo u ld seldom lead to criticism fo r people are ,

generally satisfied with the langu age they have received .

The foregoing considerations are important b u t not topical The .

fol lowing are more basic and dir ect and all the others depend o n
,

the m .
 I MM U TABI L IT Y AND M U TABI L IT Y OF THE S I GN
1 ) Th e f th e si gn A b ove we had to accept the
a r b i t r a ry n a t u r e o .
,

theoretical possibility of change ; fu rther reflection s u ggests that

the arbitrary natu re of the sign is really what protects langu age
from any atte m pt to m o di fy it E ven if people were more consciou s
.

o f langu age than they are they wo u ld still not know how to di sc u ss
,

it The reason is sim ply that any su bj ect in order to be discu ssed
.

mu st have a reasonable basis It is possible for instance to discu ss

.
, ,

whether the m onogam ou s form

relationship with the thing signified ( se e p .

I b u t langu age is a syste m of arbitrary signs and lacks the necessary

basis the solid gro u nd for discu ssion There is no reason fo r
,
.

2 ) Th e m u l t ip licit y f s ign s n ec e s sary t o fo rm a n y l anguage

o .

Another important deterrent to lingu istic change is the great n u m

ber o f signs that m u st go into the m a k ing of any langu age A .

system o f writing comprising twenty to forty letters can in case

o f need be replaced by another syste m The sam e wo u ld be tr u e .

o f langu age if it contained a l imited n u m ber of ele m ents ; b u t

lingu istic signs are n u m berless .

3 ) The o ve r co mp le x ity of t h e s ys te m
-
A langu age constit u tes a
.

system In thi s o ne respect ( as we shall see later ) l angu age is n o t

.

co m pletely arbitrary b u t is ru led to some extent by logic ; it is

here al so however that the inabil ity of the masses to transfor m
, ,

it beco m es apparent The syste m is a complex mechanism that can

.

be grasped onl y thro ugh reflection ; the very ones who u s e it daily
are ignorant of it We can conceive o f a change onl y thr o u gh the
.

intervention o f specialists gra m marians lo gicians etc ; b u t ex

, , ,
.

p e rie n c e shows u s that all su ch medd l ings have fai l ed .

4 ) Co lle c tive ine r tia to w a rd inno va tio n —

Langu age and thi s con.

—
sideration s u rpasses all the others is at every mo m ent every
’
body s concern ; spread throu ghou t society and m anip u l ated by it ,

langu age is som eth ing u sed daily by all H ere we are u nable to set .

u p any co m parison between it and other institu tions The pre .

s c rip t io n s o f codes re l igio u s rites nau tical signals etc

, ,
involve ,
.
,

only a certain nu mber o f individ u als sim u ltaneou sly and then only
74 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N G UIST ICS

d u ring a limited period of tim e ; in langu age on the contrary every , ,

o n e participates a t all ti m es and that is why it is constantly being

,

influ enced by all This capital fact su ffices to show the im possibility
.

o f revol u tion O f all social institu tions langu age is least amenable
.
,

to initiative I t blends with the life o f society and the latter inert
.
, ,

by natu re is a prim e conservative force

,
.

B u t to s ay that lang uage is a produ ct of social forces does not

s u ffice to show clearly that it is u nfree ; rem em bering that it is
always the heritage o f the preceding period we m u st add that these ,

social forces are linked with tim e Langu age is checked n o t only by
.

the weight o f the collectivity b u t also by time These two are in .

separable At every mom ent solidarity with the past checks free
.

d o m o f choice We s ay m a n and d o g This does not prevent the

. .

existence in the total phenomenon of a bond between the two

—
antithetical forces arbitrary convention by virtu e o f which choice
is free and tim e which cau ses choice to be fixed Becau se the sign .

is arbitrary it follows no law other than t hat o f tradition and

, ,

becau se it is based o n tradition it is arbitrary ,

.

2 . Mu t a b i li t y
Time which insu res the continu ity o f langu age wields another
, ,

influ ence apparent ly contradictory to the first : the m ore or less

rapid change o f lingu istic signs In a certain sense therefore we
.
, ,

can speak of both the i mm u tability and the m u tability o f the sign 3
.

In the last analysis the two facts are interdependent : the sign
,
f
is e x p o s e d to alteration becau se it perpetu ates itself What pre .

dom inates in all change is the persistence Of the old s u bstance ;

disregard fo r the past is only relative That is why the principle .

of change is based o n the principle o f continu ity .

C hange in time takes m any form s o n any one o f which an im ,

portant chapter in lingu istics m ight be written Withou t entering .

into detail let u s see what things need to be delineated

,
.

First let there be no mistake abo u t the meaning that we attach

,

to the word change O ne m ight think that it deals especially with

.

o d
It w u l b e w n g t o e
3
ro r p ro ch F S r bi
d e au s s u e fo r e n g ll g a l o r a a i o ic p r
B y o ppo i
a .

ri i
d o x ic al in a t t b u t n g t w o co r dic ory
nt a t q ii
u a l t e s t o l a n gu a g e s ng .

ri i r
t w o s t k n g t e m s , h e w an t e nldo y
t o em ph i f c h
a s z e t h e a t t at l a n gu a ge a n ge s ch
in s t e pi oft h e n ab l t i iiy p r
o f s e ak e s t o ch a n g e it O n e c a n al s s ay t a t it is
. o h
i ch
int a n g b l e b u t n o t u n an ge ab l e [ Ed ] . .
 6 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
body Lang u age is lim ited by nothing in the choice o f means fo r
.
,

apparently nothing wo u ld prevent the associating Of any idea

whatsoever with j u st any se qu ence of sou nds .

T o e m phasi z e the fact that lan guage is a gen u ine instit u tion ,

Whitney qu ite j u stly insisted u pon the arbitrary natu re o f signs ;

and by s o doing he placed lingu istics on its tru e axis B u t he did
,
.

not follow throu gh and s e e that the arbitrariness o f langu age radi
cal ly separates it fro m all other institu tions This is apparent from .

the way in _whi ch langu age evolves N ot h ing cou ld be more com
.

l x fl fi it is a prod u ct of both the social for

pe
c a n change anything in it and o n the other ha
,

o f its signs theoretically entails the freedom

any re l ationshi p between phonetic su bstance and id e as/ )T h e resu lt .

i s t h at e a ch o f the t w o element s; u nited in t hF Sign ih aint ain s its

‘

o w n life to a degree u nknown elsewhere and that langu age ,

changes o r rather evolves u nder the influ ence o f all the forces
, ,
'

w hi ch can affe c t either s o u n ds n m eanings : T Hé Cv

j
i ol iIti o n is ~irr~
~

evi table ; there is no example o f a single langu age that resists it .

After a certain period o f t ime some obvio u s shifts can always be

,

recorded .

M u tability is s o inescapable that it even holds tru e for artificial

langu ages Whoever creates a langu age controls it only s o long as
.

it is not in circ u lation ; from the moment when it fu lfills its m ission
and becom es the property o f everyone control is lost Take Es ,
.

p e ra n t o as an exam ple ; if it s u cceeds will it escape the inexorable

,

law ? O nce lau nched it is qu ite l ikely that E speranto will enter
,

u pon a fu lly se m iological life ; it will be transm itted according to

laws which have nothi ng in co m mon with those o f its logical cre
ation and there will be no tu rning backwards A m a n proposing
,
.

a fixed langu age that posterity wo u ld have to accept for what it is

wou ld b e like a hen hatching a du ck s egg : the langu age created ’

by him wou ld be borne along willy n illy by the cu rrent that

,
-
,

engu lfs all languages .

S igns are governed by a principle o f general semiology : con

t inu it y in tim e is co u pled to change in time ; this is confirmed by
orthographic systems the speech o f deaf m u tes etc - .

B u t what su pports the necessity for change ? I might be r e

, ,

p r o ac h e d fo r not having been as explicit o n this point as o n the

principle o f im m u tability T hi s is becau se I failed to distingu ish
.
 I MM U TABI L ITY AND M U TABI L IT Y O F THE S I GN 77

between the different forces of change We m u st consider their

.

great variety in order to u nderstand the extent to which they are

necessary .

The cau ses o f continu ity are a p rio ri withi n the scope o f the
Observer b u t the cau ses o f change in tim e are not It is better n o t
,
.

to attempt giving an exact accou nt at this point b u t to restrict,

discu ssion to the shifting o f relationships in general T ime changes .

all things ; there is no reason why langu age shou ld escape this
u niversal law .

Let u s review the main points o f o ur disc u ssion and relate them
to the principles s e t u p in the Introdu ction .

1 ) A voiding sterile word definitions within the total p h e n o m e

,

non represented by speech we first singled o u t two parts : langu age

an d speakin g Lan gu age is speech less speaki ng It is the whole s e t
. .

o f lingu istic habits which allow an indi vi d u al t o u nderstand and

t o be u nderstood .

2 ) B u t this definition still leaves langu age o u tside its social con
text ; it makes langu age som ething artifi cial since it inclu des only
the individu al part of reality ; fo r the reali z ation of langu age a ,

com m u nity o f speakers [ m a ss e p a rlan t e ] is necessary C ontrary to

.

all appearances langu age never exists apart from the social fact
, ,

fo r it is a se m iological phenom enon Its social nat u re is o ne of its

.

inner characteristics It s com plete definition confronts u s with two

.

insepara b le entities as shown in this drawing :

,

B ut u nder the conditions described langu age is not living

—it
has only potential life ; we have considered only the social , not the
historical fact
, .
78 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
3) The lingu istic sign is arbitrary ; langu age as defined wo u ld , ,

therefore seem to be a system which becau se it depends sol ely o n a

,

rational principle is free and can be organi z ed at will Its social

,
.

natu re considered independently does not definitely ru le o u t thi s

, ,

viewpoint D o u btless it is no t on a p u rel y logical basis that gro u p

.

psychology Operates ; o n e m u st consider everything that deflects

reason in actu al contacts between individ u als B u t the t hi ng which .

keeps langu age from being a sim ple convention that can be modi
fi e d at the whim o f interested parties is not it s social nat u re ; it is
rather the action of tim e co m bined with the social force I f t im e .

is left o u t the lingu istic facts are incom plete and no conclu sion
,

is possible .

If we considered langu age in time withou t the comm u ni ty of

,

—
—
speakers im agine an isolated individu al living fo r several cen
t u rie s w e probably wou ld notice no change ; ti m e wo u ld not
influ ence langu age C onversely if we considered the comm u nity
S
.
,

o f peakers witho u t considering tim e we wou ld not s e e the e ff ect

,

o f the social forces that influ ence langu age To represent the actu al.

facts we m u st then add to o u r first drawing a sign to indicate

,

passage o f time

Co mmu ni t y

s pe a ke rs

L angu age
is no longer free for tim e will allow the social forces
,

at work on it to carry o u t their e ff ects This brings u s back to the

.

principle of continu ity which cancels freedom B u t continu ity

,
.

necessarily implies chang e varying degrees o f shifts in the relation

,

ship between the signified and the signi fier .

 S TATI C AND E V O L U TI O N AR Y L I NG U I S TI CS 79

Chap ter III

STAT I C AND EV O LUT IO NA RY L I N GUI ST I CS

1 . Inn er D u a li ty of All S c ie n ce s Co n c e rn ed w it h Va lu e s
Very few lin gu ists su spect that the intervention o f the factor of
tim e creates difficu lties pecu liar to lingu istics and opens to their
science two com pletely divergent paths .

M ost other sciences are u naffected by this radical du ality ; time

produ ces no special e ff ects in the m A stronom y has fo u nd that the
.

stars u ndergo considerable changes b u t has not been obliged on

this accou nt to sp l it itself into two disciplines Geology is con .

cerned with s u ccessions at alm ost every instant b u t its stu dy of ,

strata does not thereby becom e a radically distinct discipline Law .

has its descriptive science and its historical science ; no o n e opposes

o n e to the other The p olitical history o f states is u n folded solely
.

in t ime b u t a historian depicting a particu lar period does not work

,

apart from hi story C onversely the science of poli tical institu tions
.
,

is essentially descriptive b u t if the need arises it can easily deal

,

with a historical qu estion withou t dist u rbing its u ni ty .

O n the contrary that du ality is already forcing itself u pon the

,

econom ic sciences H ere in contrast to the other sciences political

.
, ,

econo m y and econo mic hi s t o ry c o n s t it u t e two c l early separated

'

disciplines within a single science ; the works that have recently

appeared on these su bj ects p oint u p the distinction Proceeding as .

they have econom ists are—withou t being well aware of it

,

obeying an inner necessity A similar necessity obliges u s to divide

.

li ngu istics into two part s each with its o w n principle H ere as in
,
.

political economy we are confronted with the notion O f va lu e ; b oth

sciences are concerned with a s ys t e m fo r e qu a tin g t hin gs of d ifi e r en t
o rd e r s—labor and wages in one and a signified and signifier in the

o ther .

C ertainly all sciences wou ld profit by indicating m ore precisely

the c o ord inates along which their su bj ect m atter is aligned E very
- .
80 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
where distinctions shou ld be made according to the following,

illu stration between ( 1 ) the a x is of s im u l tan e it ie s (AB ) which

, ,

stands for the relations o f coexisting t hi ngs and from whi ch the
intervention o f time is excl u ded ; and (2 ) t he a x i s of su cce s s io n s
( C D ) o n w h ich only o ne thing can be considered at a t ime b u t
,

u pon which are located all the t hi ngs o n the first axis together

with their changes .

For a science concerned with val u es the distinction is a practical

necessity and som etim es an absolu te o n e In these fields scholars .

cannot organi z e their research rigoro u sly withou t considering both

co— ordinates and m aking a distin ction between the system o f
valu es per se and the sam e valu es as they relate to tim e .

This distinction has to be heeded by the l ingu ist above all others ,

for langu age is a system o f p u re valu es whi ch are determined by

nothing except the mom entary arrangement o f its term s A valu e
—s o long as it is som ehow rooted in things and in their natu ral
.

relations as happens with econom ics ( the valu e of a plot of grou nd

, ,

i ,
—
for instance s related to its produ ctivity ) can to som e extent be
traced in time if we re m em ber that it depends at each m om ent
u pon a syste m o f coexisting val u es Its link with things gives it
.
,

perforce a natu ral basis and the j u dgments that we base o n su ch

, ,

valu es are therefore never completely arbitrary ; their variability

is l im ited B u t we have j u st seen that natu ral data have no place
.

in lingu istics .
 S TATI C AND E V O L U TI O N AR Y L I NG UIS TI CS 81

A gain ,the more com plex and rigorou sly organi z ed a system of
valu es is the m ore it is necessary becau se of its very com plexity
, , ,

to stu dy it according to both c o ordinates No other system e m

-
.

bodies thi s featu re to the same extent as langu age N owhere else .

do we find su ch precise valu es at stake and su ch a great nu mber

and di versity o f term s all s o rigidly interdependent The m u lti
,
.

p lic it y o f signs w hi ch we have already u sed to expla in the con

,

t inu it y o f langu age m akes it absol u tely impossible to st u dy

,

sim u ltaneou sly relations in time and relations within the system .

The reasons for distingu ishi ng two sciences of langu age are clear .

H o w shou ld the sciences be designated ? A vailable terms do not all

”
“
bring o u t the distinction with equ al sharpness L ingui stic hi story .

and historical lingu istics are too vagu e S ince political hi story
“ .

inclu des the description o f different periods as well as the narration

o f events the st u dent might t hi nk that he is st u dying a langu age
,

according t o the axis of t ime when he describes its su ccessive states ,

b u t t hi s wou ld requ ire a separate st u dy of the phenom ena that

make langu age pass from o n e state t o another Evo lu t io n and .

e vo lu ti on a r y lin gu i s t i c s are m ore precise and I shall u se these ex

,

pressions Often ; in contra st we can speak of the science o f la n

,

gua ge s t a t e s [ é t a t s d e l angu e] o r s t a t ic l ingu i s t ic s

- .

B u t to indi cate more clearly the opp osition and cross ing of two
orders o f phenom ena that relate to the sam e obj ect I prefer to ,

speak o f syn ch ron ic and d iachro nic linguis tics E veryt hi ng that .

relates to the static side of o u r science is synchroni c ; everythi ng

that has to do with evolu tion is di achronic S imilarly s yn chro n y .
,

and diachron y design ate respectively a l angu age state and an -

evolu tionary phase .

2 . In n e r D u a lit y an d th e H is t o ry of L in gu is tic s
The first thi ng that strikes u s when we st u dy the facts o f lan
gu age is that their su ccession in tim e does not exist insofar as the
speaker is concern ed H e is confronted with a state That is why
. .

the lingu ist w h o wishes to u nderstand a state m u st discard all

knowledge o f everyt hi ng that prod u ced it and ignore diachrony .

H e can enter the m ind of speakers only by com pletely su ppressing

the past The intervention of history can only fals ify his j u dgment
. .

It wo u ld be absu rd to attem pt to sketch a panorama o f the Alps

82 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUIST IC S

by viewing the m sim u ltaneou sly from several peaks of the Ju ra ;

a panoram a mu st be m ade from a single vantage point The same .

applies to langu age ; the linguist can neither describe it n o r draw

u p standards of u sage except by concentrating o n o n e state When .

he follows the evolu tion of the langu age he rese m b les the m oving ,

observer who goes from o n e peak o f the Ju ra to another in order

to record the shifts in perspective .

E ver since m odern lingu istics cam e into existence it has been
co m pletely absorbed in diachrony C o m parative Indo E u ropean
.
,

—
philology u ses the m aterials at hand to reconstru ct hypothetically
an older type o f langu age ; comparison is b u t a m eans of recon
s t ru c t ing the past The m ethod is the sa m e in the narrower st u dy o f
.

s u bgro u ps ( R om ance langu ages Germ anic langu ages

,
states ,

intervene only irregu larly and piecem eal S u ch is the tendency .

introdu ced by Bopp His conception o f langu age is therefore hybrid

.

and hesitating .

Against this what was the proced u re Of those who stu died lan
,

”
“
gu age before the beginning of modern lingui stics i e the gram ,
. .

m arians inspired by tra di tiona l m ethods ? It is c u riou s to note that

here their viewpoint w as absolu tely above reproach Their works .

clearly show that they tried to describe langu age states Their -
.

program was strictly sync h ro ni c The P o r t R o ya l Gra mma r for

.
,

exam ple atte m pts to describe the state o f French u nder Lo u is X IV

,

and to de t ermine its valu es Fo r thi s the lan gu age o f the Mid dl e
.
,

Ages is not needed ; the hori z ontal axis is followed faithfu lly ( see
p. witho u t digression The method was then correct b u t this
.
,

does not m ean that its application was perfect Traditional gram .

m a r neglects whole parts of langu age su ch as word formation ; it ,

is norm ative and assumes the role of prescribing ru les not of ,

recording facts ; it lacks overall perspective ; Often it is u nable even

to separate the written fro m the spoken word etc ,
.

C lassical grammar has been critici z ed as u nscientific ; still its ,

basis is less open to criticism and its data are better defined than
is tr u e of the lingu istics started by Bopp The latter occu pying .
,

ill d e fi n e d grou nd has no clear c u t Obj ective It straddles two

-
,
- .

areas becau se it is u nable to m ake a sharp di stinction b etween

states and s u ccessions .

Lingu istics having accorded too large a place to history will

, ,
84 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
initial phonetic change u mlau t fo ti becam e fe ti; throu gh a sec
'
* *

o n d the fall o f final

,
— ,
, ,

i feti becam e fe t ; after that fat had as its

'

plu ral fet ; t al’ t el) ; 9 6 8 ges etc ( Modern E ngli sh foo t : fee t to o th :
, , ,
.
,

t ee t h go o s e : gees e )
,
.

Previou sly when speakers used gas t : ga s ti f at : fati the sim ple
, , ,

addition o f an i m arked the plu ral ; Ga s t : Cas t e and fat : fet show a
new m echanism for indicat ing the plu ral The m echani sm is not .

the sam e in both instances ; in O ld E nglish there is only opposition

between vowels ; in German there is in addition the presence o r
f —
absence o final e ; b u t here thi s difference is u nimportant .

The relation between a singu lar and its plu ral whatever the ,

form s m ay be can b e expressed at each moment by a hori z ontal

,

axis :
Period A 0

Period B
Whatever facts have brou ght abou t passage from o n e form to
another sho u ld b e placed along a vertical axis giving the overall ,

pictu re :
Period A

Period B
O urillu stration su ggests several pertinent remarks
1 ) In no way do diachronic facts aim to signal a val u e by means
o f another sign ; that gas t i becam e ge s t i ge s t e ( Cas t e ) has not hi ng t o
,
'
do with the plur al of su bstantives ; in t ragi t t ragt the sam e u m ,

lau t occu rs in verbal inflection and s o forth A diachroni c fact is an

,
.

independent event ; the p articu lar synchronic consequ ences that

may stem fro m it are wholly u nrelated to it .

2) D iachronic facts are not even directed toward changing the

system S peakers did not wish to pass from one system o f relations
.

to another ; m odification does not affe ct the arrange m ent b u t rather

it s ele m ents .

H ere we again find the principle en u nciated previou sly : never

is the system m odified directly In itself it is u nchangeable ; only
.

c ertain ele m ents are altered witho u t regard for the solidarity that

binds them to the whole It is as if o ne o f the planets that revolve

.
 S TATI C AND E V O L U TI O N AR Y L I NG U I S TI CS 85

arou nd the s u n changed its dim ensions and weight : this isolated
event wou ld entail general consequ ences and wou ld thr ow the
whole system o u t o f e qu ilibri u m The Opposition of two terms is
.

needed to express plu rality : either f at : f O t i o r f at : fet ; both p ro

c e d u re s are possible b u t speakers passed fro m o n e to the other s o
, ,

to speak witho u t having a hand in it Neither was the whole re

,
.

placed nor did o n e syste m engender another ; o n e element in the

first syste m was changed and this change w as eno u gh t o give rise
,

to another syste m .

3 ) The foregoing observation points u p the ever fo rt u it o u s nat u r e

Of a state In contrast to the false notion that we rea d ily fashi on
.

for o u rselves abou t it lan guage is not a mechanism created and

,

a rranged with a V iew to the concepts to be expressed We s e e o n .

the contrary that the state w hi ch resu lted from the change was not
destined to signal the m ea ning with whi ch it was im pregnated In .

‘
a fort u itou s state (fot : fe t) , speakers took advantage o f an exist
ing difference and made it signal the distinction between singu
lar and plu ral ; fot : fet is n o better for t h is pu rpose than fat : fo ti
*
.

In each state the mind infiltrated a given su bstance and breathed

life into it This new perspective inspired by historical lingu istics
.
, ,

is u nkn own to traditional gram mar whi ch c ou l d never acqui re it

,

by its o w n methods Most philosophers o f la ngu age are e qu ally

.

ignorant o f it and yet not hi ng is more important from the philo

,

sophical viewpoint .

4 ) A re facts o f the diachronic series o f the sa m e class at least , ,

as facts o f the synchronic series ? By no means for we have seen ,

that changes are wholly u nintentional while the synchronic fact is

always si gnificant It always calls forth two sim u ltaneou s term s
. .

No t Cas t e alone b u t the opposition Ga s t : Cas te expresses the plu ral .

The diachr onic fact is j u st the opposite : only o n e term is in volved ,

and for the new o n e t o appear ( Cas t e ) the o l d o ne ( ga s ti) mu st

,

first give way to it .

T o try to u nite su ch dissimilar facts in the sa m e disciplin e wo u ld

certain ly be a fancifu l u ndertaking The diachr onic perspective
.

deals with pheno m ena that are u nrelated to system s altho u gh they
do condition them .

H ere are so m e other exam ples to strengthen and com plement the
conclu sions drawn from the first ones .
86 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
In French the accent always falls o n the last syllable u nless this
,

syllable contains a m u te e ( a) This is a synchronic fact a relation

.
,

between the whole s e t o f French words and accent What is its .

sou rce ? A previou s state Latin had a di fferent and m ore com pli
.

c a t e d system o f accent u ation : the accent was o n the pen u ltim ate

syllable when the latter was long ; when short the accent fell back ,

o n the antepen u lt ( cf a mic u s anima ) The Latin law su ggests

.
,
.

relations that are in no way analogou s to the French law D ou btless .

the accent is the sam e in the sense that it rem ained in the same
position ; in French words it always falls o n the syllable that had it
in Latin : a micum a mt an imu m tim e B u t the two form u las
,
.

are different for the two m oments becau se the form s O f the words
changed We know that everyt hin g after the accent either dis
.

appeared o r was redu ced to m u te e As a resu lt o f the alteration of .

the word the position o f the accent with respect to the whole was
,

no longer the sam e ; su b sequ ently speakers consciou s of the new ,

relation instinctively p u t the accent on the last syllable even in

, ,

borrowed words introdu ced in their written form s (fa cile con su l , ,

t ic ke t b u rgr a ve
,
S peakers obviou sly did not try to change
,

systems to apply a new form u la since in words like a mic u m

, ,
a mt

the accent always rem ained o n the sam e syllable ; b u t a diachr onic
fact was interposed : speakers changed the position of the accent
witho u t having a hand in it A law of accentu ation like everythi ng
.
,

that pertains to the lingu istic system is an arrangem ent o f term s , ,

a fortu itou s and involu ntary res u lt o f evolu tion

‘
.

H ere is an even m ore striking exam ple In O ld S lavic s lo vo word

’

'
.
,

has in the instru mental singular s lo ve m b in the nom in ative plu ral ,
’
s lo va in the genitive pl u ral s lo v b etc ; in t h e d e c l e n s io n each case
’

.
, ,

has its own ending B u t today the weak vowels b and b S lavic
’
,
.

representatives of Pr o t O Indo E u ropean i and it have disappeared

- -
,
.

'
C z ech fo r example has s lo vo s lo ve m s lo va s lo v; likewise z e na
‘
, , , , ,
' '
wom an : accu sative singu lar z en u nom inative plu ral z e ny genitive
’
, ,
'
plu ral z e n H ere the genitive ( s lo v rie n ) has z ero inflection We see
.
,
.

then that a m aterial sign is not necessary for the expression o f an

idea ; langu age is satisfied with the Opposition between something
'
and nothi ng C z ech speakers recogni z e z en as a genitive pl u ral
.

'
s im ply becau se it is neither i en a nor z e n u nor any o f the other
form s It seem s strange at first glance that su ch a particu lar notion
.
88 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG UI S TI CS
—
tween the fi b e rs relations that we cou ld never grasp by viewing
the longitu dinal plane .

B ut of all com parisons that might be imagined the most friu t fu l ,

is the o n e that m ight be drawn between the fu nctioning of langu age

and a gam e o f chess In both instances we are confronted with a
.

system o f valu es and their observable m odifications A gam e of .

chess is like an artificial reali z ation o f what langu age Offers in a

natu ral form .

Let u s exam ine the matter m ore carefu lly .

First a state of the s e t o f chessm en corresponds closely to a state

,

o f langu age The respective val u e o f the pieces depends on their

.

position o n the chessboard j u st as each lingu istic term derives its

valu e from its Opp osition to all the other terms .

In the second place the system is always mom entary ; it varies

,

from o ne position to the next It is also tru e that valu es depend

.

above all else on an u nchangeable convention the set o f ru les that

,

exists before a gam e begins and persists after each move R u les that .

are agreed u pon once and for a ll exist in langu age too ; they are the
c onstant principles of se m iology .

Finally to pass from o ne state O f e qu ilibriu m to the next o r

, ,

—
accordin g to o u r terminology from one synchrony to the next ,

only o n e chesspiece has to be m oved ; there is no general ru mm age .

H ere we have the cou nterpart o f the diachronic phenom enon with
all it s pec u liarities In fact :
.

( a ) In each play only one chesspiece is m oved ; in the same way

in langu age changes a ff ect only isolated elements
,
.
 S TATI C AND E V O L U TI O N AR Y L I NG U I S TI CS 89

( b ) In spite of that the move has a repercu ssion o n the whole

,

syste m ; it is impossible for the player to foresee exactly the extent

o f the e ff ect R es u lting changes o f val u e will be accord ing to the
.
,

circ u m stances either nil very seriou s o r o f average importance

, , , .

A certain m ove can revolu tioni z e the whole gam e and even affect
pieces that are not immediately involved We have j u st seen that .

exactly the sam e holds for langu age .

( 0) In chess each m ove is absolu tely distinct from the prece d ing
,

and the su bse qu ent equ ilibriu m The change effected belongs to
.

neither state : only states matter .

In a ga m e of chess any partic u lar position has the u niqu e char

a c t e ris t ic o f being freed fro m all antecedent positions ; the ro u te

u sed in arriving there m a kes absol u tely no diff erence ; o ne who has

followed the entire m atch has no advantage over the cu rio u s party
who com es u p at a critical m om ent to inspect the state O f the gam e ;
to describe thi s arrangement it is perfectly u seless to re call what
,

had j u st happened ten seconds previou sly A ll thi s is equ ally a p .

plicable to langu age and sharpens the radical distin ction between
diachrony and synchrony S peaking operates o nl y o n a lan guage
.

state and the changes that in tervene between states have no place
,

in either state .

A t only o n e point is the comparison weak : the chessplayer

in t end s to brin g abou t a shift and thereby to exert an action on the
syste m whereas langu age premeditates nothing The pieces o f lan
, .

gu age are shifted—o r rather m o d ifie d—spontaneou sly and fo r

t u it o u s ly The u m lau t o f H d ud e for h a n t i and Cas t e for ga s t i ( see
.

p 83) produ ced a new system for formi ng the plur al b u t also gave
.

rise to verbal form s like t r cigt from t ragit etc In order to make the
’

.
,

gam e o f chess see m at every point like the fu nctioning of langu age ,

we wou ld have to imagin e an u nconsciou s or u nintelligent player .

Thi s sole d iff erence however makes the com parison even more
, ,

instru ctive by showing the absolu te necessity of m aking a distin o

tion between the two classes of pheno m ena in lingu istics For if .

diachronic facts cannot be red u ced to the syn chronic system which
they condition when the change is intentional all the more will ,

they resist when they s e t a b lind force against the org ani z ation of
a system o f signs .
90 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
5 . The Two L ingu is tics C o n tra s te d A cco r ding t o The ir Methods and

P rin cip le s
E verywhere the opposition between diachrony and synchrony
stands o ut

instanc e —and to begin with the m ost apparent fact —they

.

Fo r
are n o t o f equ al irnp o rt an ce Here it is evident that the synchr oni c
.

viewpoint predom inates for it is the tru e and only reality to the
,

co m muni ty of speakers (see p The same is tru e o f the lin

.

gu ist : if he takes the diachronic perspective he no longer observes ,

langu age b u t rather a series o f events that modify it People often .

affirm that nothing is more i m portant than u nderstanding the

genesis of a particu lar state ; this is tru e in a certain sense : the
forces that have shaped the state illu m inate its tru e natu re and ,

knowing them protects u s against certain illu sions ( see pp 84 ff .

b u t t hi s only goes to prove clearly that diachronic lingu istics is not

an end in itself What is said o f j ou rnalism applies to di achrony :
.

it leads everywhere if o n e departs from it .

The methods o f d iachr ony and synchrony also differ and in two ,

ways .

( a ) S ynchrony has only one perspective the speakers and its

’
, ,

whole method consists of gatherin g evidence from speakers ; to

kn ow to j u st what extent a thing is a reality it is necessary and ,

s u fli cie n t to dete rmine to what extent it exists in the minds o f

speakers D iachr onic linguistics o n the contrary m u st di stinguish

.
, ,

two perspectives O ne o f these the p ro sp e c tive follows the cou rse

.
, ,

of tim e ; the other the r e tro sp ec tive goes back in time ; the resu lt is
, ,

a du pl ication in methodology with whi ch we shall deal in Part Five .

( b ) A se cond di fference resu lts from delimiting the fields em

braced b y each o f the two disciplines S ynchro ni c stu dy h as as its
.

obj ect n o t everything that is sim u ltaneou s b u t only the totality

, ,

of facts corres ponding to each langu age ; separation will go as far

as di alects and su bdialects when necessary The term s yn chro n ic .

is really not precise enou gh ; it shou ld be replaced by another

—
rather long to be su re i dio s yn chr o n ic A gainst this diachronic .
,

lingu istics not only does not need b u t even rej ects su ch special
iz a t io n ; the term s that it st u dies do not necessarily be l ong to the
* — —
same langu age ( compare Proto Ind o Eu ropean e s ti Greek e s ti , ,
92 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
1 Prot o Indo - -E
ropean voiced aspirates became voiceless
u
‘ ‘
.

*
*
d h umo s
’
t h am o s breath of life b her o ph e r o I bear etc
’
’

, ,
.

2 The accent never falls farther back than the antepenu lt

. .

3 All words end in a vowel o r in s n o r r to the excl u sion o f all

.
, , ,

other consonants .

4 Prevocalic ini tial 3 beca m e h ( sign of asp iration ) : s ep t m

.
*

( Latin s ep tem ) h ep t d .

5 Final m changed to
*
j g m ( cf Latin ju gum)
’
5
. n : u o u
z go n . .

* *
6 Final occl u sives fell :
.
gu na ik gun a i e p h e rs t ép h ere , ,
*
e p h e ro n t ép he ro n .

Law 1 is diachr onic : dh becam e th etc Law 2 expresses a relation ,

.

between the word u ni t and accent a sort of contract b etween two

-
,

coexisting term s ; it is a synchronic law The sam e is tru e of Law 3 .

since it concerns the word u nit and its ending Laws 4 5 and 6 are -

m; — —
.
, ,

diac hr o nic : s becam e h ; — n replaced — t k etc disappeared , ,

.

withou t leaving a trace .

We shou ld also notice that Law 3 is the resu lt o f 5 and 6 ; two

diachroni c facts created a synchronic fact .

Af ter we separate the two classes o f laws we s e e that Laws 2 and ,

3 are basicall y di fferent from Laws 1 4 5 and 6 , , ,

.

The synchronic law is general b u t not imperative D ou btless it .

is imposed o n individ u als by the weight o f collective u sage ( see

p . b u t here I do not have in mind an obli gation o n the part
o f speakers I m ean that in l a n gu a ge no force g u arantees the m ain
.

t e n an ce of a regu larity when established on so m e point Being a .

s imple expression o f an existing arrangement the synchronic law ,

reports a state of aff airs ; it is like a law that states that trees in a
certain orchard are arranged in the shape o f a qu inc u nx An d the .

arrangem ent that the law defines is precariou s precisely becau se

it is not i m perative Nothing is more regu lar than the synchr onic
.

law that governs Latin accentu ation ( a law com parable in every
way to Law 2 above ) ; b u t the accentu al ru le did not resist the
5
Accordin g to M ill et ( Me m d e la S o c d e L in g IX pp 365 ff ) a nd
1 5 8 ff ) fi n al —
e

pp
. .
. .
, ,

G au t hio t (L a fin du m o t i nd o e u r o p e e n m did n o t e x s t in i
—
’
-

P ro o I do Euro p
, .
,

t w hich u d o n l y n ; if t h i t h ory i cc p d e t e , L aw 5

rv d v ry fin l —
-
n -
e an , se s e s a

can b t t d in t his w y Gr k p r
e s a e an ; it d o r iv
: ee e se e e e a s e m nst at e

v l i n t dim in i h d i c t h pho n t ic ph n om no n t h t r
a ue s o s e s n e e e e e a e s u l t s in t h e

pr rv t io n f form r t t i t h m in n t r
e se a o a e th n t h t m n if t
s a e s e sa e a u e as e o e a a es s

a ch n g ( ee p a [ Ed ]
e s . .
 S TATI C AND E V O L U TI O N AR Y L I NG U I S TI CS 93

forces of alteration and gave way to a new l aw the one of French ,

(s e e above p In short if one speaks of law in synchrony

.
, ,

it is in the sense of an arrange m ent a principle Of regu larity ,

.

D iachrony o n the contrary s u pp oses a dynam ic force thr o u gh

, ,

whi ch an eff ect is produ ced a thing execu ted B u t thi s imperative
,
.

ness is not su fficient to warrant applying the concept o f law to

evolu tionary facts ; we can speak of law only when a set of facts
o b eys the same ru le and in spite of certain appear ances to the
,

contrary diachroni c events are always accidental and particu lar

, .

The accidental and particu lar character of sem antic facts is im

‘
mediately apparent That French p o u t re m are has ac qu ired the ’

‘
.

meaning piece of wood rafter is d u e to partic u lar cau ses and does
,
’

not depend o n other changes that m ight have occu rred at the same
time It is only one accident a m ong all those re gistered in the
.

history of the lan guage .

A s for syntactical and m orphological transform ations the iss u e ,

is n o t s o clear from the o u tset A t a certain time alm ost all Old .

su bj ect case form s disappeared in French H ere a set of facts ap

-
.

p are n t l y obeys the sam e law B u t s u ch is not the case for all the
.
,

facts are b u t m u ltiple m anifestations o f o n e and the s ame isolated

fact The particu lar notion o f s u bj ect was a ff ected and its dis
.
,

appearance natu rall y cau sed a whole series o f forms to vani sh For .

one who sees only the external featu res o f langu age the u niqu e ,

phenom enon is drowned in the m u ltitu de of it s m anifestations .

Basically however there is b u t o n e phenom enon an d t hi s b istori

”
, , ,

cal event is j u st as isolated in its own order as the se m antic change

“
u ndergone by p o u t r e It takes on the appearance of a
. law only
becau se it is reali z ed wit hi n a system The rigid arrange m ent o f the .

system creates the il l u sion that the diachronic fact obeys the sa m e
ru les as the synchroni c fact .

F inally as regards phonetic changes exactly the sam e is tru e

, ,
.

Yet the popu lar practice is to speak of phonetic laws Indeed it is .

,

said that at a given ti m e and in a given area all words having

the sam e phonic featu res are aff ected by the s ame change ; fo r
exam ple Law 1 on page 9 2 ( dhum o s
,
*
Greek t humos ) aff ects all
Greek words containing a voiced aspirate ( cf ne b hos né p h o s
*
.
,

medhu an kh o
*
m ethu angh o
*
,
Law 4 ( s e p t m
*
h ep td )
,

applies to s e rp o
* *
h erp o s us hit s and to all words that begin
’

, ,
94 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L LI NG U I S TI CS
with This regu larity which has at times been disp u ted is ap
s .
, ,

p are n t ly firmly established ; obvio u s exceptions do not lessen the

inevitability of s u ch changes for they can be explained either by ,

more special phonetic laws ( see the exam ple o f t rikhe s : th riks i ,

p 97 ) or b y the interference of facts of another class ( analogy

.
,

N othing seem s to fit better the definition given above for the

word law An d yet regardless o f the nu m ber Of instances where a
.
,

p honetic law holds all facts em b raced by it are b u t m an ifestations

,

o f a single partic u lar fact .

The real issu e is to find o u t whether phonetic changes aff ect

words or only sou nds and there is no dou bt abo u t the answer : in
a certain phoneme—a voiced Proto
,

n ep h o s m e t hu a n kh o etc
—
.
, , ,

Indo E u ropean aspi ate becam e voiceless Proto Greek initial 8

- r ,
-

became h etc ; each fact is isolated independent o f the other

,
.
,

events o f the same class independent also of the words in w hi ch ,

the change took place The phonic su bstance Of all the words was
6
.

o f cou rse modified b u t this sho u ld not deceive u s as to the real

,

natu re o f the phenom enon .

What su pports the state m ent that words themselves are not
directly involved in phonetic transform ations ? The very simple
observation that these transform ations are basically alien to words
and cannot tou ch their essence The word u nit is not constitu ted .
-

solely by the total ity of its phone m es b u t by characteristics

other than its material qu ali ty S u ppose that o n e string of a piano .

is o u t of t u ne : a discordant note will be heard each t ime the one

who is playin g a melody strikes the corresponding key B u t where .

is the discord ? In the melody ? C ertainly not ; the m elody h as not

been a ffected ; only the piano h as been im paired E xactly the same .

is tru e in phonetics O u r system of phonemes is the instru ment we

.

play in order to articu late the words o f langu age ; if o ne of its

elem ents is m odified diverse consequ ences m ay ensu e b u t the , ,

modification itself is not concerned with the words which are in ,

a manner o f speaking the melodies o f o u r repertory ,

.

O f cor th m pl
u se cit d b ov pu r ly che m t ic : l ingu i t ic is
e ex a es e a e a re e s a s s

right in t rying c u rr n t ly t r l t e t t h m i n i t i l p rin cip l t h l rg t

e o e a o e sa e a e e a es

p o ib l ri of phon t ic ch ng ; for in t n c M ill t pl in ll t h

ss e se es e a es s a e, e e ex a s a e

tr an sform t io n f Gr k occ lu iv b y pro gr iv w k n i g f t h ir rt i u

a s o ee s es e ss e ea e n o e a c

l t io n (
a M m d l S d L in g IX p p 1 63 ff ) N t u r ll y t h co n cl io n
se e e e a oc e a a e us s

of p ho t ic ch ng p pl ic b l t t h
. .
. .
, , .

on th n t ur
e a e in t h l t n l y i
ne a e s ar e e as a a s s a a e o e se

g r l f c t w h r v r t h y i t [ Ed ]
e ne a a s, e e e e ex s . .
96 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
they have no lingu istic valu e E ven from the p an c h ro nic viewpoint
‘
.

i oz considered in a chain like an i ce a dmir a b le an admirable thing

’
, ,

is not a u nit b u t a shapeless m ass ; indeed why i oz rather than oz a ,

or n i o? It is not a valu e for it has no meaning Fro m the pan ,

.

chronic viewpoin t the particu lar facts o f lan guage are never
reached .

8 Co n s e qu e nce s
.
f the Co nfu sing of S ync hro ny a nd Diachro ny
o

Two instances will be cited :

( a ) S ynchronic tru th seem s to be the denial of di achronic tru th ,

and o n e who has a s u perficial view o f thi ngs imagin es that a choice
m u st be m ade ; t hi s is really un necessary ; o n e tru th does not ex
‘
c lu d e the other That French d ép i t spite orig inal ly meant con
.
’

tempt does not prevent the word from havin g a completely

different mean ing now ; etym ology and synchr onic valu e are dis
tinct S im ilarly tra di tional gram m ar teaches that the present
.
,

participle is variable and shows agreem ent in the same manner as

an adj ective in certain cases in Modern French ( cf un e e au
‘
.

co u ra n te r u n ning water ) b u t is invariable in others ( cf u n e per

’

‘
.

sonne co uran t dans la ru e a person r unning in the But

hi storical gra m mar shows that it is not a q u estion o f o ne and the
same form : the first is the continu ation o f the variable Latin par
t ic ip l e (c ur re n t u m ) w hi le the second comes from the invariable
ablative form o f the gerund (c urre n d o) 7 D oes synchr oni c tru th .

contradict diachr onic tru th and mu st o ne condem n tra di tional ,

gramm ar in the name o f hi storical gram m ar ? No for that wou ld be ,

seeing o nl y half o f the facts ; o ne mu st no t think that the hi storic a l

fact alone matters and is su fli c ie n t to constitu te langu age D ou bt .

less from the viewpoint o f its origin the participle co u ran t has two
elem ents b u t in the collective mind o f the co mm u nity o f speakers
, ,

these are drawn together and fu sed into one The synchronic tru th .

is j u st as absolu te and indisp u table as the diachr onic tru th .

( b ) S ynchronic tru th is so s imilar to diachroni c tru th that people

conf u se the two or think it s u perfl u o u s to separate them Fo r
‘
.

’
exam ple they try to explain the m eanin g of French p ere father
,

7
Thi r ll y cc p t d t h ory h b n r c nt ly b u t w
s ge n e a a e e e as ee e e , e iv
b e l e e , un
su cc full y t t c k d b y M E L rch (D inv ri b l P ti ip i
e ss a a e a as a a e ar c u m p ra e s e n t is ,

p
. .

E rl g n an e t h re w
, th n r o n for lim in t ing n
e as en o e as e a a e x am l e t a t h
w o u l d r t i n it did c t ic v l
e a [ Ed ]
s a a ue . .
 S TATI C AND E V O L U TI O N AR Y L I NG UI S TI CS 97

b y saying that Latin p ate r meant the sam e thi ng A nother exam ple : .

Latin short a b ecame i in nonin itial open syllables ; b eside fa ci o we

have confici o beside a mic u s in im i cu s etc The law is often stated

”
.
, ,

in this way : The a of fa ci o becomes i in co nfi ci o becau se it is no

“ ”
longer in the fir st syl lable That is n o t tru e : never did the a
.

becom e i in confi ci o To r e establish the tru th one m u st single o u t

-

—
.

t w o periods and four ter s S peakers first said fa cio

m c o nfa cio ;
.

then co nfa cio having been changed t o co nfi cio while fac i o remained
—
,

u nchanged , they said fa ci o co nfi cio

f ioac f
co n aci o

f ioac co nfici o

If a change occu rred it is b etween confa ci o and confi ci o; b u t the

,

ru le badly formu lated does not even m ention c onfa ci o! Then h e

, ,

side the diachronic change there is a second fact absol u tely distinct ,

from the first and having to do with the p u rely syn chroni c O p
position between faci o and co nfi ci o O ne is tempted to s ay that it .

is n o t a fact b u t a resu lt Nevertheless it is a fact in its o wn class ;

.
,

indeed all synchro ni c phenom ena are l ike this The tru e valu e o f
, .

the opposition fa ci o : c o nfici o is n o t recogni z ed fo r the very reason

that the opposition is not very significant B u t Oppositions like .

Gas t : Gas t e and ge b e : gi b t thou gh also fortu itou s resu lts o f phonetic
,

evolu tion are nonetheless basic gramm atical phenomena o f the

,

synchronic class The fact that both classes are in other respects
.

closely linked each conditioning the other po ints to the conclu sion
, ,

that keeping them ap art is n o t worthwhile ; in fact lin gui stics has ,

confu sed them fo r decades withou t reali z ing that su ch a method

is worthless .

The m istake shows u p conspicu ou sly in certain instances To .

explain Greek p h u k t o s for exam ple it m ight seem s u fficient to s ay

’

, ,

that in Greek g o r kh became k before voiceless consonants and to ,

cite by way of explanation s u ch synchronic correspondences as

p hugein : p hu kt o s l ékh o s : l ékt ro n etc B u t in a case like t ri khe s :
”
’

, ,
.

“
t hrik s i there is a co m plication the passing o f t to t h The forms .
,

can be explained only historically by relative chronology The ,

.

Proto Greek theme thrikh followed by the ending —

- *
,
si becam e ,

t hrik s i a very o ld develop m ent identical to the o ne that prod u ced

,
98 C O U R S E I N G ENE R A L L I N GUISTICS

l ékt ro n from the root le kh Later every aspirate followed by an

other aspirate in the sam e word was changed into an occl u sive and ,

t hri khe s beca m e t ri khe s ; nat u rally t hriks i escaped thi s law
*
.

9 . C o n c lu s i o n s

Lingu istics here co m es to its second b ifu rc a t o n We had first to .

choose between langu age and speaking (see pp 1 7 if ) ; here we are .

again at the intersection of two roads one leading to diachrony ,

and the other to synchrony .

O nce in possession o f this dou b le principle of classification we ,

can add that everything diachronic in langu age is diachronic only

by virtu e of spea k ing It is in speaking that the germ of all change
.

is fou nd E ach change is la u nched by a certain n u m ber o f indi

.

vid u al s before it is accepted fo r general u se Modern German u ses .

ich wa r w ir w ar e n whereas u ntil the sixteenth cent u ry the con

, ,

j u gation was ich wa s wir wa re n ( of E nglish I was w e we re ) H o w

,
.
,
.

did the s u bstitu tion of w a r for was com e abou t ? S ome speakers ,

influ enced by waren created wa r throu gh analogy ; this was a fac t

,

of speakin g ; the new form repeated m any times and accepted by

,

the c ommu nity becam e a fact of langu age B u t n o t all innovation s

,
.

o f speaking have the same s u ccess and s o long as they re m a in in,

dividu al they may be ignored for we are stu dying langu age ; they
, ,

d o not enter into o u r field o f observation u ntil the co mm u nity of

speakers has adopted them .

An evol u tionary fact is always preceded b y a fact o r rather b y ,

a mu ltitu de of s imilar facts in the sphere of speaking This in n o

,
.

way invalidates b u t rather strengthens the di stinction made above

since in the hi story o f any innovation there are always two dist inct
mom ents : 1 ) when it sprang u p in individu al u sage ; and (2 ) when
it becam e a fact o f lan guage o u twardly identical b u t adopted by
,

the comm u nity .

The following table indicates the rational form that lingu isti c
stu dy s hou ld take

( Hum an ) S peech
1 00 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS
psychological relations that b ind together coexisting terms and
form a system in the collective mind o f speakers .

D ia chr on ic lin gu i s tics o n the contrary will st u dy relations that

, ,

bind together s u ccessive term s not perceived by the collective m ind

b u t su b stit u ted fo r each other withou t forming a system .
 PA R T T W O

S y n c h r o n ic L i n g u i st ic s

Ch ap t e r I

GE NERA L I T I ES

The aim o f general synchronic lingu istics is t o s e t u p the fu nda

mental principles of any id io s yn c h r o n ic system the constitu ents ,

o f any lan guage state Many of the items already explained in Part
-
.

O ne belong rather to synchr ony ; for instance the general propert ies ,

o f the sign are an in tegral part of synchrony altho u gh they were

u sed to prove the necessity of separating the two lingu istics .

To synchrony belongs everyt hi ng called general gram m ar ,

fo r it is only throu gh langu age states that the d ifferent relations

-

whi ch are the province o f gram m ar are established In the foll owing .

chapters we sha ll consider only the basic principles necessary for

approachi ng the m ore special problem s of static lingu is tics o r
explaining in detail a langu age state -
.

The stu dy of static li ngu istics is generally m u ch more difficu lt

than the stu dy O f his torical lingu istics E volu tionary facts are m ore
.

concrete and striking ; their observable relations tie together su cces

sive term s that are easily grasped ; it is easy often even amu s ing to , ,

fo l low a series of changes B u t the lingu istics that penetrates

.

valu es and coexisting relations presents m u ch greater difficu lties .

In practice a langu age state is not a point b u t rather a certain

-

span o f time du ring which the s u m of the m odifications that have

s u pervened is m in imal The span m ay cover ten years a gener
.
,

ation a centu ry o r even m ore It is possible for a langu age to

, , .

change hardly at all over a long span and then to u ndergo radical
transform ations with in a few years O f two lan gu ages that exist
.

side by side du ring a given period o n e m ay evolve drastically and

,

the other practical ly not at all ; stu dy wou ld have to be diachronic

in the form er instance synchronic in the latter An absol u te state
,
.

is defined by the absence o f changes and since langu age changes ,

1 0]
1 02 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I STI CS
somewhat in spite of everything stu dyin g a langu age state means ,
-

in practice disregarding changes of little importance j u st as ,

m athematicians disregard infinites imal q u antities in certain cal

c u l a t io n s s u ch as logarithm s
,
.

Political history m akes a distinction between e ra a point in ti m e , ,

and p erio d which e m braces a certain du ration S till the historian

,
.
,

speaks of the An t o n inian E ra the E ra o f the C ru sades etc when

, ,
.

he considers a se t of characteristics which remained constant d u r

ing those times O ne m ight also say that static lingu istics deals with
.

eras B u t s ta te is preferable The beginning and the end of an era

. .

are generally characteri z ed by som e rather bru squ e revol u tion that
tends to m odify the existing state o f aff airs The word state avoids .

giving the impression that anyth in g similar occu rs in langu age .

Besides precisely b ecau se it is b orrowed from hi story the term era

, ,

m akes one thin k less o f langu age itse l f than of the circu mstances
that su rrou nd it and condition it ; in short it su ggests rather the ,

the idea o f what we called external lingu istics (see p .

Besides delimitation in time is n o t the only di fficu lty that we

,

enco u nter in defining a langu age state : space presents the same -

problem In short a concept of a langu age state can b e only ap

.
,
-

proxi m ate In static lingu istics as ih most sciences no cou rse of

.
, ,

reasoning is possible witho u t the u su al simplifi cation o f data .

Ch a p t er II

T HE C O N C RETE E N T I T I ES O F L ANG UAG E

1 . De fi ni tio n : En tit y a nd Unit

The signs that m ake u p langu age are not abstractions b u t real
Obj ects ( s e e p 1 5 ) signs and their relations are what lingu istics
.

st u dies ; they are the con cre t e e n ti tie s o f o u r science .

Let u s first recall two principles that dom inate the whole issu e :
1 ) The lingu istic entity exists only throu gh the associating of the
signifier with the signified (see p 6 6 Whenever o nl y one ele
.
1 04 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NGUI S TI CS
be attribu ted to each part o f the chain we s e e the parts detach ,

themselves fro m each other and the shapeless ribbon break into
segments Yet there is nothing material in the analysis
. .

To su m mari z e : langu age does not o ffer itself as a se t o f pre

delim ited signs that need only be stu di ed according to their mean
ing and arrangem ent ; it is a confu sed m ass and only attentiveness ,

and fam iliari z ation will reveal its particu lar elem ents The u nit has .

no special phonic character and the only definition that we can ,

give it is this : it is a s lice of so u n d w h ich t o th e ex clu s io n of e verythin g

t ha t p re c ed e s a n d fo llo ws i t in t h e s p o ke n ch ain i s th e s ign ifi er of a
c e r t a in c o n c ep t .

2 Me tho d of D e lim ita tion

.

O ne who knows a langu age singles o u t its u nits by a very simple

—
method in theory at any rate H is m ethod consists o f u sing
,
.

speakin g a s the so u rce material o f langu age and pictu ring it as two
parallel chains o n e o f concepts (A ) and the other o f sou nd images
,
-

(B ) .

In an accu rate delimitation the division along the chain o f ,

sou nd im ages ( a b c ) will correspond to the division along the

-

'
, ,
’
chain o f concepts ( a b , ,

' '
Take French we c u t the chain after l and m ake siél
s iz lap rd C an .

a u nit ? NO we need only consider the concepts to se e that the

,
'
di vision is wrong Neither is the syllabic division s ie la p ra to be
V
- -
.

taken for granted as havin g lingu istic valu e The only possible
— ‘
.

divisions are these : ( 1 ) s i x la p ra ( s i j e la p re nd s if I take it ) and

v ’
- -

V
- - -
‘
( 2 ) s i x l a p ra ( s i j e l app re nds if I lear n
’
and they are deter
mined by the m eaning that is attached to the words ‘ .

To verify the resu lt o f the procedu re and be assu red that we are
real ly dealing with a u nit we m u st be able in com paring a series of ,

Cf oun d “
E nglis h : you r mine “yo u ’ r e min e
1 . t he s s [ jurm o m ] in or .
[ Tr ]
.
 THE C O N C RETE E N TITIE S O F LAN GUA G E 1 05

sentences in whi ch the sam e u nit occu rs to separate the u nit from
the rest o f the context and find in each instance that m eaning ju s
'
t ifi e s the delimitation Take the two French phrases l afor s duva
‘
.

( la fo rce du vent the fo rce o f the and a b udfgrs ( a bou t de

‘ ‘
force ex hau sted ; litera lly: at the end o f one s
’
In each ’

p hr ase the sam e concept coincides with the sam e phonic slice fgrs ; ,

thu s it is certainl y a l in guistic u nit B u t in i lm efors ap arle (11 me

‘
.

force a parler he force s m e to talk ) fgrs has an entirely diff erent

’

mean ing : it is therefore another u nit .

3 .
f D e limi ta tio n
P ra ct ica l Difiicu lt ie s o

The method ou tlin ed above is very simple in theory b u t is it ,

easy to apply ? We are tem pted to t hi nk so if we start fro m the

notion that the u nits to be isolated are words For what is a sen .

tence except a combin ation of words ? An d what can be grasped

more readily than words ? Going back to the example given above ,

we m ay s ay that the analysis o f the spoken chain s iz lap ra resu lted

’

in the delim it ing o f fo u r u nits and that the u ni ts are words : s i j e l

,
- -

a p p r e nd s B u t we are immediately p u t o n the defensive o n noting

.

that there has been m u ch disagreement abo u t the natu re of the

word and a little reflection shows that the u su al meaning o f the
,

term is incompatible with the notion o f concrete u nit

‘
.

’
To be convinced we need only think o f French ch e va l horse and
,

its plu ral frffm c h evau x People readi ly s ay that they are two forms
.

o f the sam eword ; b u t considered as wholes they are certainly two ,

distinct t hi ngs with respect to both m eani ng and sou nd In

‘
.

mw a (m o is as in l e m ois de S eptem bre the m o n t h of S epte m ber )

’

‘
,

and m waz (m o is in u n m o is apr es a mo n th later ) there are also

,
’

two form s of the sam e word and there is no qu estion of a concrete

,

u ni t . The meaning is the sam e b u t the sl ices of so u nd are d if

,

fe re n t As soon as we try to liken concrete u nits to words we

.
,

face a dile mm —
a : we m u st either ignore the relation w hich is none
t h e l e ss evident—that binds c he va l and c h e va u x the two so u nds of ,

mw a and m w ae etc and say that they are different words o r in

,
.
,

stead o f concrete u nits be satisfied with the abstraction that links

the diff erent form s of the sa m e word The concrete u nit m u st be .

sou ght not in the word b u t elsewhere Besides m any words are
, ,
.
,
1 06 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L LI NG U I S TI CS
c om plex u nits and we can easily s ingle o u t their s u b u nits ( su ffi xes
, ,

prefixes radicals ) D erivatives like p a in fu l and d e light fil l can be

,
.
- -

divided into distinct parts each having an o b viou s m eaning and

,

fu nction C onversely som e u nits are larger than words : co m pou nds
—
.
,

p lu m e locu tions (s i l vo us p lai t ’

( French p o r t e
‘
inflected fo rm s (i t a ét é he has etc B u t these u nits resist de .

limitation as strongly as do words proper makin g it extrem ely ,

diffic u lt to disentangle the interplay of u nits that are fou nd in a

sou nd chain and to specify the c oncrete elements o n whi ch a
-

langu age fu nctions .

D ou btless speakers are u naware of the practical diffic u lties o f

delim iting u nits Anything that is o f even the slightest significance
.

seems like a concrete elem ent to them and they never fail to single
it o u t in disco u rse B u t it is one thing t o feel the qu ick delicate
.
,

interplay o f u nits and qu ite another to acco u nt fo r them throu gh

methodical analysis .

A rather widely held theory makes sentences the concrete u nits

o f langu age : we speak only in sentences and su bsequ ently single

o u t the words B u t t o what extent does the sentence belong to

.

langu age ( see p If it belongs to speaking the sentence can

.
,

not pass for the lingu istic u nit B u t let u s su ppose that this d iffi .

cu lty is se t aside If we pictu re to o u rselves in their totality the

.

sentences that cou ld be u ttered their most striking characteristic is ,

that in no way do they rese m ble each other We are at first te m pted .

to liken the immense diversity o f sentences to the e qu al di versity of

the individu als that m ake u p a z oological species B u t this is an .

illu sion : the characteristics that animals of the sam e species have
in c om mon are m u ch m ore significant than the differences that
separate the m In sentences o n the contrary diversity is domi
.
, ,

nant and when we look for the link that bridges their diversity
, ,

again we find witho u t having looked for it the word with its gram
, ,

m a t ic al characteristics and thu s fall back into the same difficu lties
as before .

4 . Co n clu s io n
In m ost sciences the qu estion o f u nits never even arises : the u nits
are del imited from the ou tset In z oology the anim al immediately .
,

presents itself A stronom y works with u nits that are separated in

.
1 08 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I STI CS
state that t w o sentences like je ne sais p a s and no ‘
I d o n t know
’ ’

‘ ’
d ites p as cela d o n t say that conta in the sam e elem ent An idle ’
.

qu estion o n e m ight s ay ; there is identity becau se the sam e slice o f

,

sou nd carries the sam e m eani ng in the two sentences B u t that .

explanation is u nsatisfactory for if the correspondence of sl ices o f ,

sou nd and concepts is proof o f identity ( se e above p 1 05 la fo rce ,

.
,

d u vent : a bou t de fo rce ) the reverse is not tru e There can be

,
.

identity witho u t this correspondence When Ge n t lem en ! is repeated .

several times du rin g a lectu re the listener has the feeling that the ,

same expression is bein g u sed each time and yet variations in ,

u tterance and intonation make for appreciable phonic differences

—
in di verse contexts differences j u st as appreciable as those that
‘
elsewhere separate different words ( of French p omm e apple and ’

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
.

p a u m e palm go u t te drop and j e go u te I taste fu ir flee

’ ’
and ’ ’

‘
, , ,

fo uir stuff ,
’
besides the feeling of identity persists even
,

thou gh there is no absolu te identity between one Gen tl em en ! and

the next from a sem antic viewpo int either In the sam e vein a .
,

word can express qu ite d ifferent ideas withou t com prom ising it s
‘
identity ( of French ad op t e r un e m ode ad op t a fashi on and ad op t e r ’

‘ ‘
.

u n enfant a d o p t a child la fi e ur d u pomm ier the flo we r o f the

’

‘
,
’ ’
apple tree and la fi e u r de la noblesse the flo we r o f nobility ,

The lingu istic m echanism is geared to diff erences and identities ,

the form er bein g only the cou nterpart o f the latter E verywhere .

then the p roblem of identities appears ; m oreover it blends par

, ,

t ially w ith the problem of entities and u nits and is only a compli
— —
cation ill u m inating at som e points o f the larger problem This .

characteristic stands o u t if we draw som e com parisons with facts

taken fro m o u tside spee ch Fo r instance we speak o f the identity o f
two .
-
.

p m Genev a t o Paris tr ains that leave at twenty fou r

-
” ,

ho u r intervals We feel that it is the sam e train each day yet every
.
,

thing—the locomotive coaches personnel—is probably different

, ,
.

O r if a street is dem olished then reb u ilt we s ay that it is the sam e

, ,

street even tho u gh in a m aterial sense perhaps noth ing o f the o ld ,

o n e re m ains Why can a street be co m pletely reb u il t and still be

.

the sam e ? Becau se it does not constitu te a p u rely m aterial entity ;

it is based o n certain condi tions that are distinct from the m aterials
2
Cf Engli h
. s b o u ght : b o a t , na u gh t : no t e , fa r: fo r : fo u r ( for m an y s p e ak e s r) .

[T r ].
 IDE N TITIE S REA L ITI E S VA LUE S
, , 1 09

that fit the conditions e g its location with respect to other streets

,
. . .

S imilarly what m akes the express is its hou r o f departu re its

, ,

ro u te and in general every circu mstance that sets it ap art from

,

other tra ins Whenever the sam e condi tions are ful filled the same
.
,

entities are obtained S till the entities are n o t abstract since we

.
,

cannot conceive o f a street o r train ou tside its material reali z ation .

Let u s contrast the preceding exam ples wi th the com pletely

diff erent case o f a su it which has been stolen from me and whi ch I
find in the window of a second hand store H ere we have a m aterial -

_
.

entity that consists solely o f i

the nert s u b s t an c e t h e cloth its ,

lining it s trimm ings etc A nother su it wo u ld not be mine regard

, ,
.

less o f its sim ilarity to it B u t lingu istic identity is not that o f the
.

garment ; it is that of the train and the street E ach time I s ay the .

word Gen tlem e n ! I renew its s u bstance ; each u tterance is a new

p honic act and a new psychological act The bond between the two
.

u ses of the sam e word depends neither on m aterial identity nor o n

sam eness in meaning b u t on elem ents whi ch m u st be sou ght after

and w hi ch will point u p the tru e nat u re o f lingu istic u nits .

B What is a synchronic r ea li t y? To what concrete o r abstract

.

elements of langu age can the nam e be applied ?

Take a s an exam ple the distin ction between the parts o f speech .

What su pports the classing of words as su bstantives adj ectives , ,

etc ? Is it done in the nam e of a p u rely logical extra lingu istic

.
,
-

p rinciple that is applied to gram m ar from withou t like the degrees

o f longitu de and latitu de on the globe ? O r does it correspond to

som ething that has its place in the syste m o f language and is con
di t io n e d by it ? In a word is it a syn chronic reali ty ? The second
,

su pposition seem s probable b u t the first cou ld also be defended

‘
.
,

In the French sentence ce s gan t s s on t b on m arch é these gloves are

cheap is b o n m a r ch é an adj ective ? It is apparently an adj ective
,
’

from a logical viewpo int b u t not from the viewpoint of gram mar ,

fo r b o n m a rch é fails to behave as an adj ective ( it is invariable it ,

never precedes its nou n in addition it is co m posed of two

, ,

words No w the distinction b etween pa rts of spee ch is exactly what

”
.

shou l d serve to classify the words o f l ang u age H o w can a gro u p of .

words be attrib u ted to o n e of the parts ? B u t to s ay that b on

‘ ’ ‘
good is an adj ective and m ar ché market a su bstantive explains ’

nothing We are then dealing with a defective o r inco m plete clas

.
1 10 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG UIS TI CS
the division o f words into su bstantives verbs adj ectives
s ifi c a t io n ; , , ,

3
etc is n o t
an u ndeniable lingu istic reality
. .

Lingu istics accordingly works continu ou sly with concepts forged

by gram m arians withou t knowing whether o r n o t the concepts
actu ally correspond to the constitu ents of the system o f langu age .

B u t how can we find o u t ? An d if they are phantom s what realities ,

can we place in opposition to them ?

m
fl
'

t
T o be rid o f ill u sions we m u st first be convinced t h a
c iete entities o f l angu age are not di rectly accessi b le
'

grasp them we com e into contact w ,

there we can se t u p ,

on anything except concrete entities— to

fi c a t io n s
example that the parts o f speech are the constitu ents o f
,

e sim ply becau se they correspond to categories Of logic—is

t that there are no lingu istic facts apart from the pho ni c !

into signifi cant elem ents .

'

tou ch ed u p o n iri f his chapter diff ers «

w

elsewhere called va lu es A new c o m .

parison with the s e t of chessm en will bring o u t this point ( see

pp 88 ff Take a knight for instance By itself is it an element in
.
,
.

—
the gam e ? C ertainly not for by its m aterial m ake u p ou tside its -

—
,

squ are and the other conditions o f the ga e it m eans nothing to

m
the player ; it becom es a real concrete elem ent only when endowed ,

with valu e and wedded to it S u ppose that the piece happens to be .

destroyed or lost d u ring a gam e C an it be replaced by an e qu iva .

lent piece ? C ertainl y N o t only another knight b u t even a fi gu re

.

shorn of any resem blance to a knight can be declared identical

provided the sam e valu e is attrib u ted to it We s e e then that in .

semiological system s like langu age where elem ents hold each other ,

in equ ilibriu m in accordance with fixed ru les the notion of identity ,

blends with that of valu e and vice ve rsa .

In a word that is why the notion o f valu e envelopes the notions

,

o f u nit concrete entity and reality B u t if there is no f u nda m ental

, ,
.

3
Form fun c t io n n d m
, , a e an n gi com b in e t o m ak e t h e c l in g as s of t he p a rt of
s

s p ch v n m or d iffic ult
ee e e e in E ngli h t h
s an in Fr e n ch Cf t n f
. . e -
oo t : t en fee t in
a t e n -fo o t p o l e : t he p o le i s t e n fee t lo n g [ T r ]
. .
1 12 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUISTICS

b etween two ideas Withou t langu age thou ght is a vague

.
, , um

charted neb u la There are no pre existing ideas and nothi ng is

.
-
,

dist inct before the appearance of langu age .

A gainst the floating realm o f thou ght wou ld sou nds by them
,

selves yield p re d e lim it e d entities ? N O more so than ideas Phoni c.

su b stance is neither m ore fixed nor m ore rigid than thou ght ; it is
not a mold into which thou ght m u st o f necessity fit b u t a plastic
su bstance divided in t u rn into distin ct parts to fu rnish the s ignifi e rs
needed by thou ght The lingu istic fact can therefore b e pictu red
in its totality i e langu age —
—
.

. . as a series of contigu ou s su bdivisions

marked o ff on both the indefinite plane o f j u m bled ideas (A ) and
the e qu ally vagu e plane o f sou nds ( B ) The following diagram
.

gives a rou gh idea o f it :

The characteristic role of langu age with respect to thou ght is n o t

to create a material phonic m eans for expressing ideas b u t to serve
as a lin k between thou ght and sou nd un der con di tions that
,

o f necessity bring abou t the reciprocal delimitations o f u nits .

Thou ght chaotic by natu re has to become ordered in the process

, ,

o f its decom position Neither are thou ghts given m aterial form

”
.

nor are sou nds transformed into mental entities ; the som ewhat
“
mysteriou s fact is rather that thou ght sou nd imp l ies division
-
,

and that langu age works o u t its un its while taking shape between
two shapeless m asses V isu ali z e the air in contact with a she et o f
.

water ; if the atm ospheric pressu re changes the s u rface o f the

,

water will be broken u p into a series of divisions waves ; the waves

,

resem ble the u nion or cou pling of thou ght wi th phoni c su bstance .

Langu age might be called the dom ain of articu lations u sin g the,
 L I NG U I S TI C VA LU E

word as it was defined earlier (se e p E ach linguistic term is a

.

m em ber an a r ti cu lu s in which an idea is fix ed in a so u nd and a

,

sou nd becom es the sign of an idea .

Langu age can also be compared with a sheet o f paper : thou ght
is the front and the sou nd the back ; one cannot cu t the front with
o u t c u tting the back at the sam e time ; likewise in langu age one ,

can neither divide sou nd from tho u ght nor tho u ght from so u nd ;
the division co u ld be accom plished only abstractedly and the ,

resu lt wou ld be either p u re psychology o r p u re phonolo gy .

Lin gu istics then works in the borderland where the elem ents o f
sou nd and thou ght combin e ; th eir c omb in a tio n p ro du ce s a form n o t ,

a s u b s t an c e .

These views give a better u nderstanding o f what was said before

(s e e pp 67 ff ) abou t the arbitrariness o f signs No t onl y are the t w o
. . .

dom ains that are lin ked by the lingu istic fact shapeless and con
fu sed b u t the choice of a given slice o f sou nd to nam e a given idea
,

is com pletely arbitrary If thi s were not tr u e the notion o f valu e

.
f
,

wo u ld be com prom ised fo r it wou ld inclu de an externally imposed

,

”
elem ent B u t a ctu ally valu es rem ain entirely relative and t hat is
.
, u s

why the bond between the sou nd and the idea is radica

Q
u a rt
J
The arbitrary natu re of the sign explains in tu rn why the social
fact alone can create a lingu istic system The comm u ni ty is n e c e s
.

sary if valu es that owe their existence solely to u sage and general
acceptance are to be set u p ; by himself the individu al is incapable

In addition the ide a o f valu e as defined shows that to consider

‘

, , ,

a term as sim ply the u nion o f a certain sou nd with a certa in concept
is grossly m isleading To define it in this way wou ld isolate the
.

term from its system ; it wo u ld mean assu ming that o n e can start
fro m the terms and constru ct the syste m by addin g the m together
when on the contrary it is from the interdependent whole that
, ,

o n e m u st start and thr o u gh analysi s obtain its ele m ents .

To develop this thesis we shall stu dy valu e su ccessively fro m

,

the viewpoint of the signified o r concept ( S ection the sign ifier

( S ection and the com plete sign ( S ection
Being u nab l e to sei z e the concrete entities o r u ni ts o f langu age
directly we shall work with words Whi le the word does not con
, .
1 14 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I NG UI S TI CS

form exactly to the definition of the linguistic u nit ( see p .

it at least bears a rou gh resemblance to the u nit and has the a d

vantage o f being concrete ; conse qu ently we shall u se words as ,

specimens equ ivalent to real terms in a synchronic system and the ,

principles that we evolve with respect to words will be val id for

entities in general .

2 . Lin gu is t ic Va lu e f
rom a C o n cep t u a l Vie wp o in t
When we speak o f the valu e o f a word we generally think first of ,

it s property o f standing fo r an idea and this is in fact o n e side o f

,

lingu istic valu e B u t if thi s is tru e how does va lu e differ from

.
,

s ign ific a t io n ? Might the two words h e synonyms ? I think not ,

a ltho u gh it is easy to confu se them since the confu sion resu lts not
,

s o m u ch from their similarity as fro m the su btlety o f the distinction

that they mark .

From a conceptu al viewpoint valu e is do u btless one element in

,

signification and it is difficu lt to s e e h o w signification can be de

,

pendent u pon valu e and still be distinct from it B u t we m u st clear .

u p the issu e or risk red u cing langu age to a sim ple naming process -

( see p .

Let u s first take signifi cation as it is generally u nderstood and as

it was pictu red o n page 67 A s the arrows in the drawing show it is
.
,

only the co u nterpart o f the sou nd im age E verything that occu rs

-
.

concerns only the sou nd image and the concept when we look u pon
-

the word as independent and self contained -

.

here is the paradox : on the o n e hand the concept seems t o be

Bu t
the co u nterpart of the sou nd im age and o n the other hand the sign
-
,

itself is in t u rn the cou nterpart o f the other signs of langu age .

Langu age is a system o f interdependent terms in whi ch the

valu e of each term resu lts solely from the sim u ltaneou s presence
o f the others as in the diagra m
,
1 16 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

table E nglish u ses mu tt o n and not s h eep The di fference in val u e

,
.

between s he ep and m o u to n is d u e to the fact that s heep has beside

it a second term w h ile the French word does not .

Withi n the sam e langu age all words u sed to express related ,

ideas limit each other reciprocally ; synonyms like French r ed o u t e r

‘ ’ ‘ ‘ ’
dread craind r e fear and a vo ir p e u r be afraid have valu e only
, ,
’

thro u gh their opposition : if re d o u te r did n o t exist all its content ,

wou ld go to its competitors C onversely som e words are enriched .

,

throu gh contact with others : e g the new elem ent introdu ced in . .

d ecr e pi t (nu vieillard d écr ép it s ee p 83) resu lts from the c o

’

,
.

existence O f d e crép i (u n m u r The valu e o f j u st any term

’

is accordingly determ in ed by its environment it is imp ossible to :

“
fix even the valu e of the word signifying s u n withou t fir st con

s ay s it in the s u n .
”
s id e rin g its s u rrou n d ings : in some langu ages it is not possi b le to
“

E verything said abou t words applies to any term o f langu age ,

e g t o grammatical entities The val u e o f a French pl u ral does not

. . .

coincide with that of a S anskrit plu ral even thou gh their s ig

n ifi cat io n is u su ally identical ; S anskrit has three n u mbers instead

o f two (m y e ye s m y ears m y ar m s m y l egs etc are d u al ) ; it wo u ld

4
.
, , , ,

be wrong to attribu te the same valu e to the plu ral in S anskrit and
in French ; its valu e clearly depends o n what is ou tside and aro u nd

If wor d s stood for p ro existing concepts they wou ld all have -

,

exact equivalents in meaning from o n e langu age t o the next ; b u t

‘
thi s is not tru e French u ses lou e r (u n e m ais on ) let ( a hou se ) in
” ”
’
.

“ “
differently to mean b oth pay fo r and receive payment for ,

whereas German u ses two words mie t en and ve rmie ten ; there is ,

obviou sly no exact corresp ondence o f valu es The German verbs .

sc h atz e n and u rte ile n share a n u mber o f s igni fi c at io ns b u t that

’

c orrespondence does not hold at several points .

In fle c t io n offers some particu larly striking examples D is .

t in c t io n s o f time which are s o familiar to u s are u n k nown in cer

, ,

tain lan guages H e b rew does not recogni z e even the fun dam ental
.

4
Th e use t he of
m a at e m co p r iv for for
t w o a nd t h e s u e l a t e m e t an p r iv for or h
t w o in E n gl s ih r r
( e g ma y t he b e t t e b o x e w in : t h e b e s t b o x e r in t he w o ld ) r
p r
. .

is pro
b ab l a e m na n t y r
t h e o ld st n t of di i c io
n b et we e n t he u al a n d t h e l u al d
n um b e [T r ] r . .
 LI NG U I S TI C VA LU E 1 17

distinctions b etween the past present and fu t u re Proto Germa nic

, ,
.
-

has no special form for the fu tu re ; to say that the fu tu re is ex

pressed by the present is wrong for the valu e of the present is not
,

the sam e in Germanic as in langu ages that have a f u tu re along with

the present The S lavic langu ages regu larly single o u t two aspects
.

o f the verb : the perfective represents action as a point complete in ,

it s tot ality ; the imperfective represents it as taking place and o n ,

the line o f tim e The categories are d ifli c u l t fo r a Frenchman to

.

un derstand for they are u nknown in French ; if they were p re

,

determ ined this wo u ld not be tru e Instead of pre exis ting ideas
,
.
-

then we find in all the foregoin g exam ples va lu e s e m anating

,
”
the system Wh en they are said to correspond to concepts it is
.
,

u nderstood that the concepts are p u rely d ifferential and defined

not by their positive content b u t negatively by their relations with

'
the other ter m s of the system Their m ost precise characteristic is
.

in b e ing what the others are not .

No w the real interpretation of the diagram o f the si gnal b ecomes

apparent Thu s .

means that in French the concept to ju d ge is link e d t o t hg solmgf

q ’

in short it ,
Ation B u t it is qui te
.

that is only a valu e

W ithout t he m
fl

that a word signifies $ t e

t h a s ignifi ca t io n wo u ld not
Win mind the associ W y
/

at ing o f a sou nd image with a concept I am m aking a state m ent

-
,

that may s u ggest what act u ally happens b u t by no means am I ,

expressing the lin gu istic fact in its essence and fu llness .

3 . Lin gu i s t ic Va lu e f
rom a Ma teria l Vi e wp o in t
The conceptu al side of valu e is made u p solely o f relations and
d ifferences with respect to the other t e rm s o f langu age and the ,
1 18 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

same can b e said o f its material side The i m portant thing in the
.

word is not the so u nd alone b u t the phonic differences that make

it possible to distingu ish this word fro m all others for differences ,

carry signification .

This may seem s u rprising b u t how indeed co u ld the reverse be

,

possible ? S ince one vocal im age is no better s u ited than the next
for what it is co m missioned to express it is evident even a p r iori
, , ,

that a segment o f langu age can never in the final analysis be based
o n anything except its noncoincidence with the rest A r b i t ra ry and .

difi e re n tia l are two correlative q u al ities

’
.

The alteration of lingu istic signs clearly illu strates this It is .

precisely becau se the term s a and b as su ch are radically in capable

—
of reaching the level of conscio u sness one is always conscio u s o f
/
only the a b difference —that each term is free to change accord
ing to laws that are u nrelated to its signifying fu nction NO positive .

si gn characteri z es the genitiv e plu ral in C z ech rie n ( see p .

'
still the two form s z e n a : Ze n fu nction as well as the earlier form s
'
i e n a : z e n h; rien has val u e only beca u se it is di fferent .

Here is another example that shows even m ore clearly the s ys

t e m at ic role o f phonic di fferences : in Greek e p h en is an i m perfect
’

and és té n an aorist althou gh both words are form ed in the sam e

way ; the first belongs to the system of the present indicative of
‘ ’ *
p hé m i I s ay whereas there is no present s t é mi ; now it is precisely
,

the relation p hém i : ép hén that corresponds to the relation between

the present and the im perfect ( cf d éikn umi : e déikn un
. S igns ,

fu nction then not throu gh their intrinsic valu e b u t throu gh their

, ,

relative position .

In addition it is im possible for sou nd alone a material element

, , ,

to b elong to langu age It is only a secondary thing su bstance to be

.
,

p u t to u s e All o u r conventional val u es have the characteristic o f

.

not being confu sed with the tangible elem ent which su pports them .

For instance it is not the m etal in a piece o f m oney that fix es its

,

valu e A coin nom inally worth fi ve francs may contain less than
.

half it s worth of silver Its valu e will vary according to the amou nt
.

stamped u p on it and according to its u s e inside or o u tside a politi

cal bo u ndary This is even more tru e of the lingu istic signifier
—
.
,

which is not phonic b u t incorporeal constitu ted not by its m a

 1 20 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

The only re qu irement is that the sign fo r t not be confu sed in hi s

script with the signs u sed for l d etc , ,
.

3 ) V al u es in writing f u nction only thro u gh reciprocal opposition

within a fixed syste m that consists o f a se t nu mber o f letters This .

third characteristic thou gh not identical to the second is closely

, ,

related to it for both depend o n the first S ince the graphi c sign is
,
.

arbitrary its form matters little o r rather m atters only within the
,

lim itations i m posed by the system .

4 ) The m eans by which the sign is prod u ced is co m pletely u n

i m portant for it does not aff ect the syste m ( this also follows from
,

characteristic Whether I m ake the letters in white or black

—
,

raised or engraved with pen or chisel all thi s is of no importance

,

with respect to their signifi cation .

4 Th e S ign Co n s id e re d in I t s To t a li t y
E verything that has been said up to this o int bo ils down‘t o

di fference is se t up in langu age there are o nly di fferences

; b ut
w i tho u t p o s itive t erms Whether we take the sig ni fied or the signifier
.
,

langu age has neither ideas nor sou nds that existed before the lin
1gu is t ic system b u t only c o n c e t M I

W
E
,
n W EE—

have issu ed from the syste m The idea or phonic su bstance Hat a
.
that

le ss im portance than the other signs that s u r

M “

ro u nd it Proof of this IS that the valu e of a term may be m odified

.

withou t either it s m eaning or its sou nd being affected solely b e ,

cau se a neighboring term has been modified ( see p .

B u t the state m ent that everyth ing in langu age is negative is

tru e only if the signified and the signifier are considered separately ;
when we consider the sign in its totality we have som ething that ,

is positive in its own class A lingu istic syste m is a series of differ

.

o nces of so u nd co m bined wi th a series o f di fferences o f ideas ; b u t

the pairing o f a certain nu m ber of aco u stical signs with as m any

cu ts m ade fro m the m ass o f thou ght engenders a syste m o f valu es ;
and this syste m serves as the e ff ective link between the phonic and
psychological ele m ents within each sign A lthou gh both the sig .

n ifi e d and the signifier are p u rely di fferential and negative when

considered separately their com bination is a positive fact ; it is

,
 L I NG UI S TI C VA LU E 1 21

even the sole type o f facts that langu age h as fo r m aintaining the ,

parallelism between the two classes of differences is the distinctive

fu nction of the lingu istic institu tion .

C ertain diachronic facts are typical in this respect Take the .

cou ntless instances where alteration o f the signifier occasions a

conceptu al change and where it is obviou s that the s u m of the
ideas distingu ished corresponds in principle to the s u m of the dis
t in c t ive signs When two words are confu sed thro u gh phonetic
.

alteration (e g French d ecrep i t from d e cr ep i tu s and d e crép i from

’ ’

. .

c r is p u s ) the ideas that they express will also tend to becom e con
,

f u sed if only they have som ething in com m on O r a word m ay have

‘
.

d ifferent form s ( of cha is e chair and cha ir e

.
’
An y nascent
difference will tend invariably to become si gnificant b u t witho u t
always su cceeding o r being su ccessfu l on the first trial C onversely .
,

any conceptu al difference perceived by the m ind seeks to find ex

pression throu gh a distin ct signifier and two ideas that are n o ,

longer dist inct in the mind tend to merge into the same signifier .

m —
When we co pare signs positive term s with each other we— ,

can no longer speak o f difference ; the exp ression wou ld n o t be

fitting for it applies only to the comparing of two sou nd images
”
-

”
, ,

e g fa th e r and m o th e r o r two ideas e g the idea

. .
“father and the
,
. .
,
“
idea mother ; two signs each having a signified and signifier are
, ,

not diff erent b u t only distinct Between the m there is only o pp o

.

s itio n The ent ire mechanism o f langu age with which we shall be
.
,

concerned later is based o n oppositions Of this kind and o n the

,

phonic and concept u al differences that they imply .

What is tru e o f val u e is tru e also o f the u nit (see pp 1 1 0 ff ) A . .

u ni t is a seg m ent o f the spoken chain that corresponds to a certain

concept ; both are by natur e pu rely differential .

A pplied to u nits the principle of d ifferentiation can be stated in

,

thi s way : th e cha ract e r is tics of th e u n it b len d wi th th e u ni t i t s e lf In .

langu age as in any sem iological syste m whatever distingu ishes

, ,

o n e sign fro m the others constitu tes it D ifference m akes character .

j u st as it makes valu e and the u nit .

A nother rather paradoxical consequ ence of the sa m e principle is

”
“ m
this : in the last analysis what is com m only referred to as a gra
m a t ic al fact fits the definition of the u nit for it always expresses ,

an opposition o f term s ; it differs only in that the opposition is

1 22 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

particu larly signi ficant ( e g the formation o f German pl u rals of the

. .

type Na cht : Nach t e ) E ach term present in the gram m atical fact
.

( the singu lar withou t um lau t o r final e in opposition to the plur al

with u m lau t and e ) consists o f the interplay o f a nu m ber o f opp o
-

s it io n s within the system When isolated neither Na ch t n o r Nach te

’

.
,

is anything : thu s everything is Opposition P u tting it another way .

,
'
the Na ch t : Nach t e relation can be expressed by an algebraic form u la
/
a b in whi ch a and b are not s imple term s b u t resul t fro m a set o f

relations Langu age in a manner of speaking is a typ e o f algebra

.
, ,

consisting solely o f complex term s S om e of its oppositions are m ore .

significant than others ; b u t u nits and gram m atical facts are only
diff erent nam es for designating diverse aspects o f the same general
fact : the fu nctioning of lingu istic oppositions This statem ent is so .

tru e that we m ight very well approach the problem O f u nits by

starting from gram m atical facts Taking an opposition like Na cht : .

Nac ht e we m ight ask what are the u nits involved in it Are they
’

.
,

only the two words the whole series of s imilar words a and a or all
, , ,

singu lars and pl u rals etc ? ,

.

Units and gram matical facts wou ld not be confu sed if lingu istic
signs were made u p o f som ething besides differences B u t langu age .

being what it is we shall find nothi ng sim ple in it regardless of o u r

,

approach ; everywhere and always there is the sam e com plex

e qu ilibriu m o f term s that m u tu ally condition each other Pu tting .

it another way lan gu age i s a fo rm an d n o t a s u b s ta n ce ( see p

,
.

This tru th co u ld not be overstressed for all the m istakes in o u r ,

term inology all o u r incorrect ways of naming things that pertain

,

to langu age stem from the involu ntary su ppo sition that the
,

lingu istic phenom enon m u st have su bstance .

Chap t er V

SYNTAGMATI C AND A SS O C IA TI VE R E LATI ONS

1 . fi
De n i ti o n s

In a langu age state everythi ng is based

-
on relations H o w do
.

the y fu nction ?
1 24 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

u nit is like a fixed part o f a b u ilding e g a col u mn O n the o ne ,

. . .

hand the colu m n has a certain relation to the architrave that it

,

s u pports ; the arrangem ent of the two u nits in space s u ggests the
syntagmatic relation O n the other hand if the colum n is D oric it .
, ,

su ggests a m ental com parison o f this style with others ( Ionic ,

C orinthian etc ) althou gh none o f these ele m ents is present in

,
.

space : the relation is associative .

E ach of the two class es o f c o ordination calls for some specific -

re m arks .

2 . S yn tagma tic R e la tion s

The exam ples o n page 1 23 have already indicated that the notion
o f syntagm applies n o t only to words b u t to grou ps of words to ,

c om plex u nits of all lengths and types ( com pou nds derivatives , ,

phrases whole sentences ),

.

It is not enou gh to consider the relation that ties together the

‘
diff erent parts of syntagms (e g French c o n tre against and t o us ’

‘ ‘
. .

everyone in c o n tre t o u s co n tre and m ai tr e master in co n t re ma itr e

’ ’

‘
,

fore m an ) ; o n e mu st also bear in mind the relation that links the

6 ’

whole to its parts ( e g c on tr e t o u s in opposition o n the o n e hand to

. .

c o n t r e and on the other t o u s o r co n t r e m a i t r e in Opposition to c on tr e ,

and m ai t re ) .

An obj ection m ight be raised at this point The sentence is the .

ideal type o f syntagm B u t it belongs to speaking n o t to language .

,

(s e e p D oes it not follow that the syntag m belongs to speak

.

ing ? I do not think so S peaking is characteri z ed by freedom .

of combinations ; o n e m u st therefore a s k whether o r not all syn

t a gm s are equ ally free .

It is Obvio u s from the first that many expressions b elong to lan

gu age These are the pat phrases in which any change is prohibited
.

by u sage , even if we can single o u t their m eaningfu l elem ents ( cf

‘
.

a qu o i b on ? what s the u se ? a ll o n s do n e !
’
The sam e is ’

tru e tho u gh to a lesser degree o f expressions like p r end re l a m o uc he

‘ ‘
, ,

take o ffense easily fo rce r la m a in a qu elgu u n force som eone s

7 ’ ’ ’

‘
,

hand rom p re u n e lan ce break a lance 8 o r even avo ir m a l ( a l a

,
’
,
’

0
Cf E gli h h n s ea d an d w a it e r in h ea d w a it e r [Tr ]
‘
. . .

7
Li t r ll y t k
e a a e t h e fly .
’
Cf Engl i h t
. s ake the b u ll b y the ho ns r .
[ Tr ]
.

9
Cf E gli h b
. n s u r y t h e h a t c he t .
[ Tr ] .
 SYN TA GM A TI C AND A SS O C I A TI VE RE LA TIO N S 1 25

t et e ,
‘
etc ) have ( a headache ( s o in s a f
o rce de
‘
etc ) by dint o f
‘
.
, ,
.

( care qu e vo u s e n s e m b l e ? how do yo u feel abo u t it ?

pas
’

‘
,
’ ’
n e s t b es o i n d e there s no need for etc which are charac .
,

t e riz e d by pecu liarities o f signifi cation o r syntax These idio m atic .

twists cannot be im provised ; they are fu rnished by tradition .

There are also words which whil e lending themselves perfectly to ,

analysis are characteri z ed by som e m orphol ogical ano m aly that is

‘
,

kept solely by dint o f u sage ( cf d izfic u l t é diffi cu l t y beside fa ci lit é ’

‘ ‘ ‘
.

facility etc and mou rra i [ I] shall die beside dormira i [ I] shall
,
’
.
,
’

There are fu rther proofs T o langu age rather than to speaking .

belong the syntagmatic types that are b u ilt u pon regu lar forms .

Indeed since there is nothi ng abstract in langu age the types exist
, ,

only if langu age h as registered a su fficient num ber o f specim ens .

When a word like in déco r a ble arises in speaking (see pp 1 6 7 ff its .

appearance su pposes a fixed type and this type is in t u rn possible ,

onl y throu gh remembrance o f a s u fli c ie n t n u m ber o f si m ilar words

‘
belonging to language (imp a rd on a b le u npardonable in t o l era b le ’

‘ ‘
,

intolerable infa tiga ble indefatigable

’
,
E xactly the sam e is ,
’

tru e of sentences and gro u ps o f words b u ilt u pon regu lar patterns
‘ —
.

’
C ombinations like la t e rr e t o u rne the world t u rns qu e vo u s di t i l ?
‘
,

what does he s ay to yo u ? etc correspond to general types that are ’

.

in t u rn su pported in the langu age by concrete remem brances .

B u t we m u st reali z e that in the syntagm there is no clear c u t -

b ou ndary between the langu age fact whi ch is a sign o f collective ,

u sage and the fact that belongs to speaking and depends o n indi
,
'

vidu al freedo m In a great nu m ber o f in stances it is hard to class a

.

combination o f u nits be cau se both forces have co m bined in prod u c

ing it and they have combined in indeterm inable proportions
,
.

3 . A s s ocia tive R e la t ion s

Mental association creates other grou ps besides those based on
the com paring of terms that have som ething in com mon ; throu gh
its grasp o f the natu re Of the relations that bind the term s together ,

the m ind creates as many associative series as there are diverse

‘ ‘
relations Fo r instance in e n seigne m e n t teaching en s e ign e r teach
.
’
,
’
, ,

Th e 9
an o m ly f t h do u b l r in t h fut u r form f c r t i v rb
a o e e e e s o e a n e s in Fr nch
e

m ay b e co m par d t irr gul r p lu r l l ik

e o e n i E n gli h [ T ]
a a s e ox e n s . r .
1 26 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG UIS TI CS

e n s e ign o ns
‘
teach etc o ne elem ent the radical is common
(w e ) ,
’
.
, , ,

to every term ; the sam e word m ay occ ur in a di fferent series formed

aro u nd another comm on element the su ffix ( cf en seign em en t a rme ,
.
,

me n t cha n ge me n t
,
o r the association may spring fro m the
,

analogy of the concepts sig nified (en s e ign e me n t in s tru ctio n a p , ,

p ren tis s age ed u c a tio n

,
o r again simply fro m the simil arity
, ,

o f the so u nd images (e g e ns e ign e m e n t and ju s te me n t

-
. .

Thu s there is at times a dou ble si m ilarity o f meaning and form ,

at tim es sim ilarity only of form o r of m eaning A word can always .

evoke everyt hing that can be associated wi th it in one way o r

another .

Whereas a syntagm im m ediately s u ggests an order o f su ccession

and a fixed nu m ber of elements term s in an associative fam ily ,

occu r neither in fixed nu mbers nor in a definite order If we associ .

ate p a infu l d e ligh tfu l frigh tfu l etc we are u nable to predict the
, , ,
.

n u m ber of words that the m em ory will su ggest o r the order in

which they will appear A partic u lar word is like the center Of a .

constellation ; it is the point of convergence o f an indefi ni te nu mber

of c o ordinated term s ( see the illu stration o n page
-

B u t o f the two characteristics o f the associative series—in

—
determ inate order and indefinite nu m ber only the first can always
be verified ; the second may fail to meet the test Th is happens in .

the case of in fle c t io n al paradigm s which are typical of associative ,

grou pings Latin d o m in u s d o min i d o min o etc is Obviou sly an

.
, , ,
.

associative grou p form ed arou nd a com mon element the nou n ,

theme d o m n b u t the series

i 11

e nse ig ne r
I

e ns e i g no ns
e tc.

pp re nt i ss a g e
e tc a c ha ng e me nt
.

é d uc o t io n
e tc.

e tc .

T h e la s t c as e is r r a e an d c an be cl as s e d a s ab n orm al , for t h e m ind n r y

a t u all
1 28 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

into two su b u nits (p a in fu l) b u t these s u bu nits are not two inde -

,

pendent parts that are si m p l y lu mped together (p ain fu t) The .

unit is a prod u ct a co m bination of two interdependent ele m ents

,

that acqu ire valu e only throu gh their reciprocal action in a hi gher
u nit (p a in fu t) The su ffix is nonexistent when considered inde
.

pendently ; what gives it a place in the langu age is a series o f c o m

m o n term s like d e ligh t fu t frigh t fu t etc N o r is the radical inde -
,
-
,
.

pendent It exists only throu gh com b ining with a su ffix In gos lin g
. .
-
,

the ele m ent go s is nothing witho u t its su ffi x The whole h as valu e .

only throu gh its parts and the parts have valu e by v irtu e of the ir ,

place in the whole That is why the syn tagmatic relation o f the part
.

to the whole is j u st as im portant as the relation o f the parts to each

other .

This general principle holds tru e for every type o f syntagm

e nu m erated above ( pp 1 24 ff ) for larger u nits are always com .
,

posed of m ore restricted u nits linked by their reciprocal sol idarity .

To be su re langu age has independent u nits that have s yn t ag

,

m atic relations with neither their parts n o r other u nits S entence .

equ ivalents like ye s n o th a n ks etc are good exam ples B u t this

, , ,
. .

exceptional fact does not com prom ise the general principle As a .

ru le we do not com m u nicate thro u gh isolated signs b u t rather

throu gh grou ps of signs throu gh organi z ed m asses that are them ,

selves signs In langu age everything boils down to d iff erences b u t

.

also to gro u pings The m echanism o f langu age which consists o f

.
,

the interplay of su ccessive terms resem bles the operation o f a ,

machine in which the parts have a reciprocating fu nction even

thou gh they are arranged in a single dim ension .

2 . S im u l ta n e o u s Fu n ctio n in g of t h e Tw o Typ e s of Gr ou p ings

Between the syntagmatic grou pings as defined there is a b ond , ,

o f interdependence ; they m u tu ally condition each other In fact .

,

spatial c o ordinations help to create associative c o ordinations

- -
,

which are in tu rn necessary for analysis o f the parts of the syntagm

‘
.

Take the French co m pou nd dé fa ire u n do 17

We can pictu re it - -
.
’

as a h o riz o n t a l rib b o n that corresponds to the spoken chain :

77
Cf E ngl i h m i p l
. s s a ce . To t h e Fr n ch e se ri es corr po n d E ngli h
es s mis ta ke ,
mi s s p ll m i
e pr
, nt s re es e , et c . a nd r pl
p l ac e , e a ce , dis p la ce , et c .
[Tr ]
.
 T HE ME C HAN I SM OF L AN GUA G E 1 29

d é -fo ire

But sim u ltaneou sly and o n another axis there exists in the s u b
consciou s o n e o r m ore associative series com prising u nits that have
an elem ent in comm on with the syntagm :

d é -fa ire nw — v

d é c o lle r

d é p la ce r

d é c o ud re
0

e tc .

I n the same way if Latin qu adru p lex is a syntagm this is b ecause it

, ,

too is su pported by a do u ble associative series :

q ua d ru -
p le x ass

q ua d ruple x

q ua d rifro ns

q uo d ra g int a
e tc .

To the extent that the other forms float aro u nd d éfa ire o r qu ad ru
p l ex these words can be decom posed into s u b u nits This is j u st a n
, .

other way o f saying that they are syntag m s D éfair e co u ld not be .

analy z ed for instance if the other form s containing d é o r faire

, ,

disappeared from the langu age It wo u ld be b u t a sim ple u nit and

.
,

its two parts co u ld not be placed in opposition .

N ow the fu nctioning of the d ual sys t em in discou rse is clear .

1 30 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

O u r m em ory holds in reserve all the m ore or less complex types

o f syntagms regardless o f their class or length and we bring in the
, ,

associative grou ps to fix o u r choice when the time for u sing them

arrives When a Frenchm an says ma rcho n s !
. walk ! he ’

thin ks u nconscio u sly o f diverse gro u ps o f associations that con

verge o n the syntagm marcho n s ! The syntagm figu res in the series
‘ ‘
march e ! ( thou ) walk ! m arc he z ! (yo u ) walk ! and the opposition
’ ’

between m a rcho n s ! and the other form s determ ines his choice ; in
addition m a rcho n s ! calls u p the series m o n t on s !
,
go u p
’
ma nge o n s eat ! etc and is selected from the series by the
S
.

s ame process In each series the peaker knows what he m u st vary

.

in order to produ ce the differentiation that fits the desired u nit If .

b e chan ges the idea to be expressed he will need other oppositions ,

t o brin g o u t another val u e ; for instance he m ay s ay m a rchez ! o r ,

perhaps m o n t on s !
It is not enou gh to s ay lookin g at the matter positively that the
, ,

speaker chooses marchon s ! becau se it signifies what he wishes to

express In reality the idea evokes not a form b u t a whole latent
.

system th at makes possible the oppositions necessary for the for

S
mation o f the ign By itself the ign wo u ld have no si gnifi cation
. S .

If there were no forms li ke m ar che ! m a rchez ! against ma rchons ! ,

certain oppositions wou ld di sappear and the valu e of m a rchon s ! ,

wou l d be changed ip s o fa c to .

This prin ciple applies to even the m ost co m plex types o f syn
.
‘
t a gm s and sentences To frame the qu estion q u e vo u s dit il ? what -

does he s ay to yo u ? the speaker varies o ne element o f a latent

’

‘
synt actical pattern e g qu e t e dit il ? what does he s ay to the e ? -
’

‘ ,
. .

qu e n o u s dit il ? what does he say to u s ? etc u nti l hi s choice is

’
-
.
,

fixed o n the pronou n vo u s In this process whi ch consists o f clim i

.
,

nating mentally everythi ng that does not help to bring o u t the

desir ed differentiation at the desired point associative gro u pings ,

and syntagmatic patterns b oth play a role .

C onversely the process of fixation and choice governs the

,

sm al lest u nits and even phonological elements wherever they are

endowed with a valu e I am thin king not only o f cases l ike French
S‘
.

p oti t m all ( fem inine form written p e t it e ) in opposition to p e ti

’
,

( m as cu line form written p e tit ) o r Latin d omin i against d om in o

, ,

w here the difference happens to be b ased on a s imple phonem e b u t ,

1 32 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG UI S TI CS

ca c ho t
‘
du ngeon ’
and co u p e re t h ache
co nci e rge
‘
ax ’ ‘
chopper ’ ‘
por
‘ ‘ ‘
, ,
’ ’
ter and p o r tie r doorman ja dis Of O l d and a u trefo is formerly
’ ’

‘ ‘ ‘
, ,

s o u ve n t often and fr e qu e mmen t fre qu ently a ve u gle blind and

’ ’ ’

‘
b oi te ux lim ping s ou rd
‘ ‘ ’
deaf and b o ss u hu nchbacked s eco nd ’
,
’

‘ ‘
, ,

se c ond and de u x ieme second ( o f a

’
Germ an L a u b and
‘ ‘
French fe u illa ge foliage and French m é tie r handicraft and Ger ’ ’
,

ma n H a ndw e rk 15
The E nglish pl u ral s hips s u ggests thr o u gh its
.

form ation the whole series flags b ird s b o o ks etc while m en and
‘
.
, , , ,

s hee p su ggest nothing In Greek di s c

’
? I shall give the notion o f
.

fu tu rity is expressed by a ign that calls u p the association lit s o S

‘
s t e s o t up s o etc ; c im i I shall go on the other hand is completely
.
’
,

, , , ,

isolated .

T hi s is n o t the place to search for the forces that condition

m otivation in each instance ; b u t motivation varies bein g always ,

proportional to the ease o f syntagm atic analysis and the Obviou s

ness o f the meanin g o f the su bun its present Indeed while some
formativ e elem ents like i er in p o ir ier against ceris— ie r p o mm— —
.
,

ier -
, ,

—
etc are ob viou s others are vagu e o r m eaningless For instance
.
,
.
,

does the su fli x o t reall y correspond to a m eaningfu l element in

‘ ‘
French ca cho t du ngeon ? O n c om paring words li ke co u t e la s c u tlas ’ ’

‘ ‘ ‘
,

fa tras pile p la tras ru bbish caneva s canvas etc o ne has no

’ ’ ’

—
.
, , , ,

more than the vagu e feeling that a s is a formative ele m ent charac
t e rist ic o f s u bstantives A t any rate even in the m ost favorable .
,

cases motivation is never absolu te No t only are the elem ents o f a .

motivated sign them selves u nmotivated ( cf dix and n e uf in d ix .

n e uf) b u t the valu e o f the whole te rm is never equ al to the s um o f

,

the valu e o f the parts Teach e r is not equ al to t ea ch X er ( see

.

p .

M otivation is explain ed by the principles stated in S ection 2 .

The notion o f relative motivation implies : ( 1 ) analysis o f a given

term hence a syntagm atic relation ; and (2 ) the su m m oning of o ne
,

o r more other term s hence an associative relation It is the

,
.

m echanism thro u gh whi ch any term whatever lends itself t o the

expression o f an idea and is n o more than tha t U p to this point ,
.

u nits have appeared as val u es i e as ele m ents o f a system and we ,

. .
,

15
Fo r e x am pl es no t s im il r a in E n gl i s h Fr e nc h com p r com pl t ly
an d ,
a e e e

unm o t iv at e d ja i l ,
s la ve , t h en an d r l t iv ly m o t iv t e d r f m t ry v nt
e a e a e or a o , ser a ,

h ere t f r
o o e .
[ Tr ] .
 THE M E C HAN I SM O F L AN GUA G E 1 33

have given special consideration to their opposition ; now we recog

ni z e the solidarities that bind them ; they are associative and
syntagmatic and they are what limits arbitrariness D ix n e uf is
,
.
-

su pported associatively by dix hu i t s oix a n t e dix etc and s yn t a g

-
,
-
,
.

m at ic a lly by its ele m ents d ix and n euf ( see p This d u al.

relation gives it a part o f its valu e .

E veryt hi ng that relates to langu age as a system m u st I am con ,

vin c e d be approached fro m this viewpoint w hi ch has sc arcely

, ,

received the attention O f lingu ists : the limiting o f arbitrariness .

This is the best possible basis for approaching the stu dy of langu age
as a system In fact the whole system o f langu age is based on the
.
,

irrational principle of the arbitrariness of the sign whi ch wo u ld ,

lead to the worst sort of com plication if applied witho u t restriction .

B u t the m ind contrives to introdu ce a principle of order and regu

l arit y into certa in parts of the m ass of signs and t hi s is the role o f
,

relative m otivation If the m echanism o f langu age were entirely

.

rational it cou ld be stu died independently S ince the m echanism

,
.

o f langu age is b u t a partial correction of a system that is by nat u re

chaotic however we adopt the viewpoint im posed by the very

, ,

natu re o f langu age and stu dy it as it limits arbitrariness .

There is no langu age in which nothi ng is m otivated and o u r ,

definition m akes it impossible to conceive o f a langu age in which

everythi ng is motivated Between the two extre es a mi nim um
. m —
o f organi z ation and a m in im u m of arbitrariness — w e find all pos
sible varieties D iverse la ngu ages always inclu de elements of both
.

types— radically arbitrary and relatively motivated—b u t in pro

portions that vary gr eatly and this is an important characteristic
,

that may help in classifying them

In a certain sens e —o ne which m u st not be p u shed too far b u t
.

whi ch brings o u t a particu lar form that the opposition m ay take

w e m ight say that lan gu ages in which there is least m otivation are

”
more l ex ic o lo gica l and those in whi ch it is greatest are more gra m
”
” ”
,
“
ma tica l No t beca u se lexical and arbitrary on the one hand
.

“ “
and gram m ar and relative m otivation o n the other are always ,

synonym ou s b u t becau se they have a comm on principle The two

,
.

extrem es are like two poles between which the whole syste m m oves ,

S
two opposing c u rrents w hi ch hare the movem ent of langu age : the
tendency to u s e the lexicological instru ment ( the u n m otivated
1 34 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUIST ICS

Sign ) and the preference given to the gram m atical in stru ment
( stru ctu ral ru les ) .

We wo u ld se e for example that m otivation plays a m u ch larger

, ,

role in Germ an than in E nglish B u t the u ltra lexicological type is -

—
.

C hinese while Proto Indo E u ropean and S anskr it are specimens of

-

the u ltra gramm atical type Within a given langu age all evolu tion
- .
,

ary move m ent may be characteri z ed b y continu al passage from

motivation to arbitrariness and fro m arbitrariness to motivation ;
this s e e s aw motion often resu lts in a perceptible change in the
-

proport ions o f the t w o classes o f signs Thu s with respect to Latin .

,

French is characteri z ed am ong other things by a h u ge increase in

, ,

arbitra riness Latin inimi cu s recal ls in and a micu s and is m oti

‘
.

vat e d by the m ; against thi s e nn e m i ene m y is m otivated by ’

,

nothi ng—it has reverted t o absolu te arbitrariness whi ch is really ,

the prim e characteristic o f the li ngu istic sign We wo u ld notice .

this shi ft in hu ndreds o f instances : of co n s tare (s tare ) : co ute r

‘ ‘
.

cost fa b rica (fa b e r ) : fo rge forge magis te r (m agis ) m a i t re

’

‘ ,

m ast er b er bicar iu s ( b e rb ix ) : b e rger shepherd etc French owes

,
’
,
’
.

it s characteristic appearance to this fact .

Ch ap t e r VII

G R AMM AR AND IT S SUB D I V I S IO N S

1 . De fi n i t ion s : Tra ditio n a l Divisi o n s

S t atic ling
istics o r the description of a langu age state is gra m
u -

mar in the very precise and moreover u su al sense that the word
“
,

h as in the expressions gra mm ar Of the S tock E xchange etc

,

,
” .
,

where it is a qu estion o f a com plex and system atic obj ect governing
the in t erplay of coexisting valu es .

Grammar stu dies langu age as a system o f m eans o f expression .

Gram matical m eans synchronic and signifi cant and since no s ys

”
,
“
tem straddles several periods there is no s u ch thing as historical
,

gram m ar ; the discipline s o labeled is really only diachronic

lingu istics .
1 36 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG UI S TI CS

Opposition is expressed grammatically in the first instance and

lexi cologically in the second A large n u m ber o f relations that are .

expressed in certain langu ages by cases or prepositions are rendered

in others by com pou nds m ore like words proper ( French r o yau me
‘
,

d e s ci e u x kin gdom of heaven and German H imm e lr eich ) o r by

’

‘
,

derivatives ( French m o u lin a ve n t windmill and Po l ish wia tr a h) ’

-

‘
o r finally by simple words ( French b o i s d e c h a uffa ge firewood and
’

‘
,
’
R u ssian d ro vd French b o is d e c o n s t ru c t io n timber and R u ssian
,

The interchange o f simple words and phrases within the same

langu age also occu rs very frequ ently ( of French co n s ider e r c o n‘ ’

‘
.

’
sider and p re ndre e n co n s id era tio n take into consideration s e ’

‘ ’ ‘
ve n ge r d e avenge and t ir e r ve n ge a nce d e take revenge
,

Fu nctionally therefore the lexical and the syntactical m ay

, ,

blend There is basical ly no distinction between any word that is

.

not a sim ple irredu cible u nit and a phrase whi ch is a syntactical
, ,

fact The arrangem ent o f the s u b un its o f the word obeys the same
.

fu ndam ental prin ciples as the arrangem ent o f grou ps o f words in

phrases .

In short althou gh the traditional divisions o f gramm ar may b e

,

u sefu l in practice they do n o t correspond to nat u ral distinctions

,
.

T o b u ild a grammar , we m u st look fo r a diff erent and a hi gher

principle .

2 . R a tio n a l D ivis ion s

M orphology syntax and lexicology interpenetrate b ecaus e
, ,

every synchronic fact is identical No lin e o f dem arcation can be .

drawn in advance O nly the distinction established above between

.

syntagmatic and associative relations can provide a classifi cation

that is not im posed from the ou tside No other base will serve for .

the grammatical system .

We shou ld first gather together all that makes u p a lan gu age

state and fit this into a theory of syntagms and a theory o f associ
a t io n s I m mediately certain parts o f traditional gramm ar wou ld
.

seem to fall effortlessly into o n e category or the other In fle c t io n .

is evidently a typical kin d o f association o f forms in the m ind of

S peakers ; and syntax ( i e the theory of word grou pings accordi ng
. .
,

to the most com m on definition ) goes back to the theory of s yn

t agm s for the grou pings always s u ppose at least t w o u nits dis
,
 ROLE OF A B S TRA C T E N TITIE S I N G RA M M AR 1 37

trib u ted in space No t every syntagm atic fact is classed as s yn

.

tactical b u t every syntactical fact belongs to the syntagm atic

,

class .

To prove the necessity of the d u al approach a lm ost any point ,

o f gra m m ar will do The notion o f word for instance poses two

.
, ,

distinct problem s depending o n whether the word is stu died from

,

the associative or the syntagmatic viewpoint In French the

‘
.
,
’
adj ective gra nd big o ffers a d u ality of form from the syntagmatic
‘
viewpoint ( gr a ga r go n written grand ga rgon big boy and grat afa ’

‘
,

written gra n d e nfan t big baby ) and another d u ality from the
’

associative viewpoint (mascu line gra written grand and fe m in ine , ,

gr ad written gra n d e )
,
.

E ach fact shou ld in this way be fitted into it s syntagmatic o r

associative class and the whole su bj ect m atter of gram m ar shou ld
,

be arranged along its two natu ral c o ordin ates ; no other division
-

will show what m u st be changed in the u su al fram ework o f s yn

chronic lingu istics I cannot u ndertake that task here fo r my aim
.
,

is limited to stating only the most general principles .

Cha p t er VIII

R OL E OF AB S TR AC T E N T I T I ES I N G R A MM AR

O ne i m portant su b j ect n o t yet tou ched u pon po ints u p this very

, ,

necessity of exam ining every gramm atical qu estion from the two
viewpoints specified in C hapter V II : abstract entities in gramm ar .

Let u s consider them first associatively .

To associate two form s is n o t only to feel that they have som e

thi ng in comm on b u t also to single o u t the natu re of the relations
that govern associations Fo r instance speakers are a w are that the
.
,

relation between e n s e ign e r and e n s e ign e m e n t o r j uge r and ju gem en t

is not the same as the relation between e n s eign e m e n t and ju geme n t
‘j u dgment ( see p
’
This is how the syste m of associations
.

is tied to the system o f gram m ar We can say that the s u m o f the

.

consciou s and m ethodical classifications made by the grammarian

1 38 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

who st u dies a langu age state witho u t bringing in history m u st

-

coincide with the associations consciou s or not that are set u p in , ,

speaking These associations fix word fa mi lies infle c t io n al para

.
-
,

d igm s and formative ele m ents ( radicals su ffixes infle c t io n al end

, , ,

ings etc ) in o ur m inds (se e pp 1 85

,
. .

B u t does association single o u t only m aterial ele m ents ? N o of ,

co u rse not We have already seen that it brings together words

.

that are related only thr ou gh meaning ( cf e n seign em e n t a p .

,

p re n t issage edu ca ti on The sam e m u st apply in gramm ar

, , .

Take the three Latin genitive form s d omin i r eg is r o s aru m The -

,
-
,
-
.

sou nds o f the three endings o ffer n o basis for association yet the ,

endin gs are connected by the feeling that they have a comm on

valu e which prescribes an identical fu nction Thi s s u ffi ces t o create .

the association in the absence o f any m aterial s u pport and the ,

notion o f the genitive in this way takes its place in the langu age
S — — —
.

m
Thro u gh a i ilar procedu re the infle ct io n al endings u s i 6 , , , ,

etc ( in d omin u s d om ini do min o etc ) are linked together in the

.
, , ,
.

min d and are the basis for the more general notions of case and case
endings A ssociations o f the same class b u t larger still com bine
.
, ,

all su bstantives adj ectives etc and fix the notion o f parts of

, ,
.

speech .

Al l these thi ngs exist in langu age b u t as a b s t ra c t en t it ie s ; their ,

st u dy is diffi c u lt becau se we never know exactly whether or not the

awareness o f speakers goes as far as the analyses o f the gram
m arian B u t the important thing is that a b s t ra c t e n t it ie s a re a lwa ys
.

b a s ed in t h e la s t a na lys is o n co n cre t e e n t itie s No gram m atical

, ,
.

abstraction is possible withou t a series of material ele m ents as a

basis and in the end we m u st always com e back to these elem ents
,
.

N o w we t u rn to the syntagm atic viewpoint The val u e o f a .

clu ster is often linked to the order o f its elem ents In analy z ing a .

syntagm the speaker does not restrict him self to singling o u t its
,

parts ; he observes a certain order o f su ccession a m ong them The

meaning of E nglish p a in fu t o r Latin s igni—
.

fe r depends on the
-

respective positions of their su b u nits : we cannot say fu t p a in o r -

fe r s ign um A val u e m ay have no relations with a concrete elem ent

-

— —
.

( like f o fer) and resu lt solely from the arrangem ent o f the
u l r

term s ; for instance the d ifferent s ign ifi c at io n s o f the two clu sters
‘ ‘
,

in French j e d ois I mu st and d ois je ? mu st I ? are d u e only to

’’
-
 PA R T T H R E E

D i a c h r o n ic L i n g u i st ic s

Ch ap t er I

G E NE R ALITI ES

What diach ronic lingu istics st u dies is n o t relations between c o

existin g term s o f a lan guage state b u t relations between s u ccessive
-

term s that are su bstitu ted for each other in tim e .

There is really no su ch thing as absolu te immobility ( s e e pp .

75 E very part of langu age is su bj ected to change T o each .

period there corresponds some appreciable evolu tion E volution .

may vary in rapidi ty and intensity b u t t hi s does n o t invalidate the

,

principle The stream of langu age flows withou t interru ption ;

.

whether its co u rse is calm o r torrential is o f secondary im portance .

That we often fail to s e e this u nin terr u pted evolu tion is d u e to

the attention paid to the literary langu age which as will appear ,

later (pp 1 9 5 ff ) is su perimposed o n the vulgar langu age (i e the

. . . .

nat u ral langu age ) and is su bj ected to other forces The literary .

lan guage once it has been formed generally remain s fairly stable
, ,

and tends to keep its identity ; its dependence on writing gives it

special g u arantees of preservation ; therefore it cannot show u s how
mu ch natu ral langu ages change when freed from any literary
regim entation
Phonetics—and all o f phonetics—is the prim e Obj ect o f dia
.

chronic lingu istics In fact the evolu tion o f sou nds is incompatible
.
,

with the notion o f states ; to com pare phonem es or grou ps of pho

nem es with what they were previou sly means to se t u p a diachrony .

O ne period m ay be closely related to the next b u t when the two,

m erge phonetics ceases to play a part N othing is left b u t the

,
.

description o f the sou nds o f a langu age state and that is the task
-
,

o f phonology .

The diachronic characte r o f phonetics fits in very well with the

1 40
 G ENERA L I TI E S 141

principle that anything whi ch is phonetic is neither significant n o r

gram m atical in the broad sense of the word phonetic ( see p In .

stu dying the hi story o f the sou nds o f a word we may ignore ,

meaning and by considerin g only the m aterial envelope o f a word

S
, ,

cu t o u t phonic lices withou t asking whether they have a s igni

fi c at io n Fo r instance we m ay try to trace the meaningless gro u p
— ,
.

ewo in Attic Greek If the evolu tion o f langu age meant nothin g
.

more than the evolu tion of its sou nds the Opposition between the ,

obj ects that belong to each o f the two parts of lin guistics wo u ld
i m mediately be crystal clear It wo u ld be obviou s that diachronic .

is equ ivalent to nongra m m atical and synchronic to gra m m atical .

B u t sou nds are not the only things that change with time Words .

change their signifi cation Gram m atical classes evolve S om e of . .

them disappear along with the form s that were u sed to express
the m (e g the du al nu mber in Latin ) A n d if al l associative and
. . .

syntagm atic facts in a synchro ni c state have their history how ,

is the absolu te distinction between diachrony and synchrony to

be maintained ? This b ecomes very diffic u lt when we leave the
do m ain o f phonetics

”
.

It is worth noting however that many changes often considered

, ,

grammatica l are really only phonetic S u ch gram m atical cre

“
.

a t io n s as Ger m an H a n d : H an d e which replaced h a n t : h a n t i ( see ,

p. yield completely to a phonetic explanation Another pho .

netic fact is at the base of co m po u nds o f the type S p r ingb r u n

n e n R ei t s ch u le etc In O ld H igh Germ an the first ele m ent was not
‘
.
, ,

verbal b u t su bstantival B e t a hit s meant hou se o f prayer ; b u t .

-
’

after a phonetic chan ge brou ght abo u t the fall o f the final vowel
( b e ta bet a sem antic contact was established with the
verb ( b e te n ,
‘
and B e thau s then signified ho u se fo r praying .
’

S om ething similar occu rred in com pou nds formed with the word
‘
li ch o u tward appearance in O ld H igh German ( cf m a nn o li ch ’

‘ ‘
.

having the appearance of a m an r e do li ch having the appearance ,

’

o f reason
’
Today in a nu m ber o f adj ectives ( cf verz e ih lich
— —
, .
, ,

g la u b li ch , l i ch is co m parable to the s u ffix in p a r d o n a b le ,

b e li e v a ble etc and at the same time the interpretation o f the

-
,
.
,

first ele m ent thr o u gh loss o f the final vo w el (e g r e do

,
re d is . .

likened to a verbal root (re d fro m re de n ) .

In gla u b lich gla u b is accordingly linked to gla u b e n rather than

,
1 42 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

to Gla u b e and in spite of the difference in the radical s icht lich is

, ,

associated with s eh e n and not S ich t .

In all the preceding instances and in many other similar ones ,

the distinction between the two classes re m ains c l ear c u t The lin -
.

gu ist m u st keep t hi s distinction in mind or risk thin king that he is

stu dying historical gram m ar when he is actu ally moving su cces
s ive ly from diachrony where he stu dies phonetic changes to
, ,

synchrony where he examines the consequ ences that iss u e from

,

these changes .

B u t thi s restriction does not re m ove all difficu lties The evolu tion .

o f any gra m m atical fact regardless of its syntagmatic or gra m

,

m a t ic al character is not l ike the evol u tion of a sou nd It is not

,
.

s im ple b u t decom poses into a great n u m ber of partic u lar facts of

which only a part are phonetic In the genesis of a syntagmatic pat
‘
.

tern like the French fu tu re p re nd re a i (I) have to take which h e ’

‘
came p re nd rai ( I) shall take there are at least two dist inct facts
,
’
,

o n e psychological ( the synthesis of the two ele m ents of the concept )

and the other phonetic and dependent on the first ( the redu ction
of the two accents of the com bination to one : p r endre
ai p re ndrai )
The in flection o f the strong Germ anic verb ( like M odern Ger
man ge b e n ga b gege b e n etc of Greek l e ip o élip o n lélo ip a etc ) is
, , ,
.
,
.
, , ,
.

based c hi efly o n the ablau t of radical vowels These alternations

S
.

( see p . whi ch began as a rel atively im ple system dou btless ,

resu lt fro m a mere phonetic fact B u t fo r the oppositions to ac qu ire .

su ch fu nctional im portance the original in fle c t io n al system had to

,

be simplified thro u gh a series of diverse processes : the disappear

ance o f m u ltiple varieties o f the p resent and o f the shades o f mean
ing attached t o them ; the disappearance of the im perfect the ,

fu tu re and the aorist ; the elim ination o f redu p l ication o f the per
,

fe c t etc These nonphonetic changes red u ced verbal in flection to a

,
.

restricted gro u p o f forms in whi ch radical alternations became very

i m portant in signaling meaning Thu s the opposition e : a is m ore .

sign ificant in ge b e n : ga b than is the opposition e : o in Greek l e ip o :

l élo ip a for the Ger m an perfect lacks red u plication and the Greek
,

has it .

Phonetic change thou gh it does generally affect evolu tion in

,

some way cannot explain it entirely O nce the phonetic force is

,
.
1 44 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S T I CS

ten s s s e e p
,
wa e e r
. Wa s s er fiie z en fliessen etc E very , , .

intervocalic h di sappeared : li he n se hen l e ie n s e en ( written , ,

l eihe n se he n ) E very w was changed to labiodental v ( written w) :

,
.

wa e e r w a s er ( W a s s e r )
‘
.

In French every palatali z ed l becam e y: p ill er pillar and ’

‘
,

b o u i llir boil are prono u nced p iye b u yir etc

’
.
, ,

In Latin what was once intervocal ic 8 appears as r in another

,
*
period : gen e s i s a s én a
*
ge n eris a r en a etc
, , ,
.

An y phonetic change at all when seen in its tru e light wou ld , ,

confirm the perfect regu larity o f these transformations .

2 . Co n di t io n ed P h o n e t ic Cha n ges
The prece di ng exam ples have already shown that phonetic phe
nom ena far from always be ing absolu te are m ore Often lin ked to
, ,

fix ed conditions Pu tting it another way what is transformed is

.
,

not the phonological species b u t the phonem e as it occu rs u nder

certain conditions—its environm ent accentu ation etc Fo r in , ,
.

stance s becam e r in Latin only between vowels and in certain

,

other positions ; elsewhere it rem ains ( of e s t s en ex e qu o s ) .

, ,
.

A bsolu te changes are extremely rare That changes often appear .

to be absolu te is d u e to the obscu re o r extrem ely general natu re o f

the conditions In Germ an fo r example 17 becam e e i a i b u t only
.
, , , ,

in a tonic syllable Proto Indo E u ropean k l became h in Germ ani c

.
- -

( cf Proto Indo E u ropean k l o lsom Latin c o llu m German H a ts )

- * -
.
, , ,

b u t the change di d not occ u r after 8 ( cf Greek s k é t o s and Gothi c .

s k a du s

Besides the classing o f changes as absolu te o r conditioned is

,

based o n a su perficial view o f things It is more logical in lin e w ith .

,

the growing trend to speak o f s p o n t an eo u s and c om b in a t o ry pho

,

netic phenom ena C hanges are spontaneou s when their cau se is

.

internal and com binatory when they resu lt from the presence o f
o n e o r more other phone m es The pas sing o f Proto Indo E u ropean .
- -

o to Germ anic a ( cf G othic s k a d u s German H a l s etc ) is th u s a

S
. .
, ,

p ontaneou s fact Germ anic consonantal mu tations o r L a u t ve r

schi e b u n ge n typify spontaneou s change : Proto Indo—
.

E u ropean k l -

becam e h in Proto Germ anic ( of Latin co llu m and Gothi c h a ts ) and

-
.

Proto Germ anic t which is preserved in E nglish becam e z (p ro

-
, ,

n o u n ce d t s ) in H igh German ( cf Gothic t aikun E nglish t en .

, ,
 P H O NETI C C HAN G E S 1 45

German zehn) Against this the passin g o f Latin c t p t to Italian tt

.
, ,

( cf fa c tum
. fa t to cap ti vum ca ttivo ) is a com binatory fact for
, ,

the first elem ent was assim ilated to the second The Germ an .

u mlau t is also d u e to an external ca u se the presence of i in the ,

following syllable : while ga s t did not change ga s t i becam e ge s t i , ,

'
Gas t e .

The resu lt is not an issu e in either case and whether o r not there ,

is a change is o f no importance For instance on com paring Gothic .

,

fi with Latin i i and Gothic k du s with Greek s k o t o s we

’

s k s p s c s s a ,

observe in the first pair the persistence of i and in the second the
passing o f o to a The first phoneme re m ained whil e the second o n e
.

changed b u t what matters is that each acted independently

S
, .

A com b inatory phonetic fact is always conditioned b u t a pon ,

t an e o u s fact is not necessarily absol u te for it m a y be conditione d ,

—
negatively by the absence o f certain forces of change In thi s way .

Proto Indo E u ropean kg spontaneou sly became qu in Latin ( cf

-
.

qu a ttu o r in qu ili n a etc ) b u t not for instance when followed by

, ,
.
, ,

0 o r u ( of c o t tid ie co lo s e c u nd us
.
,
In the same way the per
,

sistence o f Proto Indo E u ropean i in Gothi c fi s k s etc is linked to

- -

a con di tion —the i cou ld n o t b e followed by r or h for then it b e

.
,

came e , written ai ( cf wair L atin vir and maihs tu s

. Ge rman
Mis t ) .

3 . P o in ts on Me thod
In devising form u las to express phonetic changes we m u st con
sider the precedin g distinctions or risk presentin g the facts
incorrectly .

H ere are some examples o f inacc u racies

”
.

A ccording to the o l d form u lation o f V erner s law

’
in Germanic ,

every nonin itial 11 changed to 6 if the accent came after it : cf o n .

the o n e hand fa b e r
* *
fa O e r ( Germ an Va t er ) li bum e
* ’ *
li O u mé
’

( Germ an li tten ) and o n the other b ris ( German drei) b ro he r

* *
, ,

( Germ an B rude r) li b o ( German le ide ) where 1) rem ains This

*
.
, ,

form u la gives the active role to accent and introdu ces a restrictive
clau se for initial 11 What actu ally happened is qu ite diff erent In .

S
.

Germanic as in Latin 1) tended to sonori z e pontaneo u sly within

, ,

a word ; only the placing o f the accent on the preceding vowel co u ld

p revent it E veryt h ing is therefore reversed The fact is spon
. .
1 46 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

not com binatory and the accent is an obstacle rather than

t an e o u s , ,

the precipitating cau se We shou ld s ay : E very internal 11 became

“

”
.

6 u nless the change w as opposed by the placing of the accent o n

the preceding vowel
S
.

In order to separate what is pontaneou s fro m what is c o m

b in at o ry we m u st analy z e the stages of the transformation and
,

not m istake the mediate resu lt for the im m ediate one It is wrong .

to explain rh o t a ciz a t io n fo r instance (of Latin ge n es is

,
*
gen eris ) .
,

b y saying that s becam e r b etween t w o vowels for 3 having no , ,

laryngeal sou nd cou ld never becom e r directly There are really

,
.

two acts Fir st 8 b ecame 2 thr ou gh a co m binatory change S econd

.
,
.
,

this sou nd was replaced by closely related r since z had not been
retained in the so u nd system o f Latin The se cond change was .

spontaneou s It is therefore a seriou s m istake to consider the two

.

dissimilar facts as a single phenom enon The fau lt is o n the o n e .

hand in m istaking the m ediate resu lt fo r the i m mediate one ( s r

instead o f z — > r
) and o n the other in regarding the total phe ,

n o m e n o n as combinatory when thi s is tru e o f only its first part .

Thi s is the sam e as saying that e b ecam e a before a nasal in French .

The fact is that there were in su ccession a combinatory change

nasali z ation of e b y n ( of Latin ven t um French ven t Latin
—
.
,

fem na French fem a f‘eme) and a spontaneou s change o f e to 6

i
‘
,

( cf van t fame now va ft im) To raise the obj ection that the change
.
, , ,
.

cou l d occu r only before a nasal consonant wo ul d be pointless The .

qu estion is not why e was nasali z ed b u t only whether the trans

form ation of 5 into a is spontaneou s o r combinatory .

The m ost seriou s m istake in m ethod that I can recall at this

—
point althou gh it is not related to the principles stated above
is that o f form u lating a phonetic law in the present tense as if the ,

facts e m braced by it existed once and for all instead of being born
and dying within a span of time The resu lt is chaos for in thi s way .
,

any chronological su ccession of events is lost sight o f I have al .

ready emphasi z ed this point ( p 9 7) in analyz ing the su ccessive .

phenom ena that explain the d u ality o f trikh o s : t hriks i Whoever .

“
says 3 becam e r in Latin gives the impression that rh o t ac iz at io n
is inherent in the natu re o f langu age and finds it diffi cu lt to accou nt

”
“
for exceptions like cau s a ri s u s etc O nly the form u la intervocalic
, ,
.

s became r in Latin j u stifies o u r believing that c a u sa ri s us , etc ,

.
1 48 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

northern langu ages while more vowels occu r in certain sou the rn
langu ages giving the m their harmonio u s sou nd C li m ate a n d living
,
.

conditions may well influ ence lan guage b u t the problem becom es ,

complicated as soon as we enter into detail : beside the S candi

navian idioms with their many consonants are those of the Lapps
and Finns which are even more vocalic than Italian We also
—
.
,

notice that the acc um u lation of consonants in present day German

is in many instances a qu ite recent fact d u e to the fall o f posttonic ,

vowels ; that certain dialects o f sou thern France are le SS opposed

t o consonantal clu sters than the French o f the north ; that S erbian
has as m any consonantal clu sters as Great R u ssian etc ,
.

3) The ca u se o f phonetic changes has also been ascribed to the

law of least e ffort by which two articu lations are replaced by one
o r a diffic u lt artic u lation by an easier one This idea regardless of .
,

what is said abou t it is worth exam ining It may clarify the cau se
,
.

o f phonetic c hanges o r at least in d icate the direction tha t the

search for it m u st take .

The law of least e ffort seems to explain a certain nu m ber of cases :

the passing o f an occlu sive to a pirant ( Latin h a b ere French S
a vo ir the fall of great clu sters of final syllables in m any
languages ; phenom ena relating to assim ilation (e g ly ll as in . .

*
a lyo s Greek allo s tn nn as in
*
a t u as ,
Latin a nnu s ) ; the
monophthongi z ation of diphthongs which is only another type o f ,

assimilation (e g a t e as in French m a iz O n m e z o written

’

.
,
.

m a is o n etc .

B u t we m ight mention j u st as m any instances where exactly the

opposite occu rs A gainst monophthongi z ation for example we can
.
, ,

s e t the change of Germ an i a it to c i a u e u If the shortening of, , , , ,

.

S lavic a e to a e is d u e to least effort then the reverse phenom enon

, , ,

O ff ered by Germ an (fa te r Vate r ge be n geb e n ) m u st be du e to ,

greatest e ff ort If voicing is easier than n o nvo ic in g ( o f o p e ra

. .

Proven cal o b ra ) the reverse m u st necessitate greater e ff ort and yet

, ,

S panish passed from 2 to X ( of hi Xo written hijo ) and Germ anic

changed b d g to p t k If loss of aspiration ( o f Proto Indo—
.
,

, , , ,
. E u ro .
-

pean b he ro
*
Germ anic b e ra n) is considered a lessening of e ff ort ,

what is to be said of Germ an which inserts aspiration where it did

.
,

not exist ( Ta nn e P u te etc prono u nced Th a n ne P h u t e ) ?

, ,
.
, ,

The foregoing re m arks do not pretend to refu te the proposed

 PHO NE TI C C HAN G E S 1 49

solu tion In fact we can scarcely determ ine what is easiest o r most
.
,

difficu lt for each lan gu age to pronou nce S hortening m eans less .

e ff ort in the sense o f d u ration b u t it is e qu ally tru e that long

S
,

so u nds allow careless pronu nciations while hort so u nds re qu ire

more care Given diff erent predispositions we can therefore pre
.
,

sent two opposing facts fro m the sa m e view point Thu s where k .

becam e ts ( of Latin cedere

. Italian ce de re) there is apparently an ,

increase in effort if we consider only the end terms of the change ,

b u t the impression wou ld probably differ if we reconstru cted the

’
chain : k becam e palatali z ed k throu gh assimilation t o the follo w ing
’
vowel ; then k passed to ky; the pronu nciation di d not become m ore
’
diffic u lt ; two tangled elements in k were clearly differentiated ;
then from k y speakers passed su ccessively to ty t x ts everywhere , , ,

with less e ff ort .

The law o f least e ff ort wou ld requ ire extensive stu dy It wou ld .

be necessary to consider si m u ltaneo u sly the physiological view

point ( the qu estion o f articu lation ) and the psychological view
po int ( the qu estion o f attention ) .

4 ) A n explanation that has been favored fo r several years

attrib u tes changes in pronu nciation to o u r phonetic edu cation
d u ring childhood Af ter mu ch groping and many trials and cor
.

rections the chi ld su cceeds in pronoun cing what he hears arou nd

,

h im ; here wou ld be the starting poin t o f all changes ; certa in u n

corrected inaccu racies wou ld win o u t in the individu al and becom e
fixed in the generation that is growing u p C hi ldren often pro .

no u nce t for k and o u r lan gu ages Off er no corresponding phonetic

,

change in their hi story B u t this is not tru e of other deform ations

. .

In Paris for instance m any children pronou nce fi e u r (fie u r ’

‘ ‘
, ,

flo w e r ) and b l a n c ( b la n c white ) with palatali z ed l ; now it was

’ ’ ’

’
throu gh a similar process that fio rem became fi ore then fiore in , ,

Italian .

The preced ing observations deser ve carefu l attention b u t leave

the pro b lem u ndented Indeed what prompts a generation to
.
,

retain certain m istakes to the exclu sion o f others that are j u st as

natu ral is not clear From all appearances the choice o f fau lty pro
.

n u n c ia t io n s is co m pletely arbitrary and there is no Obvio u s reason ,

for it Besides why did the phenomenon b reak thro u gh at one tim e
.
,

rather than another ?

1 50 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I NG U I S TI CS

The same qu estion applies to all the precedin g cau ses of phonetic
changes if they are accepted as real Climatic influ ence racial pre
.
,

disposition and the tendency toward least e ffort are all pe rmanent
,

o r lasting Why do they act sporadically so m et imes on o n e point

.
,

of the phonological system and som etim es on another ? A historical

event m u st have a determ ining cau se yet we are not told what ,

chances in each instance to u nleash a change whose general ca u se

h as existed for a long time This is the most diffic u lt point to
.

explain .

5 ) Phonetic changes are sometim es linked to the general state

o f the nation at a partic ul ar mo m ent Langu ages go thro u gh so m e
.

periods that are more tu rbu lent than others There have been .

attempts to relate phonetic changes to t u rb u l ent periods in a

’
nation s history and in this way to discover a link between political
instability and linguistic instabil ity ; this done so m e thi nk that ,

they can apply conclu sions concerning langu age in general to

phonetic changes They Obse rve for example that the sharpest
.
, ,

u pheavals o f Latin in its development into the R omance lang u ages

co incided with the highly distu rbed period of invasions Two dis .

t in c t io n s will serve as guideposts :

a ) Poli tical stabil ity does not influ ence langu age in the sam e way
as political instability ; here there is no reciprocity When poli tical .

equ ilibriu m slows dow n the evolu tion o f langu age a positive ,

thou gh external cau se is involved B u t instability whi ch has the

.
,

,
—
opposite eff ect acts only negatively Immobility the relative .

fixation o f an idi om—m ay have an external cau se ( the in flu ence

o f a co u rt school an acade m y writing etc ) which in t u rn is posi
, , , ,
.

t ive l y favored by social and political e quilibri u m B u t if so m e .

exte rnal u pheaval that has affected the e qu ilibriu m of the nation
precipitates lingu istic evolu tion thi s is becau se langu age sim ply
,

reverts back to its free state and follows its regu lar cou rse The .

im m obility o f Latin of the classical period is d u e to external facts ;

the changes that it later u nderwent however were sel f generated
, ,
-

in the a b sence of certain external conditions .

b ) H ere we are dealing only with phonetic pheno m ena and n o t

with every type of m odification o f langu age Gram m atical changes .

are obvio u sly similar Becau se they are always closely linked to
.
1 52 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

derive their character from the arb itrariness of the lin guistic sign 2 ,

whi ch is distinct from the signified .

We can easily observe that the so u nds o f a word have been

a ffected at a certain m om ent and s e e the extent o f the dam age b u t ,

we cannot say beforehand how far the word has become o r will
becom e u nrecogni z able .

Like every word having the sam e ending Proto Indo E u ropean ,
- -

a iwom ( cf Latin ae vo m ) changed to

* *
a iw a n
*
a iw in Proto
*
. a iw a , ,

Germ anic ; next a iw becam e e w in O ld H igh German as did every

*
, ,

word that contained the clu ster niw ; then the change of final w to 0
resu lted in 60 which in t u rn passed to co io in accordance with
, ,

other equ ally general ru les ; finally io becam e ie je giving M odern

‘
, ,

Germ an jé ( cf das s ch ons t e was ich je gesehen habe the prettiest

.
,

that I have e ve r
The modern word does not contain a single o n e of its original
elements when considered from the viewpoint o f the starting point
and the end resu lt E ach step when V iewed separately is ab s o.
, ,

l u t e ly certain and regular and limi ted in its effect ; Viewed as a

who l e however the word gives the impression o f an u nl imited
, ,

nu mber of mo d ifications We might make the same o b servation .

abou t Latin co lida m by first leaving o u t the transitional form s

and co m paring this form with Modern French so (w ritten cha u d
then retracing the steps : ca lidnm ca lidu ca ldu ca ld ca lt , , , , ,

ts a l t ts au t sa u t sot so C o m pare also Vu lgar Latin wa id a nju

, , ,
*
.

gé ( w ritten ga in m in u s mw e ( written m ain s

’

h as i lli w i ( written o u i
A phonetic change is al so u nli m ited and incalc u lable in that it
aff ects all types of signs m aking no distinction between radicals , ,

s u ffixes etc Thi s m u st be tru e a p rio r i for if gram m ar interfered

,
.
, ,

the phonetic phenom enon wo u ld m ingle with the synchronic fact ,

a thing that is radically impossible It is in this sense that we can .

speak o f the blind natu re of the evolu tions o f sou nds

‘
.

* ’
For instance 3 fell in Greek after n not only in hhd n se s geese
‘
, ,
*
m en s e s months ( giving kh én es m en e s ) where it had n o gram
’
, ,

m a t ical val u e b u t also in verbal form s like e t e n s a e p ha n sa etc

,
* *
, ,
.

( giving ét ein a ép h éna where it m arked the aorist In Middle

, ,
.

H igh Germ an the posttonic vowels i e a o re gularly became e , , ,

2
M i
e a n n g s i gn i fi e r Se e . p . 75 , n ot e .
[Tr ] .
G RA MM A TI C A L C O N S EQ U EN C E S O F PHO NE TI C EVO LU TIO N 1 53

(gib i l Gie b e l m eis tar

,
Me is le r) even thou gh the difference in
tim b re marked a nu m ber of inflectional endings ; that is how the
acc u sative singu lar b o to n and the genitive and dative singu lar b o te n
merged into b o t en .

Phonetic changes will thu s cau se a profou nd distu r b ance in the

grammatical organism if they are not stopped by some barrier .

This will b e the su bj ect matter of the next chapter .

Ch a p t er III

G R AMM ATI CAL C O NSE Q UE N C ES O F P H O N E TI C

EVO L UTI O N

1 .
f t he Gra mma tica l B ond
Th e B rea king o

O ne of the first consequ ences of the phonetic phenomenon is the

breaking of the gramm atical bond that u nites two or m ore terms .

The resu lt is that o ne word is no longer felt t o b e de rived from

another :

ma n s i 6—m
*
a n s i 6n d t icu s
‘
m a iso n hou se
’ ‘
m énage hou sekeeping
’

The collective mind o f the commu nity o f speakers formerly s aw

*
ma ns i o naticns as a derivative of man s ié ; then p hone t ic vicissi
-

tu des separated them S imilarly .

( ve rvéx —
m
ervé cd riu s )
Vu lgar Latin b er b i x —b e r b i cd rin s
‘
b re b is ewe
’ ‘
b e rge r shepherd
’

The separation natu rally has its cou ntereff ect on v al u e In

‘
.

certain local dialects b erge r means specifi cally a herder o f oxen .

’

O ther exam ples :

—
Grd t id n op o lis grd tian op o li t an u s
’

d ece —
m m nd e c im

Gr en o ble Gre sibaud an

’

dix
‘
ten ’
o nz e
‘
eleven ’
1 54 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

Gothi c b i tan ‘ — ‘
bite hil u m we
’
r is — ‘
have bitten b it bitter b iting ’ ’
,

a simil ar exam ple Following the change o f t to t s (2 ) o n the o n e

.

hand and the conservation o f the clu ster t r o n the other West ,

Germ anic had b i z an b iz um b it r ,

.

In addition phonetic evolu tion may break the normal relation

,

b etween two inflected form s o f the same word In O ld French for

instance c o m e s — com t e b a r e—b ar on em
.
,

c o m i t e m becam e c u e n s
, ,

b er b a ro n , —
p res b i te r p r es b i te ru m p r es tre p ro vo ire .

O r an ending may split in two acc u sative singu lars were All
characteri z ed by the sa e final m in Proto——
.

m Indo E u ropean -

( e k 1 w o m o wim p o dm m ate rm
* * * *
,
In Latin there was no
, , ,

radical change in thi s respect b u t in Greek the very different treat ,

m ent o f the sonant and con sonant nasal created two distin ct -

series of forms : h ip p ou 6 (w ) in against p o da m a t era The accu sative

’

,
.
,

plu ral evin ces a similar fact ( cf ht p p o u s and p oda s ) . .

2 .
f th e S t ru c tu re of Wo rds
Efi a cemen t o

Another grammatical e ffect o f phonetic changes is that the dis

tin ct parts that helped to fix the valu e of a word become un
analy z able The word be com es an in di visible whole E xam ples :
‘
French e nn em i enem y ( cf Latin in imi cu s—ami cu s ) ; Latin
. .

’
-

—
.

p e d ere ( cf older p
r e r d a re.
— d a r e) a m c é ( for am jaci o j aci é ) ;
i i *
b -
,

—
Germ an Dri tt e l (fo r d r it t e i l Tei l) -
.

E ff acem ent o f the stru ctu re of words is obviou sly related at

several po ints to the breaking o f gramm atical bonds (se e S ection 1
above ) Fo r instance stating that e nn em i cannot be analyz ed is
.
,

another way o f saying that its parts can n o longer be com pared as
in in imi cu s fro m sim ple am i cu s The formu la :
-
.

a mi c u s
—i nim i cu s
ami e n n em i

is very sim ilar to

m an s i G—m an s i on d tic u s
m a is on Hm
’

e n a ge .

C f also : d ecem un de cim against

.
— dix Honze .

3
O r —? S
n ee p . 92, n ot e .
[ Ed ] .
 1 56 C OURSE I N G ENERA L L I N GUISTICS

different transform ations ; that wo u ld b e contrary to the very de fi

n it io n o f phonetic changes By itself phonetic evol u tion cannot .
,

create two form s to replace one .

H ere introd u ced by way o f examples are the o b j ections that

, ,

might b e raised aga inst my thesis

‘ ‘ ’
Co l locar e gave both co u che r sleep and co l lo qu e r place someone
’
,

might s ay No it gave only co u cher; co llo qu e r is only a learned

‘ ‘
.
,

b orrowin g from Latin ( cf ran gon ransom and r ed emp tion t e .

’

Another obj ection might be that c a thedra gave two au thentic

‘ ‘
French words cha ire p u lpit and chai se chair The fact that ’
.
’
,

c ha i s e is a di alectal form is forgotten The Parisian dialect changed .

intervocali c r t o z For instance speakers said p es e m es e for p ere

‘ ‘
.
, ,

father mere m other ; literary French h a s kept only t w o speci

,
’ ’

m ens o f the localism : ch a is e and b é s icle s the dou blet o f b éric l es

‘ ‘
,

spectacles derived from b eryl beryl The sam e is tru e o f Picard

’ ’

‘
.
,

one who has escaped ( death or which has j u st

’

r e s ca p e

gained cu rrency in French and now stands in contrast to r ech app é

’

‘one who has ( volu ntarily) escaped (from French

c a va lie r
‘ ‘ ‘
rider and ch eva lier knight and ca va lca d e ride and
’ ’ ’

‘
ch e va u c h é e distance traversed are fo u nd side by side s im ply b e
’

cau se cava lier and c ava lcad e were borrowed from Italian The
‘
.

develop m ent of ca lidu m which becam e c h a ud warm in French ,

’

and c a ld o in Italian is essentially the sam e Al l the foregoing

,
.

exam ples are instances o f borrowings .

The answer to the obj ection that the Latin prono u n m e resu lted
‘
in two forms in French m e and m o i ( cf il m e voit he sees me and ’

‘
.
,

c est m o i qu il voit it s m e that he sees ) is thi s : u nstressed Latin

’ ’ ’ ’

"
me became m e while stressed m e became m o i ; now the presence o r
absence of stress depends not o n the phonetic laws that m ade m e ,

become me and mo i b u t on the fu nction o f the word in the sen

,

tence ; it is a gramm atical du ality In the same way German .

,
*
ur rem ained u r when stressed and became e r when protonic
(cf ur la u b and er laub en ) ; b u t the fu nctioning o f the accent is itself
.

linked to the stru ctu ral patterns that contained u r and thu s to
a gra mm atical and synchroni c condition Finally to come back .
,

to the first example differences o f form and accent in the pair

,

b ar b : b a rén em evidently antedate phonetic changes .

G RA M M A TI C A L C O N S E Q U EN C E S O F P H O NE TI C EV O LU TIO N 157

In fact phonetic dou blets do not exist The evolu tion o f so u nds
,
.

only e m phasi z es previou s di fferences Wherever these differences .

are not d u e to external cau ses ( as in borrowings) they imply gram ,

m a t ica l and synchronic d u alities that are absolu tely u nrelated to

phonetic changes .

4 . A l t e rn a t i o n
Two words like ma ison : m én age seldom tempt u s to try to di s
cover what is responsible for the difference either becau se the
— do not lend themselves well to
,

differential ele m ents — e z 6 and e u

com parison or becau se no other pair o ff ers a parallel Opposition

,
.

B u t often it happens that the two related words di ffer in only one
o r two ele m ents which are easily singled o u t and that the same ,

di fference is regu larly repeated in a series of like pairs ; this is

a l tern a ti o n the largest and m ost co m m on o f the grammatical facts
,

in whi ch phonetic changes play a part .

In French every Latin 6 in an open syll able b ecame e u when

,

stressed and o n when protonic ; this prod u ced pairs like p o u vo n s

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ’
(w e ) can : p e u ven t (they) can o e u vre work : o uvri e r worker
’ ’ ’

‘ , ,

n o u vea u : ne uf new etc where it is easy to single o u t a diff erential

’
.
, ,

and regu l arly variable ele m ent In Latin rh o t a c iz a t io n cau ses .

,

g er o to alternate with g e s t u s o n er i s with o n u s m a e

,
o r with m a e s t u s , ,

etc S ince s was treated diff erently according to the position o f the
.

accent in Germ anic Middle H igh German h as fer lies en : fe r lor e n

, ,

kie ss e n : ge ko r e n frie s en : gefr o re n etc The fall o f Proto Indo

, ,
.
-

E u ropean e is reflected in Modern German in the oppositions

b e is se n : bis s l e id en : lit t r e it e n : r i t t etc
, , ,
.

In all the preceding exam ples the radical elem ent is the part that
is affected B u t o f cour se all parts o f a word may have similar
.

oppositions Nothi ng is more common for instance th an a prefix

that takes different form s accordin g to the make—
.
, ,

u p of the first part

o f the radical ( cf Greek a p o did é mi : a p érc ho m a i French in co nn u

- -

‘
.
,

u nkno w n : in u ti le
’
The Proto Indo Eu ropean alternation - -

e : 0 which certainly m u st in the last analysis have a phonetic

, , ,

basis is fou nd in a great n u m ber of s u ffix al elements ( Greek hipp o s :

— —
,
*
hip p e p h er o m e n : p h er e te gen o s : gen e o s for gen es o s
’
- - - - - - -
, , ,

O ld French gives special treatm ent to Latin accented a after

palatals ; t h is resu lts in an e : ie alternation in a nu mber o f in
1 58 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

fle c t io n al endings ( cf . cha n t- er : j ug-ie r , c ha n t - é; j u g- i e, ch a nt -e z

j u g- i ez ,

A lternation is then defined as a corresp onde n ce e x is t ing b e twe e n

t w o d efini t e s o und s o r gr o u p s of so und s an d s hift ing regu la r ly b e t w e e n
t w o s e ries of co ex is ting fo rms .

Phonetic changes alone do not explain dou blets and are o b ,

vio u sly neither the sole cau se n o r the m a in ca u se of alternation .

Whoever says that Latin no v became ne uv and no uv ( French

n e u ve and n o u ve a u ) throu gh a phonetic change is fab ricating an im

a gin a ry u nity and failing to se e a pre — existing synchronic du ali ty .

The different position of no v in nov a s and no v e llu s is both ante - -

cedent to the phonetic change and distinctly gramm atical ( cf .

b ar b : The synchronic du ality is what ori ginates and

makes possible any alternation The phonetic phenom enon broke .

no un ity ; it m erely made an opposition between coexisting terms

more obviou s by discarding certain soun ds It is a mistake—and
—
.

one shared by m any lin gu ists to assu me that alternation is pho

netic simply becau se sou nds make u p its su b stance and play a part
in its genesis t h ro u gh their alterations The fact is that altern ation .
,

whether considered from its starting po int or end result is always ,

both gram matical and synchronic .

5 .
f A l te rn a tion
L aw s o

C an alternation be red u ced to laws ? If s o what is the nat u re of ,

these laws ?
Take the alternation e : i whi ch occ u rs s o frequ ently in Modern
,

Germ an If we lum p all exam ples together and consider the m in

.

discriminately (ge b e n : gib t Fe ld : Gefi lde W e tte r : w itte rn he lfe n

,
’
, ,

H i lfe s ehe n : S ich t

, ,
we can form u late n o general principle .

B u t if we extract fro m thi s m ass the pair ge b en : gi b t and set it in

opposition to s ch e l t e n : s chil t he lfen : h ilft n e hmen : n immt etc we
, , ,
.
,

s e e that the alternation coincides with distin ctions of tense person , ,

' '
etc In la n g: L an ge s t ark : S tarh e h a rt : H ar te etc a similar oppo
.
, , ,
.
,

sitiou is linked to the form ation o f su bstantives from adj ectives ;

‘
in H a nd : H an de Ga s t : Gas te etc to the formation of the plu ral
’

.
, , , ,

and so o n for all the many cases that Germanic stu dents class
u nder ablau t ( consider also find en : fa n d or fin d e n : Fu nd bin den : , ,

b and or b ind e n : B u n d s chies s e n : s cho ss : S chu ss fliess e n : fl o s s

, , ,
1 60 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S T I CS

get thi s is to risk making the mistake in interpretation pointed o u t

above ( see pp 96 ff Faced wi th a pair like fa cio : co nficio we m u st
.
,

indeed gu ard against confu s ing the relation between these c o

existing term s and the relation that ties together the su ccessive
terms of the diachronic fact (c onfa ci o c o nfi ci o) We may be .

tempted to confu se them since the cau se of phonetic differentiation

is still apparent in the pair b u t the phonetic fact belongs to the ,

past and fo r speakers there is only a s ingle synchronic opposition

,
.

All of this confirm s what w as said abo u t the strictly gra m m atical
natu re o f alternation The word perm u tation whi ch is apt in some
.
,

ways has been u sed for alternation b u t shou ld be avoided for the
,

very reason that it has often been applied to phonetic changes and
su ggests a false notion o f move m ent where there is only a state .

6 . A l t erna t io n a nd Gra mma tica l B o n d

We have seen how phonetic evolu tion may cau se a break in the
gramm atical b onds that u nite words b y changing the form o f the
words B u t this is tru e only o f isolated pairs like m a is on : m enage
’

.
,

Teil : D ri tte l etc n o t o f alternation

,
.
,
.

It is obviou s from the first that any slightly regu lar phonic oppo
s it io n o f two elements tends to establish a b ond b etween the m .

W e tter is instinctively related to witte rn becau se speakers are a c

c u stomed to seeing e alternate with i As soon as speakers feel that .

there is a general law governing a phonic opposition the u su al ,

correspondence has all the more reason for forcing itse lf o n their
attention and helping to tighten rather than loosen the gram
m a t ic al bond This is how the German abla u t reinf orces recog
.

mitions o f the radical u nit across vocalic variations ( see p .

The same is tru e of n o n signifi ca nt alternations that are linked

to a mere phonic condition In French the prefix r e (re p endr e
‘ ‘ ‘
,
.

retake r egagn er regain re to u c he r retou ch etc ) is red u ced to

’ ’ ’

‘ ‘
.
, , ,

r before a vowel (ro u vr ir reopen r a che te r b u y back

’ ’
S imi , ,

l arl y u nder the sa m e conditions the prefix in

, still very mu ch
alive althou gh o f learned origin has two distinct forms : e ( in
‘ ‘ ‘
in co nn u u nknown in dign e u nworthy in ve rt é b r é invertebrate
’
,
’ ’

‘ ‘
, , ,

etc ) and in ( in in a vo u a b le inad missible i nu tile u seless in

’ ’

‘
.
, ,

es th é t iqu e u naesthetic In no way does thi s difference break

’
,
 ANAL O GY 161

unity of conception for meaning and fu nction are apprehended

,

as identical and langu age has determ ined where it will u s e one
,

form or the other .

Ch ap t e r IV

ANAL O G Y
1 . De fi n i t io n a nd Ex a mp le s
That phonetic evol u tion is a distu rbing force is now o b vio u s .

Wherever it does not create alternations it helps to loosen the ,

gramm atical bonds betw een words ; the total n u m ber o f form s is
u selessly increased ; the lingu istic m echanism is obsc u red and c o m

plicated t o the extent that the irregu larities born o f phonetic

changes win o u t over the form s gro u ped u nder general patterns ; in
other words to the extent that absolu te arbitrariness wins o u t
,

over relative arbitrariness ( see p .

Fortu nately analogy co u nterbalances the e ffect o f phonetic

,

transformations To analogy are d u e all normal nonphonetic

.
,

modifications o f the external side o f words .

Analo gy su pposes a m odel and its regu lar i m itation A n a n a .

lo gic a l fo rm i s a for m m ade o n t he mo de l of o n e o r m o re o th e r fo rm s

in a c co r da n c e wi t h a de fi n i t e r u le .

The nom inative fo rm o f Latin hon o r fo r instance is analogical , ,

.

S peakers first said kon os : ho n os em then throu gh rh o t a ciz at io n o f ,

the s k o n o s : h o n o re m After that the radical had a dou ble form

,
.
,
.

This du ality was el iminated by the new form h o n o r created on the ,

pattern of orat o r : orat ore m etc throu gh a process which s u b ,

.
,

sequ ently will be s e t u p as a proportion :

orat b re m : o at
r or h o o n re m : a:

a: hon or

Thu s analo gy to o ffset the diversifying action of a phonetic

,

change ( ko n o s : h o n ore m ) again u nified the form s and restored

,

regu larity (ho no r : hon o re m ) .

Fo r a long tim e French speakers s aid it p re u ve n o u s p ro uvo n s il s , ,

1 62 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

p r e u ven t Today they s ay i l p ro u ve proves i ls p ro u ven t ‘

he ’ ‘
they
‘
.
,

prove u sing forms that have no phonetic explanation Il a ime he

’

‘
.
,

loves is derived from Latin ama t while n o u s a imon s we love is the

’ ’

analogical form for a mo n s ; speakers shou ld also say a ma b le instead

o f a im a b l e
‘
amiable In Greek intervoca l ic s disappeared : —o so
’

—
,
.

b ecam e e o ( cf gén e o s fo r S till intervocalic s is fou nd in

.
,

the fu tu re and aorist tenses with s In German Gas t : Gas te B a lg: .

, ,

B d lge etc are phonetic b u t Kr anz : Kr anz e ( previou sly kra nz

’

,
.
,

kra n e a ) H a l s : H al s e ( previou sly h a lsa ) etc are d u e to imitation

, ,
. .

Analogy favors regu larity and tends to u n ify str u ct u ral and in
‘
fle c t io n a l procedu res B u t it is capriciou s ; beside Kr a nz : Kr cinze .
,

etc stand Tag: Tage S a le : S a lze etc whi ch for one reason o r
.
, , ,
.
,

another have resisted analogy Thu s we cannot s ay beforehand .

how far imitation o f a m odel will go o r whi ch types will bring it

abou t The m ost numerou s form s do not necessarily u nleash
.

analogy The Greek perfect has the active forms p ép h e u ga p ép h e

.
,

u ga s p e p h e u ga m e n b u t all the middle forms are inflected withou t

’

, ,

a : p ep h u gm a i p e p hugm e t h a etc and the langu age of H omer shows

, ,
.
,

that the a was formerly m issing in the plu ral and in the du al of the
active ( cf id men éikio n . Analogy started solely from the , ,

first person s in gu lar o f the active and won over a lmost the whole
paradigm of the perfect indicative T hi s development is al so note
—
.

worthy becau se here analogy attached a originally an infle c

t io n al ele m ent to the ra di cal formin g p e p he uga m e n The reverse
, ,
- .

attaching the radical element to the s u ffi x — is m u ch m ore comm on

( see p .

Two o r three words often s u fli ce to create a general form su ch

as an infle c t io n al ending In O ld H igh Germ an weak verbs like
—
.
,

h a b en lo b on etc had an m in the first person singu lar o f the

present : ha b em lo b om etc The —
.
, ,
'
m derives from a few verbs simi l ar
—
.
, ,

to m i verbs in Greek ( b im tam gom tu o m) which by the m selves

*
, , , ,

forced the endin g on the whole weak conj u gation Notice that here .

analogy did not eliminate a phonetic d ifference b u t generali z ed a

formative method .

2 . A n a lo gica l Ph en o m e na A r e No t Change s
The first lingu ists did not u nderstand the natu re o f the phe
“
n o m e n o n o f analogy which they called false analogy They ,
.
1 64 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

between the o ld state (ho n os : h on orem) and the new (ho n o r

ho n o rem) is ap p arently the same as the opposition that resu lts
from the evolu tion o f sou nds At the moment when ho n o r was born
.
,

however nothing was changed since hon o r replaced nothing ; n o r

,
'
is the disappearance of h on os a change for this phenom enon is ,

independent o f the first Wherever we can follow the cou rse of .

lin gu istic events we se e that analogical innovation and the e li m i

,

nation o f the older form are two distinct things and that nowhere ,

do we com e u pon a transformation .

S o little does analogy have the characte ristic o f replacing one

form by another that it often produ ces forms which replace nothing
m m —
at all Ger an can make a di inu tive in che n from any su b
.

s t a n t ive with a concrete meaning ; if the form E l efa n tc h e n were

introdu ced into the langu age it wou ld su pplant nothing that ,

alr eady exists S imilarly in French o n the model of p e ns io n pen

‘

‘ ‘
.
,
’
sion : p e n s io n n aire pensionary ré a c tion reaction : r é ac tion n a ir e
’ ’

‘
, ,

reactionary etc som eone might create in te rve n tio nna ire rep re s
’

‘ ‘
.
, , ,
’
s ion n a ire etc ,
meaning o ne w h o favors intervention o n e who
.
, ,
’
favors repression etc The process is evidently the same as the
,
.

o n e that engendered h o n o r ; both recall the same fo rm u la :

r a c t io n : r a c t io n n a ir e
é é r ep r e s s io n : x

a: r ép r es s io nn a ire

In neither case is there the slightest pretext for speaking o f change ;

r ép re ss io nn a ir e replaces nothing Another example : so m e French .

speakers u s e the analogical form fin a u x instead o f fin a ls w hi ch is ,

more common ; som eone m ight coin the adj ective firmame n ta l and
give it the plu ral form firma me nta u x S ho u ld we s ay that there is .

change in fin au x and creation in firmamen taux ? In b oth cases there

‘ ‘
is creation O n the pattern o f m u r wall : e nmu re r wall in speakers ’ ’

‘ ‘ ‘
.
,
’ ’ ’
form ed t o u r tu rn : en tou r er su rrou nd and jo u r light : ajo u re r
‘ ’ ‘
open ( in u n tra va il ajou r é work that adm its light i e lacework
,

,
. .
,
’

These rather recent derivatives seem to be creations B u t if .

I notice that e n to rne r and ajo rn er b u ilt o n t o rn and jam were u sed , ,

du ring an earlier period mu st I change my mind and s ay that ,

e n t o u r e r and aj o u r e r are mo di fications o f the older words ? The

illu sion of analogical change com es from setting u p a relation b e

tween the new form and the one replaced by it B u t this is a mis .
 ANA L O GY 1 65

take since form ations classed as changes (like hon o r ) are b asically
the same as those I call creations (like r ép res s ionn a ire ) .

3 . An a lo gy as a Cr ea t ive Fo rce in L a ngu age

When after seeing what analogy is not we beg in t o stu dy it for
, ,
'
what it is we find that it seems very sim ply to blend with the
,

principle o f lingu istic creativity in general What is that principle ? .

Analogy is psychological b u t this does not su ffice to separate

,

it from phonetic phenomena for they m ay also be considered ,

psychological ( see p We mu st go fu rther and s ay that anal

.

o gy is grammatical It s u pposes awareness and u nderstanding

.

o f a relation between forms Meaning p l ays no part in phonetic .

changes b u t it m u st intervene in analogy

,
.

As far as we can tell neither com parison with oth er form s nor
,

m eanin g had anything to do with the passin g from intervocalic s

to r in Latin The skeleton o f the form ho n os em passed to ho n ore m
. .

O ther forms m u st be introd u ced to accou nt for the appearance o f

h on or beside ko n o s This is shown by the proportion :
.

orat orem
‘'
: o rat o r ho n o
re m : x

x h o n or

The new comb ination wou ld have no basis if the mind did not
associate its form s throu gh their m eanings .

Analogy is gram m atical thr ou ghou t b u t let u s hasten to add ,

that its end resu lt—creation—belongs at first only to speaking It .

is the chance produ ct of an isolated speaker H ere at the very .

,

fringe o f langu age is Where the pheno m enon m u st first be so u ght

,
.

S till two things mu st be kept apart : ( 1 ) awareness of the relation

,

that ties together the produ ctive form s ; and ( 2 ) the resu lt s u g
gested by the comparison the form improvised by the speaker to
,

express his thou ght O nly the resu lt belongs to speaking

. .

Analogy then is one more lesson in separat ing langu age fro m
, ,

speaking ( see pp 1 7 It shows u s that the second depends on

.

the first and it points to the essence of the lingu istic mechanism as
,

described on page 1 30 An y creation m u st be preceded by an u n

.

consciou s com parison o f the materials deposited in the storehou se

o f langu age where produ ctive form s are arranged accord ing to
,

their syntagmatic and associative relations .

1 66 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

A maj or part of the analogical phenom enon is therefore com

p le t e d before the new form appears S peech is cont inu ou sly e n .

gaged in decom posing its u nits and this activi ty contain s not only ,

every possibility o f e ffective talk b u t every possibility o f ana ,

logical formation It is wrong t o su ppose that the produ ctive proc

.

ess is at work only when the new form ation actu ally occu rs The .

e le m ents were al ready there A newly form ed word like in d é co r .

-

a ble already has a potential existence in lang u age ; all its elements
‘
are fou nd in syntagm s li ke deco r er decorate d eco r a tio n decor‘ -
’
-

— ‘ ‘
ation p a rdon n a b le pardonable ma n i a ble manageable : in
’ ’
-
,
’

‘ ‘
, ,
’ ’
co nn u u nknown in s en s é insane
,
etc and the final step of
-
,
.
,

reali z ing it in speaking is a small m at t er in comparison with the

b u ild— u p o f forces that m akes it possible .

In short analogy considered by itself is only one side of the

, ,

pheno m enon o f interpretation o n e m anifestation o f the general ,

activity that sin gles o u t u nits for s u bse qu ent u se That is why I .

s ay that analogy is entirely grammatical and syn chr onic .

The gramm atical and syn chronic character of analogy su ggests

t w o observations that confi rm my views o n absolu te and relative
arbitrariness ( see pp 1 3 1 .

1 ) Words can be rated for capacity to engender other words to

the extent to whi ch they them selves are decom posable S im ple
‘
.

words are by definition u nprodu ctive ( cf French m aga s in ware

‘ ‘ ‘
.

’
hou se a r b re tree ra cin e root
,
Ma ga s in ier warehou se
,
’
,
’

keeper was not engendered by m a ga s in It was formed o n the pat

’

‘ ‘
.

tern o f p riso nie r prisoner : p riso n prison etc In the sam e way ’ ’

‘
.
,

e m m a gis in er to wareho u se owes its existence to the analogy o f ’

e nm a i llo te r
‘ ‘ ’ ‘
swathe e ncad re r frame e nca p uc ho nner p u t o n a ’

’ ‘
,

cowl etc whi ch contain m a illo t swaddling clothes cad re frame

,
.
‘ ,

-
’ ’
, ,
’
c a p u c ho n cowl etc ,
.

E ach langu age then has both produ ctive and sterile words in
” ”
,

varying proportions This takes u s back to the dist inction between

.

“ “
le x icological and gram m atical langu ages ( see p In .

C hinese most words are not decomposable ; in an art ificial lan

,

gu age however al most all words are An E sperantist has u n

, ,
.

limited free dom to b u ild new words on a given root .

2 ) We have se en ( p 1 6 1 ) that any an al ogic al creation may b e

.

pictu red as sim ilar to a proportion This formu la is fre qu ently u sed .
1 68 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

gu ages The opposition sp ecio: s p éc tu s against tego : teams is reflected ’

‘ ‘
.

'
'
de Sp éc tu s ) and to it roof
’ ’
in French d ép it despite te c t u m )
.
‘
cf co nfici o: c o nfe ct u s ( French co nfi t candied ) against re go : r é c tu s ’

‘ * *
(d i r é c t u s French dro it Bu t a gt o s t e gt o s
*
r e gt o s , ,

were not inherited from Proto Indo E u ropean which certainly had - -
,
* *
a k to s t e k t o s etc ; prehistoric Latin introd u ced them and this
, ,
.
,

despite the difficu lty of pronou ncing a voiced consonant before a

voiceless o n e This was made possible only by acu te awareness of
.

the radical u nits a g te g r e g The feeling for word parts ( ra dicals -

,

su ffixes etc ) and their arrangem ent was therefore strong in O ld

,
.

Latin In all probability the feel ing is not so acu te in modern lan
.

gu ages b u t is stronger in German than in French (see p 1 86 .

Ch ap t er V

N
A AL O G Y AND EVO L U TI O N

1 . H ow an A n a lo gica l In n o va t io n En te rs L a ngu a ge
Nothing enters langu age withou t having been tested in speaking ,

and every evolu tionary pheno m enon has its roots in the individu al .

Thi s principle whi ch was stated previo u sly (s e e p

,
applies .

particu larly to analogical innovations Before ho n o r cou ld beco m e .

a rival strong enou gh to replace ho n b s o ne speaker had to coin the

’

new word then others had to imitate and repeat it u ntil it forced
,

itself into standard u sage .

B u t not every analogical innovation is so fortu nate Ab ortive .

com binations that langu age will probably never adopt are always
at hand C hildren becau se they are not well acqu ainted with
.
,

standard u sage and are not yet b ou nd by it clu tter their speech
‘
with them : in French they s ay viendre fo r ven ir come m o u rn for
,
’

‘
,

m o r t dead etc B u t adu lts u s e them too For instance m any peo
’
,
. .
,

ple s ay tra is a it (which incidentally is fou nd in the writings of

‘
, ,
’
R ou sseau ) instead o f t ra yai t (h e ) milked All su ch innovations .

are perfectly regu lar ; they are explained in the same way as those
 ANA L O GY AND EVO LU TIO N 1 69

that langu age has accepted ; viendre for example stem s from the , ,

proportion :
é tein dr a i : é t ein d re
x

and was formed o n the model o f p la ire

tra is a it : p la is a it
‘
please ’

‘h e ) pleased etc ’
( ,
.

Langu age retains only a minim al part o f the creations o f speak

ing b u t those that endu re are nu merou s enou gh to change com
,

p l e t e l y the appearance o f its vocab u lary and gram m ar from o n e

period to the next .

Fro m w hat was said in the preceding chapter it is evident that ,

analogy b y itself cou ld not be a force in evolu tion and that the ,

constant su bstitu tion o f new form s for old ones is one of the most
striking featu res in the transformation o f langu ages E ach tim e a .

new form ation b ecom es definitely installed and eliminates its rival ,

somethin g is actu ally created and something else abandoned with ,

the resu lt that analogy occu pies a preponderant place in the theory
o f evol u tion .

This is the point that I shou ld like to e m phasi z e .

2 . A n a lo gic a l Inn o va tio n s as Symp to ms

f Chan ges in In terp re ta tio n o

Langu age never stops interpreting and decompos ing its u nits .

B u t why does interpretation vary constantly from o n e generation

to the next ? The cau se o f change m u st be sou ght in the great mass
o f forces that constantly threaten the analysis adopted in a

particu lar langu age st ate I shall recall a few o f them

-
. .

The first and m ost important force is phonetic evolu tion ( see
C hapter II ) By m aking som e analyses am bigu ou s and others im
.

possible phonetic changes a ffect both the conditions and the

,

resu lts of decom position thereby shifting the bou ndaries and ,

changing the natu re o f u nits ( see p 1 4 1 concerning com pou nds .

like b e ta hit s and re d o lic k and p 1 5 5 concern ing nou n inflection

- -
,
.

in Proto Indo E u ropean )

- -

In addition to the phonetic fact there is agglu t ination ( to be

discu ssed later) whi ch welds a combination o f ele m ents in to o n e
,

u nit and every imaginable circ u mstance which tho u gh external

, , ,
1 70 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

may modify the analysis of words Fo r it is obviou s that analysis .

,

becau se it resu lts from a set of comparisons depends constantly o n

the associative environm ent of the term The Proto Indo—
,

E u ropean -

su perlative s w ad is — to s contained two independent s uffi xes —

.

* - -
is ,

which carried the idea o f com parative degree ( cf Latin m a g is ) and -

—
.

to which designated the definite place o f an obj ect in a series ( cf .

Greek t ri— to s The two prefixes were agglu tinated ( cf

-
.

Greek h ed is t o s or rather h ed is t o s ) B u t agglu tination was in

- -
,
- -
.

tu rn greatly aided by a fact u nrelated to the concept of the su

perlative degree : co m paratives in is had dropped o u t of u sage
having been su pplanted by formations in jos ; since —
,

— i s was no
longer recogni z ed as an independent ele m ent it was no longer
singled o u t in —
,

i s to
We note in passing the general tendency to shorten the radical
in favor o f the formative ele m ent especially when the form er ends
in a vowel Th s the Latin su ffix td t (veri— tat e m fo r vero tat—
,

— em

—
-
u -

cf Greek d e in o te t—
.
,

a ) took over the i of the theme givi ng the

anal ysis ver i tat—
.
,

em ; in the sam e way R oma n u s A lb a n u s ( cf a é n u s

'
'
- - -
.
,

for a e s n o s ) becam e R om an u s etc

* - -
,
.

C hanges in interpretation no matter how they start always , ,

becom e apparent throu gh the existence o f analogical forms Indeed .

,

if living u nits perceived by speakers at a particu lar m om ent can b y

themselves give birth to analogical formations every definite re ,

distrib u tion o f u nits also im plies a possible expansion o f their u se .

Analogy is therefore proof positive that a form ative element exists

at a given mom ent as a significant u nit Mert di on alis ( L a ct an t iu s )
for m e ri dialis shows that the division was se p te n tr i—
.

b nd lis re gi ,

—
onalis and to prove that the s u ffi x tat had been enlarged by an i
,

element borrowed fro m the radical we need only cite ce le r ifi te m ; -

‘
,

p ay anu s b ui lt o n p ag u s s u fli ce s t o show h o w Latin speakers

- -
, ,

analyz ed R om anus ; and the analysis o f re d lich (s e e p 1 4 1 ) is con

- .

firmed b y the existence o f s te r b lich formed with a verbal root ,

.

A partic u larly u nu su al exam ple wil l show how analogy works o u t

new u nits from period to period In M odern French s omn o le n t
‘ ,
.

sleepy is analy z ed s omn o l en t as if it were a present participle

’
-

‘
.
,
’
Proof o f this is the existence o f the verb so mn o ler be sleepy B u t
in Latin the division was s o mno —
.

l e n tu s like s u ccu l en t u s etc and ,

-
,
.
,
1 72 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUISTICS

than real Langu age is a garment covered with patches c u t from

its own cloth Fou r fi ft h s of French is Proto Indo—
.

.
-
Eu ropean if we -

think o f the su bstance that constitu tes sentences b u t the words ,

that have been transmitted in their totality withou t analogical

change fro m the mother langu age to Modern French wou ld occu py
less than the space o f one page (e g e s t is ‘ *
e s t i n u mbers words
’

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
’ ’
like o u rs bear n ez nose p ere father chie n d o g
, ,
. .
, ,
’ ’
The vast , ,

maj ority of words are in one way or another new combinations o f

, ,

phonic elem ents torn from old er form s In this sense analogy for .
,

the very reason that it always u ses old material for its innovations ,

is remarkably conservative .

B u t analogy has an equ ally important role as a conservative

force p u re and s imple It intervenes not only when o l d materials
.

are redistrib u ted in new u nits b u t also when form s rem ain u n
changed To real i z e this we need only recall that analogical cre
.
,

ation and the mechanism o f speech have a common basis ( see

p.

Latin agu n t w as transmitted almost intact from the prehistoric

p eriod (when people said a go n ti ) u ntil the b egin ning of the R 0
*

mance period D u ring that span of tim e su ccessive generations

.

u sed the form over and over witho u t there being a rival form to

replace it Here analogy played a part in the retention o f the form

. .

The stab ility o f a gun t is j u st as m u ch the work o f analogy as is any

innovation A gu n t is integrated in a system ; it is su pported by
.

fo rms like dt cu n t and legu n t as well as by a gimu s a gitis and the , ,

like O u tside this fram e a gu n t might easil y have been replaced by

.
,

a fo rm made u p of new elements What was transm itted was n o t

—
.

a gu n t b u t a g u n t The for m did not change becau se a g

-
. and u nt
regu larly appeared in other series and the su pport o f these forms ,

preserved a gu n t from start to finish C ompare also s ex t u s which .

-
,

is su pported by two com pact series : s e x s ex -agin ta , etc o n the o ne ,

.

hand and qu a r t u s qu in tu s etc on the other

-
,
-
,
. .

Forms are then preserved becau se they are constantly renewed

by analogy A word is apprehended s imu ltaneou sly as a u nit and
.

as a syntagm and is preserved to the extent that its elements do

,

not change C onversely the existence of the form is threatened

.
,

only to the extent that its elem ents disappear from u sage C o n
‘ ‘
.

sider what is happening to French dites (yo u ) s ay and faite s (yo u ) ’

 FOLK E T YM O L O GY 1 73

do which are direct descendants of Latin dic—

,
’
itis and fa c i tis B e -
.

cau se they have no s u pport from present-day verbal infle ction ,

langu age is trying to replace the m D is ez fa is ez ( on the pattern o f

‘ ‘
.
,

p la is e z please lis e z read etc ) are heard today and the new end
’ ’

‘
.
, , ,

ings are already common in most compo u nds (c o ntre d is ez contra

’
dict ,

The only forms left u ntou ched by analogy are o f cou rse isolated
words like proper nou ns especially place names ( cf P aris Ge n eva ,
.
, ,

A ge n which allow no analysis and conse qu ently no in t e rp re

,

t at io n of their elements No rival creation springs u p beside the m . .

It follows that a form may be preserved for either o f t w o dia

metrically opposed reasons : complete isolation o r com plete ih
t e grat io n in a system that has kept the basic parts of the word
intact and that always comes to its rescu e It is withi n the inter .

m ediate grou p o f form s not su pported firmly enou gh by their

environm ent that inn ovating analogy may u nfold its e ffects .

B u t whether we deal with the preservation o f a form com posed

o f several elements o r a redistrib u tion o f lingu istic material in new

constru ctions analogy is there It always plays an im p ortant role

,
. .

Ch ap t e r VI

F O LK E TY M O L O GY

We sometimes mangle words that have u nfamil iar forms and mean
ings and u sage som et imes sanctions these deformations In this
— ‘
.
,

way O ld French co u te p o in t e ( from co u t e variant of co u e tte cover ’

‘
,
’
and p o in t e past participle of p o in dr e quilt was changed to co u t e
o in t e
‘
co u nterpane as
,

if formed from the adj ’

ective co u r
‘
t short
’
p
‘
,

and the nou n p o in te point S u ch innovations no matter how o dd

4 .
’
,

they may seem are not d u e entirely to chance ; they are cru de a t
,

tempts to explain refractory words by relating them to something

know n .

At first blu sh this phenom enon called folk etymology can , ,

4
.
‘
Cf O ld E n gl is h s ca m fa es t co nfir m e d in s ham e In e a rly Mod e rn En gli s h
-
.
’

t hi s be c a m e s h a me - a s t , f t h e n s h a m e - a ce d f .
[Tr ].
1 74 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

hardly be dist in gu ished from analogy When a speaker forgets that

‘
.

’
French s u rdit é deafness exists and coin s analogical so u rdit é 5 the ,

resu lt is the sam e as if he had mi s u nderstood s urdit é and deformed

‘
it throu gh remembrance o f the adj ective s o u rd deaf ; the only ’

apparent diff erence is that analogical constru ctions are rational

while folk etym ology works som ewhat hapha z ardly and resu lts
only in absu rdities .

B u t this difference which concerns only the resu lts is not b asic
, ,
.

Their basic dissimilarity goes mu ch deeper In order to s e e what it .

is let u s begin by citing a few examples of the main types o f folk

,

etym ology .

First com e words that receive new interpretations with no c o r

responding change o f form In German du rchblaue n thr ash
‘ ‘
‘
.
,

sou ndly goes b ack etym ologically to b liu wa n flog b u t is associated

”
’ ’

‘
with b la u blu e becau se o f the b lu es produ ced by flogging In
’

‘
.

’
the Middle A ges German b orrowed a dven tu re adventu re from
'
French and formed regu larly d b en t ur e A b en t e u e r ; withou t d e fo r ,
“
mation the word was associated with A b e nd ( a story related in
the the resu lt was that d u ring the eighteenth cent u ry
‘
the word was written A b e nd te u e r O ld French s o ufra i te privation .
’

s ufl r ac t a from s u bfra n ge re ) prod u ced the adj ective so ufi r e te u x

‘ ’ ‘
sickly now associated w ith s o ufi r ir su ffer with which it has
, ,
’

nothing in com m on French la is is the nou n form of l a iss e r

6

‘ ‘
.

’ ’
leave b u t is associated nowadays with l é gu e r be qu eath and
written l e gs ; some people even pronou nce it l e g s 7 This might - -
.

su ggest that a change o f form resu lted from the new interpretation ,

b u t the change actu ally relates to the influ ence o f the written form
throu gh which people tried to show their idea of the origin of the
word withou t changing its pronu nciation S i m ilarly French ho
‘
.
,

m a r d lobster borrowed fro m O l d N orse hu mma r ( cf D anish

,
’
.

hu mm e r ) added a final d throu gh analogy with French words in

—
,

a r d ; only here the mistake in interpretation that is m arke d b y

orthography aff ects the ending which w a s confu sed with a common
‘
,

s u ffix ( cf b a va rd chatterbox
.
,
’

B u t people m ore often deform words in order to adapt them to

5
Cf E ngl i h p n n ci ti n g in t p r n n ci ti n [ T
s ro ou a o a a s o u a o r ]
rap h ic
. . .

6
Cf E gl i h liq i ( from L t in liq i i t i ) w hic h
. n s u o r ce a u r a ,
h as o nl y a g
r l t io t l i qu or [T ]
e a n o . r .

Cf E gl i h g b rry ( from Fr n ch gr ill ) [ T ]

7
. n s o o se e e os e e . r .
1 76 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

is the starting point o f the deformation that it u nderwent The .

basis for analysis is remem brance in o n e instance and forgetfu lness

in the other and this difference is o f prime i m portance
,
.

Folk etymology works only u nder particu lar conditions then , ,

and affects only rare technical o r foreign words that speaker s

, ,

ass imilate im perfectly Bu t analogy a u niversal fact belongs to

.
, ,

the norm al fu nctioning o f langu age These two phenom ena s o .

,

s imilar in som e ways are b asically different They mu st b e care

, .

fu lly separated .

Cha p t e r VII

AGGL U TI NATI O N

1 . De fi n it ion

The importance o f analogy w as indicated in the last t w o chap

ters Along with analogy there is another force at work in the pro
.

du ction of new u nits : agglu tination .

A side from these two no other form ative device amou nts to
,

mu ch O nomatopoeia ( see p
. words formed consciou sly and
.

withou t recou rse to analogy by an individu al (e g ga s ) and even . .

,

folk etym ology are o f little o r no importance .

A gglu tination is the welding together of two or more originally

d istinct terms that fre qu ently occu r as a syntagm within the sen
tence into o n e u nit which is absolu te o r hard to analy z e S u ch is the .

agglu tinative process It is a pr oce ss not a p ro cedu re fo r the lat t er

.
, ,

word i m plies will or intention and the absence of wil l is wha t ,

characteri z es agglu tination .

Here are som e exam ples French speakers first said ce ci u sing
‘
.
,

two words then c eci this : a new word was the resu lt even thou gh
,
’

its su bstance and constitu ents did n o t change C om pare also :

‘ ‘ ‘
.

’
French t o u s jo u rs every day t o ujo u rs always a n j o u r d h u i o n’ ’

‘ ‘
today s day a ujo u rd hu i today d és 36 since now d eja alr eady
’ ’ ’ ‘ ,
’
,
’ ’

‘ ‘
, , , ,
’
ve r t ju s green j u ice
’
ve rju s verj u ice so u r grapes
,
Agglu tination ,
.

may a lso weld together the su bu nits o f a word as we s aw ( p 1 7 0) ,

.
 A GGLU TI NA TIO N 1 77

in the case o f the u Proto Indo —

su perlative swad is to —
E ropean
-
s
* - —
and the Greek su perlative héd is t o s - -
.

O n closer exam ination we discern th ree phases in the phe

n o m e n o n of agglu tin ation

1 ) The combining o f several terms in a syn tagm The new .

s yn ta gm is like all other syntagms .

2 ) Agglu tination proper or the synthesi z ing o f the elements o f

,

the syntagm into a new u nit S yn thesis takes place independently .

throu gh a mechanical tendency ; when a compo u nd concept is

expressed by a su ccession o f very common significant u nits the
—
,

—
mind gives u p analysis it takes a short cut and app l ies the con -

cept to the whole clu ster of signs which then becom e a sim ple u nit ,
.

3 ) E very other change necessary to make the old clu ster o f signs
more like a sim pl e word : u nification of accent (ver t jus verjus ) -
,

special phonetic changes etc ,

.

It is often claimed that phonetic and accentu al changes (3) pre

cede conceptu al changes and that semantic syn thesis is ex
plained throu gh agglu t ination and material synthesis B u t this .

prob ably p u ts the cart before the horse It is qu ite likely that ve rt .

ju s t o u s jo u r s etc became s imp le words b ecau se they were grasped

, ,
.

as a single idea .

2 . A gglu tin a tion and A n a lo gy

The contrast between analogy and agglu tination is striking
1 ) In agglu tination two o r more u nits are blended into one
‘
throu gh synthesis (e g French en core still fro m han c ho ra m ) or ’

—
. .
,
*
two su b u nits become o ne ( cf h éd is t o s from s wad is t o s ) A gainst.
- - - -
.

this analogy starts from lesser u nits and b u ilds the m into greater
,
‘
u nits T o create p ag anu s analogy u nited the radical p ag and the
.
-
,
‘
s u ffi x a nu s -
.

2 ) A ggl u tination works only in the z one o f syntagm s It a ff ects .

only a partic u lar cl u ster It embraces nothing else In contrast

. .
,

anal ogy call s forth associative series as well as syntagm s .

3 ) A bove all aggl u tination is neither wilfu l nor active I have

,
.

already said that it is a sim ple m echanical process in which merger

takes place spontaneou sly Analogy on the contrary is a pro .
, ,

c e d u re that re qu ires analyses and com binations intelligent action , ,

an d intention .
1 78 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

C o n s t ru ct io n
and s tru ctu r e are often u sed in discu ssing word for
mation b u t their mean ing differs depending o n whether they are
, ,

app l ied to agglu tination or to analogy When applied to a gglu t i .

nation they su ggest that the elem ents in contact in a syntagm

,

slowly set i e are syn thesi z ed to su ch an extent that their original

,
. .

components are wiped o u t completely B u t when applied to .

analogy constru ction means the arrangem ent obtained in one

,

swoop in an act o f speaking by the reu niting o f a certain nu mber

, ,

o f elements borrowed fro m d iff erent associative series .

The im portance o f separating the two formative m ethods is

obviou s In Latin for instance p o ss um is only the welding to
‘
.
, ,

gether o f two words p o tis and su m 1 am the master : it is an a g ,

’

glu tinate word In contrast s ignifer a grico la etc are produ cts .
, , ,
.
,

o f analogy constru ctions b ased o n models fu rnished by the l an

,

guage O nly analogical creations may be nam ed co mp o un ds o r

.

d e riva tive s .
9

O ften it is d iffi cu lt to whether an analyz a b le form ar ose s ay

t hr ou gh agglu tination o r as an analogical constru ction L inguists .

have discu ssed endlessly the qu estion o f the Proto Indo E u ropean - -

form s es m i es ti ed—
* * *
m i etc Were the ele m ents e s ed etc real
-
,
-
, ,
. .

words du ring a very old period and were they later agglu tinated ,

with other words (mi ti O r are e s m i e s ti etc the res ult

* *
, ,
-
,
-
,
.

o f co m binations of elem ents drawn from other s imilar co m plex

u ni ts ? In the latter case agglu tin ation wou ld antedate the for ,

mation of in fle c t io n al endings in Proto Indo E u ropean In the - -

.

9
Thi s am ying t h t t h t w p h n om
ount st join t l y in t h hi t ory
to sa a e o e e na ac e s

o f l ng g a B t ggl u t i n t io n
ua e l w y occ u r fir tu nd i wh t f r i h
a a a a s s s a s a u n s es

i t n c t h t yp o f co m p ou d t h t g v hipp
.

m od l for n l o gy F
e s a a or ns a e, e e n a a e o

in Gr k t r t d t hro u gh p r t i l gglu t i n t io n t
.

d m ro t
o -s , e c ee p riod w h e n
s a e a a a a a a e

di g w r unk n own in P ro t o I n do Eu rop n ( kw d r m w

.

in fl t i n lec o a en n s e e - - ea e a o o as

t h n qu iv l n t t
e e com p o u d lik
a e t ry h ) b u t t h ou gh n l o gy b
o a n e co u n o us e r a a e

c m prod c t iv m n f form in g n w com p ou d b for co m p l t w l ding

a e a u e ea s o e n s e e e e e

f it l m n t occ u rr d T h m i t r u of t h f t u r t i Fr n ch (j
‘
o s e e e s e e sa e s e e u e ense n e e

f i I h ll do
.

w hi ch ro in V l g r L t i n t h o u gh ggl t in t io n
’

‘
era s a a se u a a r a u a

of t h infi it iv wit h t h p r nt t n f t h v rb h b é (f r h b o I h v
,

e n e e e se e se o e e a re a ce e a e a e

t o T hrough t h int rv nt io n f nalo gy gglut in t io n t h cr t e e e o a , a a us ea es

s yn t c t ic l t yp n d i gr mm t ic l ; l ft l on it p h t h ynt h i of
a a es a s a a a e a e, us es e s es s

l m t t t h p oin t w h r t h
e e en s o l m t b co m co m p l t u n i t
e n d prod c e e e e e en s e e e e s a u es

o nl y n n l y b l
u a u n prod u c t iv
a w ord ( g h n c h or m
za e or Fr nch nc re e s e . . a a e e o

i it i l ico l o gic l [ Ed ]
. e . s ex a . .
1 80 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

Almost every exam ple cited u p to this point belongs to word

formation H ere is one from syntax Proto Indo E u ropean h ad no
. .
- -

prepositions ; the relations that they indicate were expressed by

nu merou s cases that had great signaling power No r did Proto .

Indo E u ropean u s e preverbs in com pou nding verbs ; it u sed only

-

p articles — sm al l words added to the sentence in order to pinpoint

and modify the action o f the verb For instance there was nothing
‘
.
,

to c orrespond to Latin i r e o b m o rt em to confront death o r to ,

’

o b i re m o r te m ; the form wou ld have been i r e m o r t e m o b This was

”
.

still the state of Proto Greek : ( 1 ) In o re o s b a in o kd ta o re o s b ain o

-
' ’

,
“
by itself m eans I come from the mou ntain the genitive having

”
,
“
the valu e of the ablative ; kd ta adds the qu alification by com ing
down D u ring another period the form was (2 ) ka t a oreo s b a in o
.
,

where ha ta acts as a preposition o r even (3) ka ta b a in o o re o s

'
-
, ,

throu gh the agglu tination of the verb and particle which had ,

beco m e a preverb .

H ere are fo u nd two o r three distinct phenom ena dependin g o n ,

the interpretation o f the u nits : ( 1 ) A new class o f word s prepo ,

s it io n s was created sim ply by shifting existing u nits A partic u lar

,
.

arrangement which was originally of no signifi cance and probably

d u e to chance allowed a new gro u ping : h a t a independent at first
, , ,

was u nited with the su bstantive o re o s and the whole was j oined to
’

b a in o to serve as its com plement ( 2 ) A new verbal class ( ka t a b a in o)

.

appeare d This is another psychological grou ping also favored by

.
,

a special distrib u tion of u nits and consolidated by agglu tination .

( 3) A s a natu ral conse qu ence the m eaning of the genitive end ing
,
'
( o re o s ) was weakened Then h o tel had to express the basic idea
-
.

formerly carried by the genitive alone and the importance o f the

ending decreased proportionately The starting point of the fu tu re
.

disappearance o f o s is in the last phenomenon

-
.

In all three instances there was then a new distrib u tion o f u nits
,
.

The old su bstance was given new fu nctions The im portant thing .

is that no phonetic change intervened to bring abou t any o f the

shifts B u t we m u st not think that m eaning alone was involved
.

even thou gh the su bstance did not change There is no syntactical .

phenom enon withou t the u niting o f a certain chain of concepts with

a certain chain of phonic u nits ( see p and this is the very.
 D I A C HR O N I C U N IT S , I DEN TITI E S AND REA L ITI E S

relation that was m odifi ed The sou nds rem ain e d b u t the sig u i
.
,

fi c a n t u nits were no longer the sam e .

We saw earlier ( p 7 5 ) that what alters the sign is a shift in the

.

relationship between the signifier and the sign ified This definition .

applies not only to the alteration of the term s of the system b u t

also to the evolu tion o f the system itself The diachronic phe .

n o m e n o n in its totality is only that and nothi ng more .

B u t the mere recordin g of a certain shift of syn chr onic u ni ts is

by no m eans a complete report o f what has happened in lan guage .

There is al so the problem of the self contained dia chro n ic u nit -

.

With respect to every event we m u st ask which element has been

,

su bj ected directly to change We have already met a sim ilar prob

.

lem in deali ng with phonetic changes ( see p They a ff ect only .

isolated phonemes leavin g the word u nit u ntou ched S ince dia
,
-
.

chronic events are o f all kinds many other su ch qu estions wou ld

,

have to be answered and the u nits delimited in diachrony wou ld

,

not necessarily correspond to those delimited in synchrony A c .

cor d ing to the principl e laid down in Part O ne o u r c oncept of the ,

u ni t cannot be the same in both cases I n any event we cannot a c .

,

c ur a t e l y defin e the u nit u ntil we have st u died it fro m both view

points the static and the evolu tionary U ntil we solve the problem
,
.

of the diachronic u nit we cannot penetrate the o u ter gu ise o f

,

evolu tion and reach its essence U nderstanding u nits is j u st as

.

im portant here as in synchrony if we are to separate ill u sion from

reality ( see p .

B u t dia chro nic id e n tit y poses another difficu lt qu estion Indeed .

,

before I can say that a u nit has rem ained identical o r that it has
changed its form o r meaning while contin u ing to exist as a distin ct
u nit — for b oth possibilities exist —I m u st know the basis fo r stating
that an element taken from one period (e g French chau d warm ) ‘ . .
’

is the same as an element taken from another period ( e g Latin . .

c a lidu m ) .

The answer will dou btless b e that ca lidu m mu st have become

ch a ud thr o u gh regu lar so u nd changes and that therefore c ha ud

ca lidum This is a phonetic identity The sa m e applies to s e vre r

‘ ‘
. .

’ ’
wean and s ep arare Fle u rir flower however is not the same thin g
.
, ,
*
as fl orere (w h ich wou ld have become flo u ro ir) etc ,
.
1 82 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

D iachronic identity seems at first glance to be satisfactorily a c

cou nted for by phonetic correspondence B u t it is actu ally im p o s
.

sible fo r sou nd alone to accou nt for identity D ou btless it is correct

‘
.

to s ay that Latin mare shou ld appear in French as me r sea becau se ’

every a becam e e u nder certain conditions u nstressed final e fell

, ,

etc B u t to s ay that these correspondences ( a

. e e z ero etc )
, , .

accou nt fo r identity is to reverse the facts for I am u sing the

,

correspondence between ma re and m e r to decide that a became e ,

that final e fell etc

‘
.
,

O ne speaker may say s e fa cher become angry whi le someone who ’

l ives in another part of France says s e foche r b u t this d ifference is

,

u nim portant in comparison with the grammatical facts that allow

u s to recogni z e o n e and the same u nit of langu age in these two

distin ct forms T o s ay that t w o words as d ifferent as c a lidu m and

.

c h a ud constit u te a diachr onic identity means simply that speakers

passed from o n e form t o the other throu gh a series o f synchronic

identities in speaking withou t there b eing a break in their common
bond despite s u ccessive phonetic changes That is why I cou ld
.

state that k nowing how Ge n tle me n ! retains its identity when r e

p e at e d several ti m es d u ring a lectu re is j u st as interesting as know
ing why p a s (negation) is identical to p as ( nou n ) in French o r ,

again why cha u d is identical to ca lidu m ( see p 1 07

,
. The second
problem is really b ut an ext ension and a co m plication o f the first .
1 84 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L LI N GU I S TI CS

arrangements b u t for those who live in the hou se there is

c e ss ive ,

always b u t one arrangement The analysis hip p o s which was dis - -

”
.
,

c u ssed above is not false for it was fram ed in the minds o f

, ,
“
speakers ; it is merely anachronistic ; it goes back to a period
that preceded the o n e fro m which the word is taken O lder hipp o s .
- -

does not contradict the hipp o s o f C lassical Greek b u t the two -

,

analyses cannot b e j u dged in the same way This again po ints u p .

the radical d istinction between diachrony and synchrony .

An d that allows u s also t o resolve a metho d ological issu e which

is still pending in lingu istics The o ld school divided words into .

roots the m es s ufli x e s etc and attached an absolu te valu e to

, , ,
.

these distinctions O ne wou ld think to read B opp and his disciples

.
, ,

that the Greeks had carried with them from time im memorial a
collection o f roots and s u fli x e s which they u sed in fabricating
words and that they took the trou ble to manufactu re their words
,

while speak ing e g that p é te r was to them the root p d the su ffix
—
. .
,

t er that d os o stood for the su m of d o

,
so a personal end
ing etc,
.

There had to b e a reaction against the aberrations o f the old

school and the appropriate slogan was this : O bserve what happens
,

in the everyday speech of present day langu ages and attrib u te to -

older periods no process no phenom enon that is n o t observable ,

today An d sin ce the living langu age generally does not lend itself
.

t o analyses like those made by Bopp the neogrammarians faithfu l , ,

to their principle declared that roots them es su ffixes etc are

, , , ,
.

mere abstractions which shou ld be u sed solely to facilitate ex

position B u t u nless there is som e j u stification fo r setting u p these
.

categories why bother ? An d if they are s e t u p by what au thority

can one di vision like hipp o—
, ,
'
s for instance b e declared better than -
, ,

another l ike hip p o s ? -

The new school after pointing o u t the shortco m ings o f the

o l d doctrine—and this w a s easy—was satisfied to rej ect the theory
,

b u t remain fettered in practice to a scientifi c apparatu s that it was

“
powerless to discard Wh en we exam ine abstractions more .
”
closely we s e e what part o f reality they actu ally stand for and a
,
.
,

simple corrective m easu re su ffices t o give an exact and j u stifiable

meaning to the expedients o f the grammarian That is what I have .

tried to do ab ove by showing that obj ective analysis which is ,

 A PP END I C E S TO PART S THREE AND F O U R 1 85

intim ately linked to su bj ective analysis o f the living langu age has ,

a definite and rightfu l place in lingu istic methodology .

2 . S u bj ec tive An a lys is f S u b u nit s a nd the D e fi n in g o

In analysis then we can se t u p a method and form u late d e fi n i

, ,

tions onl y after adopting a synchronic viewpoint That is what

I wish to show thro u gh a few observations abo u t word —
.

part s :
prefixes roots radicals su ffixes and in fle c t io n al endings
, ,
10
, ,
.

First the infiec tio n a l en din g i e the word fi n a l variable elem ent
, ,
. .
-

that distingu ishes the di fferent forms o f a no u n o r verb paradigm

— — ‘
.

’
In z e ugn u mi z e ugn u s z eugn u s i z eugn u m en etc I harness etc
—
- -

the infl e c t io n al endings m i —

,
. .
, , , , ,

s i etc stand o u t simply becau se -

s , , ,
.

they are in opposition t o each other and to the preceding part o f

the word (z e u gnii We recall that in C z ech the absence o f an in
fle c t io n al ending plays the sam e role as a regu lar ending ( e g the . .

' '
genitive plu ral z en in opposition to nom inative singu lar z en a ; s e e
p 86 and p ‘
S imil arly Greek ze ugnu! (thou ) harness ! ’

‘
. .
,

against z e ugn u te (yo u ) harness ! o r r h ét or ’ against rheto r o s etc

-
’
-

‘
.
,
.

and French mars] written ma rch e (tho u ) walk ! against m a r so !

' ’
,
’
walk ! are all inflected forms with a z ero ending .

By el iminating the in fle c t io nal ending we obtain the infie ctio n a l

t he m e o r ra dica l This is generally the common elem ent which .

em erges spontaneou sly when we com pare a series of related words ,

whether inflected or n o t and which conveys the idea comm on to

‘ ‘
,
’ ’
every word In the French series r o u lis roll r ou l e a u rolling pin -

‘ ‘
.
, ,

ro u lage roller ro u le m e n t rolli ng for instance the radical r o u l

,
’
,
’
,

stands o u t B u t in their analysis speakers often single o u t several

.
,

kinds or rather grades o f radicals in the sam e fam ily of words

, ,
.

Z e u gn ii separated above from z e ugn u m i z e ugnu s etc is a fi rs t

v

,
-
,
-
,
.
,

gra d e radical It is n o t irredu cible for the division z e u g n u is self

.
,
-

evident if we compare z e ugnu with other series (z eugnumi z e u k ,

té s z e uhs is z e u kt ér z u gon etc o n the one hand and z e u gnu m i

, , , ,
.
,

F 1°
S r did n t t u dy t h qu t io n
de a us s u e n o s e es o f co m po d — t fro m t h
un s o e

yn ch o n ic vi wp oi t t y r t T hi p r t f t h pro b l m m u t t h r for
.

s r e n a an a e s a o e e s e e e

id O f co u r t h di t in c t io n m d b ov b t w
.

b te se as e . co m po nd nd
se e s a e a e e een u s a

a ggl t in t w ord do
u a e n t pp ly h r w h r n ly i of l g g t t i
s es o a e e e e a a s s a an ua e -s a e s

co n c rn d It i c rc ly c ry t poi nt u t t h t t hi cco t of ub u ni t
e e s s a e ne e s sa o o a s a un s s

t io r i d b ov ( pp 1 05
.

do n t pr t nd t w r t h m or diffi c l t q e

1 1 0 f ) co n c rn i n g t h d fin i n g f t h w ord—
es o e e o an s e e e u ue s n a se a .
,

. e ni t [ Ed ] e e o e u . .
1 86 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUISTICS

de iknumi , o rnumi ,the other) Z e u g (with its alternate

’

etc . on .

form s z e u g z e u lc z u g s e e p 1 6 0) is therefore a second grade .

-

radical B u t z eu g is irredu cible To carry its decomposition fu rther

. .

by comparing related form s is not possible .

The ro o t is the irredu cible element comm on to all words o f the

same famil y B u t any su bj ective and synchr onic analysis separates
.

material elements only by considering the share o f meani ng that

m atches each element and the root is in thi s respect the element
,

in whi ch the meanin g com m on to all related words reaches the

highest degree of ab straction and generality Natu rally in d e finit e .
,

ness varies from one root to the next b u t it also depends somewhat ,

o n the extent to which the radical is redu cible The m ore the radical .

is shortened the greater the likelih ood that its meaning will becom e
,

abstract Thu s z eu gmd tion su ggests a little team z e ugma any team
.
,

whatsoever and zeu g the indefinite notion o f yoking o r harnessing

,
.

It follows that a root cannot constitu te a word and have an

infl e c t io n al en di ng j oined directly to it Indeed a word always .
,

stands for a fairly definite idea at least from a grammatical view ,

po int and thi s is contrary to the general and abstract natu re of the
,

root B u t what abou t the nu merou s roots and in fle ct io n al themes

.

that apparently mingle ? Take Greek p hl oks genitive p hlo gos ,

against the root p h le g p h lo g whi ch is fou nd in eve ry word o f the

sam e fam ily ( cf p hlég o D oes this not contradict the dis
.
-
,

tin ction whi ch we have j u st s e t u p ? No for we mu st separate ,

p h le g p h lo g with a general m eaning fro m p hlo g with its special

meanin g o r risk considering the material form only to the exclu sion
o f meaning The sam e material element here has two diff erent
.

valu es It therefore comprises two distinct lingu istic ele m ents

.

( see p . A bove it was shown that z e ugnu! is a word with an

,

infl e ct io n al ending o f z ero In the sa m e way p h lo g is a theme with

.
,

a z ero su ffix N o confu sion is possible The radical is distinct from

. .

the root even when phonetically identical to it .

The root is then a reality in the mind of speakers To be su re .

,

speakers do not always single it o u t with e qu al precision O n thi s .

poin t there are differences either within the same langu age o r ,

from one langu age to another .

In certain idioms definite characteristics call the root to the

,

attention of speakers In German for instance the root is fair ly

.
, ,
1 88 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUIST ICS

gram matical fu nction : e g the ge o f German past participle s . .

(ge s e tz t
-
the perfective prefixes of S lavic ( R u ssian n a p is til
,
’ -
,

The prefix also d iff ers from the su ffi x throu gh a characteristic

which thou gh fairly general is not absolu te The prefix is mor e
, ,
.

sharply delimited for it is easier to separate from the word as a

,

whole This is d u e to the very natu re o f the prefix A com plete word
. .

u su ally rem ains after the prefix is re m oved ( cf French r eco m me n ce r

‘ ‘ ‘
.

recommence : c o mm en ce r comm ence in dign e u nworthy : d ign e

’ ’ ’

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
,

worthy ma lad ro it u nsk illed : adr o it skilled co n trep oid s cou nter
’ ’ ’

’ ‘
,

weight : p o id s weight Latin Greek and Germ an o ffer even ,

’
,

, ,

more striking examples M oreover m any prefixes fu nction as inde

‘ ‘ ‘
.
,
’ ’ ’
pendent words : cf French con t re against m a l ill avan t before
‘
.
, , ,
’
s u r on German u n te r vo r etc and Greek ka td p r o etc B u t the
’

.
, .
, , , , ,

su ffix is altogether diff erent The radical elem ent obtained by re .

moving the su ffix is not a com plete word : e g French o rganis a tio n
‘
. .

organi z ation : o rga nis German Tre nnu ng: t re nn Greek z e ugm a :
’

ze u g etc F u rthermore the s u ffix has no independent existence

11
.
, .

The resu lt is that the first part of the radical is u su ally delimited
beforeha nd The speaker knows before he has made any com
.
,

parisons with other form s where to draw the line between the p re ,

fix and what follows This is not tru e o f the last part of the word . .

There o n e can draw no b ou ndary withou t first comparing form s

th at have the sam e radical o r su ffix and the resu lting delimitations ,

will vary according to the natu re of the terms compared .

S u bj ectively su ffix es and radicals derive their valu e solely from

,

syntagmatic and associative oppositions We can u su ally fin d a .

formative and a radical element in any two opposing parts o f a

word provided that possible oppositions exist In Lat in dic tat ore m
,
.
,

for instance we shall s e e the radical dic tat or ( e m ) if we com pare it -

with co n s u l e m p e d em etc ; d ic ta—

,

( t or e m ) if we co m pare it with
-
,
-
,
.

lic t o re m s cr ip t o re m etc ; and dic

-
,
-
if we think o f p o
,
.

t d t ore m can t d t ore m etc Generally and u nder favorable circu m

,
-
,
.
,

stances the speaker may make every imagin able division ( e g

dictat o rem from a m o re m ard b re m etc ; d ict—
. .
,
‘
-
,
at or e m from or
-
,
-
,
.
,

11
T hi p r t ho u gh n t n c ril y ppl ic
s at t e n , o e e ss a a a bl e to E ngl i s h w ord s d e riv e d
fro m G rm nic ou rc (t ch
e ad ly ho p l s es ea -
e r, s a -
,
e- e s s ) ,
is char a c t e ris t ic of E n gli s h
w ord d riv d fro m R o m n c
s e ou rc (du h
e a e s es c w e ss , a pp a ri ti
-
o n , ca p -a b le ) [Tr ]
. .
 A PP END I C E S TO PAR T S THREE AND F O U R 1 89

atere m , a r-d tore m ,

We know that the resu lts o f these s p o n t a
meou s analyses appear in the analogical formations o f each period
( see p 1 7
. T h ro u gh the m we can single o u t the s u bu nits ( roots
, ,

prefixes su ffixes and endings) which langu age recogni z es and the
, ,

valu es which it attaches to them .

3 Et ymo lo gy
.

E tym ology is neither a distinct discipli e nor a division o f e vo l u

n

t io n ary lingu istics It is only a special application of the pr inciples

.

that relate to syn chronic and diachronic facts It goes b ack into

”
.

the history o f words u ntil it finds som ethin g to explain them .

“
T o speak of the o rigin o f a word and say that it comes from
another word may imply several diff erent things : thu s French s e t
comes from Latin sa l throu gh a s imple sou nd change ; la b o u re r
‘ ‘
p lou gh comes from O ld French l a b o u r e r work solely throu gh a
’ ’

‘ ’
change in m ea ni ng ; co u ver brood comes from Latin cu b ar e be in ‘
’
bed throu gh a change in both meaning and sou nd ; final ly the
‘
,

statem ent that French p o mm ie r apple tree com es from p o mm e -

’

‘ ’
apple brings in the relation o f grammatical derivation The first .

three examples concern diachronic identities ; the fou rth is based

o n the s ync h ronic relation of several di ff erent terms and every ,

thing that has been said abou t analogy shows that this relation is
the most important part o f etym ological research .

It is not possible to fix the etymology o f b onu s merely by go ing

back to dven o s B u t if bis is fou nd to go back to dvis implying a
.
,

relation with du o then the proced u re is etymological The sam e

‘
.
,

applies to the compa ring o f French o is e au b ird and Latin a vi ’

ce l lu s fo r comparis on reveals the link b etween o i s e a u and a vi s

,
.

E tymology is then mainly the explain ing o f words throu gh the

historical stu dy o f their relations with other words To explain .

means to relate to known terms and in lingu istics t o ex p la in a w o rd

, ,

is to r e la te i t t o o t he r w o rd s for there are no necessary relations

,

between sou nd and m eanin g ( principle o f the arbitrary natu re of

the sign s e e p 67 , .

E tym ology does n o t simply explain isolated words and stop

there It co m piles the history o f word fam ilies and of families of
.

fo rm ative elem ents—p re fi x e s su ffi xes etc , ,

.

Like static and evolu tionary l ingu istics etym ology describes ,
1 90 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S T I CS

facts B u t thi s description is not methodical for it follows no fixed

.
,

cou rse In com piling the history o f a word etymology b orrows its
.
,

data alternately from phonetics morphology semantics etc To

, , ,
.

reach its goal etym ology u ses every m eans placed at its disposal
,

by lingu istics b u t it is not concerned with the natu re of the

,

operations that it is obliged to perform .

1 92 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N G UI S TI CS

concerned only with the diversity o f the different H ellenic dialects ,

b u t this was beca u se their interest did not generally go b eyond the
borders of Greece proper .

H aving noticed that two idiom s di ff er one instinctively looks ,

for similarities This is a natu ral tendency o f speakers Peasants

. .

l ike to compare the ir patois with the one spoken in a neighb oring
village People who speak several langu ages notice their comm on
.

traits B u t for so m e strange reason science has waited a long ti m e

.

to m ake u s e o f the resu lts of su ch observations For example the .

,

Greeks noticed many resemblances between the Latin vocab u lary

and their own b u t were u nable to dr aw any l ingu i stic conclu sions .

S cientifi c observation o f lingu istic sim ilarities proves that two

o r more idioms may be akin i e that they have a co m m on origin ,
. . .

A grou p o f related langu ages makes u p a family M odern lingu istics .

has su ccessively identified several families : the Indo E u ropean -

,

S em itic Bantu etc C omparing these fam ilies with each other in
1
, ,
.
,

tu rn occasionally brings t o light older and broader a fli liat io n s

, .

There have been attempts to find similarities between Finno U gric 2 -

and Indo E u ropean between the latter and S emitic etc b u t su ch

-
, ,
.
,

com parisons always com e u p against insu perable barriers O ne .

mu st not confu se what is probable with what is demonstrable The .

u niversal kinship of lang u ages is not probable b u t even if it were

—
,

tru e as the Itali an lingu ist Trom betti believes—it cou ld not b e
3

proved becau se o f the excessive n u mber o f changes that have

intervened .

Beside diversity within related grou ps then there is absolu te

—
, ,

diversity d iff erences between langu ages that have no recogni z able
o r demonstrable kinship What method sho u ld l ingu istics u s e in .

each of these degrees ? Let u s begin with the second which is m ore ,

common As we have j u st noted cou ntless langu ages and families of

.
,

1
B an t u is a ro u p
g of l an gu age s s p ok en by Sou t h Afric an t rib e s, m a in l y th e

Kaffir s [ Ed ]
Fin o Ugric w hich i nc l d — m o n g o t h r l gu g —Fin n i h p rop r or
. .

2 -
n u es a e an a es s e

L p p t i f m il y f l n g g p ok n in n or t h rn
,

Su ni Mordvi i
or ,
n an , a , e c .
, s a a o a ua es s e e

R i nd Si b ri D o ub t l
uss a a th l g g ll g b c k t
e a comm o n e ss e se an ua es a o a o a

origin l idio m T h f m il y i p rt of t h gr t Ur l Alt ic gro p of l ngu g

.

a e a s a a e ea a -
a u a a e s,

p rov comm o n origi lt ho gh om t r it pp r in ll o f

.

w hi ch h v n a e o en n a u s e a s a ea a

t h m [ Ed ]
igin d l lin g ggi B o l o gn
e . .

1 905 [ Ed ]
’
S hi L n it a d
3 ’
ee s u or e e ua o, a, . .
 C O M P LI C A TION S OF G E O G RA P H I C A L D I VER S IT Y 1 93

langu ages are not related A good example is Ch inese with respect
.

to the Indo E u ropean langu ages The fact that they di ff er does n o t
- .

mean that they cannot be compared for com parison is alw ays p o s ,

sible and u sefu l ; it applies to grammatical organisms and general

ways o f expressin g thou ght as well as to systems of sou nd ; it a lso
inclu des diachroni c facts the phonetic evolu tion of two langu ages
, ,

etc The possibilities o f comparison tho u gh incalcu lable are

.
, ,

limited by certain constant phonic and psychological data that

determ ine the make u p of any langu age ; reciprocally the d iscovery
-
,

o f these constant data is always the main a im of any comparison of

related langu ages .

f
f —
The other class of di erences those that exist w ithi n famil ies of
langu ages—offers an u nlimited field for com parison Two i di oms .

may diff er in any degree They m a y bear a striki ng resem blance to

.

each other like Z end a nd S anskrit or be as entirely diss imilar as

, ,

S anskrit and Gaelic All interm ediate degrees are possible : Greek
.

and Latin are m ore closely related to each other than to S anskrit ,

etc Idiom s that differ only slightly are called dia le ct s b u t this
.
,

word mu st b e u sed loosely We shall see that langu ages and dialects
.

differ qu antitatively not by n atu re ( see p ,

.

Chap t er II

C O MPLI ATI O N C S O F G E O G R A P H I C AL I E S Y
D V R IT

1 . C ito ex fS v lL g g
s e n ce o t th S m P i t
e e ra an u a e s a e a e o n

U p t this point geographi cal diversity has been presented in it

o s

ideal form : there were as many territories as there were d iff erent
langu ages An d o u r method was j u stifiable for geographical sepa
.
,

ration is still the most general force in lingu istic diversity B u t .

there are secondary facts that distu rb the ideal relationshi p and
cau se several lan gu ages to coexist in the sam e territory .

Two things we pass over First is the real organic m ixtu re or .

,

interpenetration of two idioms that resu lts in a change in the

1 94 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TICS

syste m ( cf E nglish after the N orman C onqu est ) S econd is the

. .

political accident o f several langu ages clearly separated in space

b u t inclu ded within the bou ndaries o f the sam e state as in S wit z er ,

land The only fact that concerns u s is that two idiom s can exist
.

side by side in the same place withou t intermingli ng This occ u rs .

fre qu ently b u t is o f two kinds

,
.

First newcomers may su pe rimpose their langu age o n the indig

,

enons langu age Fo r instance in S o u th Africa two su ccessive

.
, ,

coloni z ations introdu ced D u tch and E nglish which now exist ,

alongside several N egro dialects ; in the sam e way S panish was ,

implanted in Mexico No r are su ch lin gu istic encroachments p e

.

cu li a r to modern times Throu ghou t the centu ries nations have

.

interm ingled and still kept their idiom s distinct To reali z e thi s fact .

we need only glance at a map o f modern E u rope : Ireland with ,

C eltic and E nglish ; many o f the Irish speak both langu ages In .

Brittany French and Breton In the Bas qu e region French and

,
.
,

S pan ish as well as Basqu e In Finland S wedish and Finnish have

.
,

coexisted fo r a rather long time and R u ssian has been added m ore
,

recently In C ou rland and Livonia Lettish German and R u ssian

.
, ,

are spoken ; German which was brou ght in by colonists u nder the
,

au spices o f the H anseatic Leagu e du rin g the Middle Ages belongs ,

t o a special segment o f the popu lation ; R u ssian su bsequ ently

entered by con qu est Lithu ania witnessed the implantation o f
.

Polish alongside Lithu anian as a conse qu ence of her form er u nion

with Poland and o f R u ssian as a resu lt o f ann exation U ntil the
, .

eighteenth centu ry S lavi c and German were u sed throu ghou t the
section o f Germ any that lies to the east o f the E lbe In other .

cou ntries langu ages are even more entangled : in Macedonia every
—
imaginable langu age is fou nd Tu rkish B u lgarian S erbian Greek
Albanian R u m anian etc —
, , , ,

,
and the langu ages are mix e d in
,
.

diff erent ways in different regions .

C oexisting langu ages are not always absol u tely entangled ; there
may b e a certain relative territorial distribu tion O f two languages .
,

o n e m a y be spoken in town and the other in the cou ntry b u t su ch ,

a distribu tion is n o t always clear cu t -

.

The story was the same in ancient times A lin gu istic map of the .

R om an E m pire wou ld show facts like those already described .

Toward the close o f the R ep u blic fo r instance C ampania n u m , ,

1 96 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

charac t er Thu s the dialect of the Ile de France is clearly re c o gniz

.

able in li t e rary French and the Toscan in S tandard Italian B u t the .

l i te rary langu age is not imposed from o ne day to the next and a ,

maj ority o f the popu lation is fou nd to be bilingu al speaking both ,

the stan dard langu age and the local patois This occu rs in many .

p arts o f France like S avoy where French is an imported langu age

, ,

that has n o t yet elim inated the regional patois and generally in ,

Germany and Italy where dialects persist alongside the official

,

langu ages .

It has been the same with all nations that have reached a certain
st age o f civili z ation The Greeks had their ko in e derived from A ttic
.
,

and Ionian al ong with coexisting local dialects Presu m ably even
,
.

ancient Babylon had its official langu age and its regional dialects .

D oes a standard langu age necessarily im ply the u se of writing ?

The H omeric poems seem t o prove that it does not E ven thou gh .

they were composed at a time when writing was u sed little or not
at all their langu age is conventional and has every characteristic
,

o f a liter a ry langu age .

The facts di scu ssed in this chapter are s o co mm on that they

might pass as normal forces in the history of langu ages B u t to keep .

to o u r pu rp ose we mu st t u rn aside from everything that o b scu res

the basic phenom enon of natu ral geographical diversity and con
sider it apart from any importation o f a foreign langu age or any
formation of a literary langu age This schem atic s impl ification
.

seem s to go against reality b u t the natu ral fact m u st first b e

,

stu died in itself .

C onsistently with this principle we shall s ay that Bru ssels is

,

Germanic since it is in the Flem ish part o f Belgiu m ; thou gh French

is spoken there what matters is the bou ndary between the Flemish
,

and Walloon territories Liege is R omance fo r the sam e reason : it is

.

in Walloon territory ; French is a foreign langu age that happens to

have been su perim posed o n a dialect o f the same stock S im ilarly .
,

Brest belongs lingu istically to Breton ; the French spoken there has
nothing in common with the native idiom o f Brittany Berlin .
,

w here H igh German is heard almost exclu sively is Low German , ,

etc .
 C A USES OF G E O G RA P H I C A L DI VER S ITY 1 97

Ch ap t e r II1

CAUSES O F G E O G R A P H I C AL E S Y
D I V R IT

1 . Time , the B as ic Ca u s e
Whereas absolu te diversity poses a p u rely specu lative p roble m
(s e e p 1 9 2. diversity wi th in related langu ages can be obse rved
and traced back to u nity That Vu lgar Latin took diff erent paths
.

in the northern and sou thern parts of Gau l explain s the com mon
origin o f French and Proven cal .

By sim plifying the theoretical situ ation as mu ch as poss ible we ,

can get at the basic cau se o f d ifferentiation in space What wou ld

happen if a langu age spoken at one clearly del imited point—e g a
.

. .

small island—were transported by colonists to another clearly de

—
l imited point e g another island ? After a certain length o f t it h e
. .

variou s differences affecting vocab u lary grammar pronu nciation , ,

and the like wou ld sep a rate the lan guage of the sou rce ( S ) from the
langu age o f the settlem ent
It is wrong to imagine that only the transplanted idiom wil l
change while the original idiom rem a ins fixed o r vice versa An .

innovation may begin o n either side o r o n b oth sides at the sa me

time Take a lingu istic featu re a that can be replaced by b c d etc
.
, , ,
.

D iff erentiation may occu r in three diff erent ways :

a (S ou rce S )
( S ettlement S )
’
a :

A sided approach will not do for the innovations o f either

o n e- ,

lang u age are o f equ al i m portance .

What created the d ifferences ? It is illu sory to think that space

1 98 C O U R S E I N G ENE R AL LI N GUISTICS

alone was responsible By itsel f space cannot influ ence langu ag e

.
, .

O n the day followin g their arrival at S the colonists from S spoke ’

exactly the sam e langu age as o n the preceding day It is easy to .

forget ab ou t the factor of tim e becau se it is less concrete than

space b u t it is actu all y the cau se o f lin gu istic d ifferentiation
, .

Geographical diversity shou ld be called tem poral diversity .

Take two d ifferentiat ing featu res b and c No speakers have .

passed from the first to the second or from the second to the fir st .

To discover how u nity became diversity we m u st go back to the ,

o riginal a for which b and c were s u bstit u ted : a gave way to the

later forms b and 0 H ence the following diagram of geograp hi cal

.

differentiation whi ch will cover all sim ilar cases

The separation o f the two idiom s shows the tangible form o f the
phenom enon b u t does not explain it U ndou btedly divergence in .

space w a s a necessary condition—no m atter how sm all the amou nt

—b u t by itself distance does not create differences V olum e is .

measu red not by one su rface b u t by adding a third dimension

, , ,

depth ; similarly geographical diff erentiation is pictu red com

,

p l e t e l y only when proj ected in t ime .

O ne obj ection might be that diff erences in environment clim ate , ,

topography and local c u sto m s (e g c u sto m s o f mo u ntaineers con

, . .

t ras t e d w ith those o f a m aritim e pop ul ation ) infl u ence langu age ,

and that o u r variations are therefore condi tioned geographical ly .

S u ch influ ences are open to dispu te however (see p 1 47 f E ven if

,
.

they coul d be proved a fur ther distinction wou ld be in order :

,

dire c tio n of m ovem e nt whi ch is governed in each instance by im

,

ponderable forces that can neither be dem onstrated nor described ,

is attrib u table to environ m ent At a particul ar m o m ent and in a

.

partic ular environ m ent i t became u Why did it change at that

'
.

mo m ent and in that place and why did it become 12 instead of 0 ?

,

That qu estion we cann ot answer B u t cha nge i ts e lf (leaving o u t the

—
.

special direction it takes and its particu lar manifestations ) in

200 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUISTICS

(1) E vol
tion takes the form o f su ccessive and precise inno
u

va t io n s that inclu de as many partial facts as co u ld be en u merated ,

described and classified according to their natu re ( phonetic l e x ic o

, ,

logical morphological syntactical

, , ,

(2) E ach innovation embraces a definite and delimited area .

There are two possibilities : either the area o f the innovation e m

braces the whole territory and creates no dialectal diff erences ( the
less u su al possibility) or the change a ffects only a part of the ter
,

rit o ry each dialectal fact having its special z one ( the m ore co m m on
,

occu rrence) We can illu strate with phonetic changes b u t other

.
,

innovations are the sam e For instance while part o f a territory

.
,

may witness the change of a to e :

it is possible that o n the sam e territory b u t within other limits ,

an other change , s u ch as s to 2 will occ u r : ,

and the existence of these distinct areas explains the diversity o f

regional speech forms throu ghou t the territory o f a langu age that
-

is al lowed to evolve natu rally There is no way to foresee these

.

z ones ; nothing points to which way they will spread ; all we can do

is record them Laid on a m ap with their bou ndaries crossing and

.
,

recrossin g each other they form extremely complicated patterns

,
.

”
At times their configu ration is paradoxical Th u s 0 and g changed
before a to ts dz then 5 ( cf c an tu m ‘
ch a n t song vir ga ve r ge
.

‘
, ,
.
,

rod ) throu ghou t northern France except in Picardy and part o f

’

N ormandy , where c and g rem ained intact ( cf Picard ca t for cha t .

 C A US E S O F G E O G RA P H I C A L D I VER S I TY 2 01

‘
cat ,
’
é for re cha pp é which was recently adopted by French
r e s ca p
’

, ,
‘
ve r gu e from vir ga cited ab ove , ,

What is the resu lt o f differentiation throu gh time ? At one

moment in history a single langu age may reign throu gho u t a
particu lar territory and five or ten centu ries later the inhabitants ,

o f two of its extre m es probably w il l not be ab l e t o u nderstand each

other At any particu lar point however speakers will still u nder
.
, ,

stand the speech forms o f neigh b oring regions A traveler going

-
.

from o n e end of the cou ntry to the other wou ld notice only small
dialectal diff erences from one locality to the next B u t the su m o f .

these differences wou ld increase and eventu ally he wo u ld come to ,

a lan guage that the inhab itants o f this starting point wo u ld n o t

u nderstand O r if starting from a given po int in the territory he
.
, ,

traveled ou tward now in one direction now in another he wo u ld

, , ,

find the su m of these differences increasing in each direction b u t ,

with one s u m di ffering from the other .

Pecu liarities fou nd in the dialects o f o n e village will reappear in

neighb oring localities b u t there is nothing to show exactly how far ,

each pecu l iarity will reach Fo r instance in D ou va ine a locality in .

, ,

the departm ent of U pper S avoy the name o f Geneva is pro -

,

n o u n c e d fi e n va This pron u nciation is heard far to the east and to

.

the sou th b u t on the other side o f Lake Geneva speakers s ay

,

d z e nva S till it is not a qu estion of t w o clearly distinct dialects for

.
, ,

the bou ndaries o f some other phenomenon wou ld be different In

‘
.

D ou vaine speakers s ay da u e for d e u x two b u t this pronu nciation

, ,
’

has a m u ch more restricted z one than Eenva At the foot o f the .

S aleve a few kilom eters away speakers say du e

, ,
.

3 . Dia le ct s H a ve N0 Na tu ra l B o u n da rie s
The cu rrent practice which differs from ou rs is to p ictu re dia , ,

lects as perfectly defined ling u istic types bou nded in all directions ,

and covering distinct z ones placed side by side on a map ( a b c d , , , ,

B u t natu ral dialectal transfor m ations pro du ce entirely diffe r

ent resu lts As soon as we stu died each phenomenon separately and
.

determined its spread o u r o ld notion had to give way to the new ,

one : there are only natu ral dialectal featu res not natu ral d ialects ; ,

in other words there are as many dialects as there are localities

,
.

4
Se e p a ge 1 56 .
[ Tr ] .
202 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

The notion o f natu ral dialects is therefore in com patible with the
notion of fixed well d e fin e d z ones This leaves u s with two choices :
-
.

( 1 ) we may define a dialect by the totality o f its characteristics

which involves choosin g one point o n the map and encom passing
only the regional speech forms of a single locality since the sam e
-

pecu liarities will not extend beyond this point ; or (2 ) we may define
a dialect by one of its characteristics and simply map the spread ,

o f this characteristic— which obvio u sly is an artificial proced u re

s ince the b ou ndaries that we mark o ff correspond to no dialectal

reality .

R esearch in dialectal characteristics was the poin t o f depart u re

for works o n lingu istic cartography The model lingu istic atlas is .

G illié ro n s A t la s lingu is tiqu e d e l a Fra nce W e nk e r s m ap of Ger

’ ’
.

many sho u ld also be mentioned 5 The form o f the atlas is p re de t e r

.

mined for we have to stu dy a cou ntry region by region and a map
, ,

inclu des only a small n u m ber of the dialectal characteristics o f

each region O ne mu st sift the facts fo r each region many times to
.

bring to light the phonetic lexicological morphological etc pecu li

, , ,
.

a rit ie s that are su perim posed o n each other S u ch an u ndertaking .

re qu ires a staff o f experts well planned qu estionnaires the c c

,
-
,

operation o f local correspondents etc O ne noteworthy proj ect is ,

.

the investigation of the patois of French speaking S wit z erland -

.

Lingui stic atlases are u sefu l in that they fu rnish material for works
’
o n dialectology Many recent monographs are based o n G illié r o n s
.

A t la s .

The bou ndaries of dialectal characteristics have been called

i so glo ss lin e s or i so glo s s e s This nam e coined o n the model o f
‘
.
,

i so t he rme is obsc u re and inappropriate for it means having the

‘
, ,

same langu age S in ce gloss e m e means idiom atic character the

.
’
,
’

5
Cf . a ls o Wi e d c r
gan , L in gu is t is he A t las d es da ko ru ma n ische n Ge bie t s ( 1 9 09)
a nd Milla rd e t ,
’
P e t i t a t las lin gu is t iqu e d u n e re gio n d es L a nd e s
’

[S ]
.
204 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

stand each other speak diff erent langu ages S till languages that .
,

have evolved over continu ou s territory and am ong stable p o p u

l at io n s e x hibit o n a broader scale the sa m e facts as dialects
, , .

Innovating waves appear here too b u t with this d ifference : they

,

embrace a z one common to several langu ages .

It is im possible even in o u r hyp othetical exam ples to se t u p

, ,

bou ndaries between dialects The same applies to related lan

.

gu ages The si z e of the territory makes no difference We wou ld be

. .

u nable to say where H igh German begin s and Low German ends ,

and wou ld find it j u st as impossible to draw the dividing lin e b e

tween German and D u tch o r between French and Ital ian There

”
, .

“
are extrem e points where we may assert H ere French p re d o m i ,

nates here Italian b u t in the intermediate regions the distinction

, ,

wou ld d isappear We might imagine a compact m ore restricted

z one o f transition between two langu ages—
.
,

e g Proven cal between . .

—
French and Italian b u t su ch a z one simply does not exist H ow .

can we possibly depict an exact lingu istic bou ndary o n territory

that is covered from o n e end t o the other by grad u ally d iff er
e n t ia t e d dialects ? The dividing l ines b etween lan gu ages like those ,

between dialects are hidden in transitions Ju st as dialects are only

,
.

arbitrary su bdivisions o f the total su rface o f langu age s o the ,

bou ndary that is su pposed to separate two lan gu ages is only a

conventional o n e .

S till abru pt transitions from o ne language to another are c o m

,

m o n d u e to circu m stances that have destroyed imperceptible tran

,

s it io n s The most disru pting force is the shif ting o f popu lations
. .

N ations have always shu ttled back and forth Their m igrations .
,

mu ltiplied throu ghou t the centu ries have wrou ght confu sion ,

everywhere and at m any points all trace of lin gu istic transition

,

has been wiped o u t The Indo E u ropean family is typ ical At first
.
-
.

its langu ages m u st have been closely related with an u nbroken ,

chain o f lin gu istic z ones We can reconstru ct the broad ou tlin es o f

.

the m aj or z ones S lavic shares overlapping characteristics with

.

b oth Iranian and Germ anic and this confo rms with the ge o gra ph i
,

cal distrib u tion o f the three langu ages ; similarly Germanic is an ,

interm ediate r ing that lin ks S lavic and C eltic which in tu rn is ,

closely related to Ital ic ; the latter is m id way between C eltic and -

Greek Thu s a lingu ist withou t knowing its geographical location

.
, ,
 S PREAD O F L I N GU I S TI C WAVE S 205

cou ld readil y assign each idiom to its proper place An d yet as soon .
,

as we consider a b o u ndary between two gro u ps of idio m s (e g . .

the German ic S lavic bou ndary) there is an abru pt break with no

-
, ,

transition The two gro u ps collide instead o f overlapping That is

. .

becau se the interm ediate dialects have disappeared Neither the .

S lavs nor the Germ ans were stationary ; they emigrated conqu ered ,

territory each at the expense o f the other ; the neighboring S lavic

,

and German ic popu lations o f today are not the sam e as those that
were once in contact If the Italians who l ive in C alab ria settled on
.

the French border the move wou ld nat u rally destroy the im
,

perceptible transition b etween Italian and French A num ber o f .

similar facts accou nts for the d istrib u tion o f Proto-Indo E u ropean -
.

S till other forces help to wipe o u t transitions Take the spread ing .

o f standard langu ages at the expense o f patois ( se e pp 1 95 ff To .

day literary French (formerly the langu age o i the Ile de France )
extends to the border where it conflicts with official Italian ( a
,

generali z ed form o f the T u scan dialect ) and it is only throu gh ,

chance that traditional patois still exist in the western Alps for ,

along many other lingu istic b ou ndaries all trace o f intermediate

speech form s has been wiped o u t
-
.

Chap ter I V

S PR E AD OF LI NG U I S TI C WAVES

1.
“
In te rco ur s e a n d P ro vin cia lism

The laws that govern the spread o f lingu istic phenomena are the
sam e as those that govern any cu stom whatsoever e g fashion In ,
. . .

every hu m an collectivity two forces are always working simu l

t an e o u sl y and in opposing directions : in d ividu ali sm o r p ro vin cia l
ism [ e s p ri t d e c lo cher ] on the one hand and in t e rco u rse—comm u ni
cations among m e n—o n the other .

Provincial ism keeps a restricted lingu istic com mu nity faithf u l

to its o w n traditions The patterns that the individu al acqu ires
.

In hi s l e c t ur e s S a u s s u r e u s e d t h e E ngl i s h w ord i n t erco u r s e [ Tr ]

6
. .
2 06 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

du ring chil dh ood are strong and persistent If they alone were at .

work these patterns wo uld create an infinite nu m ber o f pec u li

,

a rit ie s in speech .

B u t intercou rse the opposing force limits their e ffect Whereas

, , .

provincialism makes men sedentary intercou rse obliges them to

move abou t Intercou rse brings passers—
,

. b y from other localities

into a village di splaces a part of the pop u lation whenever there is
,

a festival o r fair u nites men from different provinces in the army

, ,

etc In a word it is a u n ifying force that cou nteracts the splintering

.
,

action o f provin cialism .

Intercou rse spreads langu age and gives it un ity It acts in two .

ways : negatively it prevents dialectal splin tering by wipin g o u t

,

an innovation whenever and wherever it springs u p ; positively it ,

promotes u nity by adopting and spreading an innovation The .

second form that intercou rse may take j u stifies the u se o f the word
w a ve to designate the geographical bou ndaries of a dialectal fact

( see p fo r an is o gl o s s e m at ic line is like the ou termost edge

.

o f an u nd u lating flood .

S u rprisingly enou gh we som etimes find that two widely sepa ,

rated dialects within the same langu age have a com m on l ingu istic
trait That is becau se the change which sprang u p at one place on
.

the territory met no obstacle in spreading and gradu ally extended

far beyond its starting po int N othing impedes the action of inter .

co u rse in a lingu istic mass within which there are only imper
c e p t ib l e transitions .

—
The generali in g o f a particu lar fact regardless o f the si z e o f
z

its z one—re qu ires tim e and occasionally the time is measu rable ,
.

Thu s the change of b to d which intercou rse carried throu ghou t ,

continental Germany first spread over the sou th between 800 and , ,

850 A D except fo r Franconia where 17 persisted as soft 6 and did

. .
,

not give way to d u ntil a later date The change of t to German 2 .

( pronou nced t s ) took place with in more restricted bou ndaries and
began du ring a period that preceded the first written docu ments ;
it mu st have started in the Alps arou nd 600 A D and spread both . .

north and sou th as far as Lombardy The t still appears in an .

eighth centu ry Thu ringian charter D u ring a later period Germ anic
-
.

i and u were diphthongi z ed ( cf m e in fo r mi n b ra u n for b run ) ; it .

,

took 300 years for this phenomenon which began in Bohemia ,

208 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

as soon as we t n to a larger
Bu t ur —
area e g . .
—
a canton a new
d ifficu lty arises No longer is it possi b le to say which force is re
.

sponsible for a gi v en phenom enon Both forces thou gh in oppo .

,

s it io n are involved in each trait of the idio m What is distinctive

,
.

o f canton A is co m mon to all its parts There the individu alistic .

,

force prohibits canton A from imitating som ething from canton B

and the latter in tu rn from imitating A B u t the u nifying force .
,

intercou rse is also involved for it shows u p in the diff erent parts
, ,

of A (A A AI 2
,
3
O n larger areas the two forces therefore work
, ,

simu ltaneou sly b u t in d ifferent proportions The more interco u rse .

favors an innovation the farther its z one will reach ; as for pro
,

vin c ial ism it tends to protect a lingu istic fact thro u gho u t its z one
,

by defending it against ou tside com petitors We cannot foresee the .

final resu lts of the action o f the two forces In Germanic territory .
,

whi ch reached from the Alps to the N orth S ea the change from I) ,

to d was general whi le the change from t to t s affected only t h e

sou th (s e e p provincialism created an opposition between
.

the sou th and the north b u t intercou rse was responsible for lin
,

gu is t ic solidarity within each region Th u s there is basically no .

diff erence between this second phenomenon and the first The sam e .

forces are present ; only the intensity o f their action varies .

Practically this means that in stu dying lin guistic evolu tions we
,

can disregard the individu alistic force That is we can consider it .

,

as the negative side o f the u n ifying force The latter may be strong .

enou gh to u nify the whole area If not the phenom enon will com e .
,

to a standstill after covering only a part o f the territory Internally .

,

however the part that was covered will form a coherent whole
,
.

That is why we can redu ce everyt hing to the single u nifying force
withou t bringing in provin cial ism which is nothi ng more than the ,

force o f intercou rse pecu liar t o each region .

3 . Lingu is t ic Difi e re n t ia t io n on S e p a ra t e Te rri t o rie s

Three things mu st be reali z ed before o n e can stu dy profitably a
langu age that develops concu rrently o n two separate territories :
( 1 ) in a u niling u al m ass cohesiveness is not the same for a l l phe
n o m e n a ; ( 2 ) not al l innovations spread ; and ( 3 ) geographical con

t inu it y does not prevent perpetu al di fferentiations .

S u ch concu rrent development is common When German i c .

 S P READ O F L I N GU I S TI C WAVE S 209

crossed over from the continent to the British Isles for example , ,

there began a twofold evolu tion O n the one hand were the Germ an
.

dialects and on the other Anglo S axon fro m which E nglish -

,

evolved Another exam ple is French after it was transplanted to

.

C anada D iscontinu ity is not always the e ffect of coloni z ation o r

.

con qu est it m ay also resu lt from isolation R u manian lost contact .

with the Latin mass throu gh the interposition o f S lavi c p o p u

l a t io n s The cau se is u ni m portant ; what m atters is whether sepa
.

ration plays a role in the history of langu ages and whether its
e ffects di ffer fro m those that appear where there is contin u ity .

E arlier in order t o point up the preponderant effect o f tim e we

, ,

imagined an idiom as it m ight dev e lop concu rrently on two rather

l imited points—two small islands in o u r exampl e —where we might
,

disregard a gradu al spread No w however with two territories

.
, ,

that cover a broader area we find once more that a gradu al spread
,

brings a b ou t dialectal differences That the two territories are dis

.

continu ou s does not s implify the problem in the least We m u st .

guard against attribu ting to separation something that can b e

explained withou t it .

This is the m istake that the earliest Indo E u ropean scholars -

made (see p C onfronted with a great family o f langu ages that

.

had diverged enormou sly they failed to reali z e that the differences
,

cou ld have resu lted from som ething besides geographical splinter
ing It was easy for them—and for anyone to imagin e d ifferent
.
—
langu ages in separate localities ; in a su perficial view no more was
needed to explain diff erentiation B u t they went fu rther They . .

associated nationality with langu age u sing the first to explain the ,

second Thu s they pictu red the S lavs Germans C elts etc as so
.
, , ,
.

many swarms o f bees from the sam e hive and im agined that these
tribes torn away from the original stock by migration had carried
, ,

Proto Indo E u ropean over as m any d ifferent territories

- -
.

O nly m u ch later was this m istake corrected No t u ntil 1 877 did .

Johannes S chm i d t open the eyes o f lingu ists by proposing the

theory of continu ity or waves ( We llen theo r ie ) in his book Die Ve r
w and t s ch aft s verhal tn iss e de r Indo germa n en Then they s aw that .

local splintering su ffices to explain the reciprocal relations of the

Indo Eu ropean langu ages and that it is not necessary to assu m e
-
,

that the d iff erent nations moved to new places ( see p D ia .

210 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

differentiations cou ld and m u st have arisen before these

l e c t al
nations spread o u t in variou s d irections The wave theory there .

fore not only gives a tru er pictu re of Proto Indo E u ropean ; it also - -

reveals the cau ses o f differentiation and the conditions that de

term ine the kinship o f langu ages .

The wave theory opposes the migratory theory b u t does not

necessarily exclu de it In the hi story of the Indo E u ropean lan
.
-

gu ages there are m any examples o f nations that lost contact with
the ma in fam ily throu gh migration and this m u st have produ ced
,

special e ffects B u t these effects mi ngle with those o f diff eren t iation
.

where contact is maintained and the d ifficu lty o f identifying them

,

brin gs u s back to the problem of the evolu tion o f an idi om in sepa

rate territories .

Take O ld E nglish It broke away from the Germanic tru nk as a

.

resu lt of migration In all probab ili ty it wou ld not have its present
.

form if the S axons had stayed on the cont inent du ring the fifth
centu ry B u t what were the specifi c e ff ects o f separation ? It wou ld
.

seem that we shou ld first ask whether su ch and su ch a change

might not have spru ng u p j u st as well where geographical contact
was m aintained If the E nglish had occu pied J u tland instead o f
.

the British Isles it is possible that som e of the facts attrib u ted to
,

absolu te separation wou ld have occu rred here in a contigu ou s

territory There is nothing to prove that discont inu ity is what
.

enabled E ngl ish to preserve older 17 while the sou nd becam e d

throu ghou t the contin ent ( e g E nglish thin g and Germ an D ing)
. . .

No r was geographical contin u ity necessarily responsible for the

generali z ing of the change in continental Germ anic ; it might very
well have been checked in spite o f continu ity The m istake is the .

u su al one o f contrasting isolated and cont in u o u s dialects Nothi ng .

actu ally proves that interdialectal influ ence wou ld have cau sed d
to spread throu ghou t o u r im aginary E nglish colony in Ju tland We .

have seen that in the lin guistic territory of French for example , ,

k a ) persisted in the angle formed by Picardy and N ormandy

b u t becam e hu shing g ( ch) everywhere else Isolation is therefore .

an u nsatisfactory and su perficial explanation D ifferentiation can .

always be explain ed withou t it What isolation can do geo .

,

graphical continu ity does e qu al ly well If there is a diff erence .

between the two classes of phenom ena we cannot grasp it ,

.
 PA R T F IV E

C o n cer n i n g R et r o s pect i ve
L i n g u i s t ic s

Ch ap t e r I

T HE TW O P E R S P E C TIVES O F D IAC H R O NI C
LI NG U I S TI C S

S ynchroni c lingu istics has only the perspective of speakers and ,

consequ ently only o n e method ; diachronic lingu istics however

, , ,

re qu ires both a prospective and a retrospective viewpoint ( see

p.

The prospective m ethod which corresponds to the actu al cou rse

,

o f events is the o ne we m u st u s e in developing any point concern

,

ing the history of a langu age or o f langu ages It consists simply o f .

examin ing the available docu m ents B u t all too m any problem s of
.

di achronic lin gu istics cannot be m e t by the prospective m ethod .

In fact in order to give a detailed hi story of a langu age by fo l

,

lowin g its co u rse in time o n e wou ld ne e d an infinite nu mber of

,

photographs taken at d ifferent times No w this requ irem ent has

,
.

never been m e t R omance scholars for instance even thou gh they

.
, ,

have the advantage o f knowin g Lat in the point of departu re for ,

their research and o f possessing an imposing array of docu ments

,

covering several su ccessive centu ries are constantly aware o f wide

,

gaps in their docu m entation They mu st then discard the pro

— —
.

i
s p e c t ve method d irect evidence and work in the opposite
direction u sing the retrospective method to retrace t ime Thi s
,
.

means choosing a particu lar period and trying to determine not ,

h o w a form developed b u t the oldest form that cou ld have given

,

it birth.

The prospective method amou nts to simple narration and is

b ased entirely o n textu al criticism b u t the retrospective viewp oint
,

requ ires a reconstru ctive method su pported by com parison It is .

212
T HE TWO P ER SP E C TI VE S O F D I A C HR ON I C L I N GUI S TI CS 213

impossible to estab l ish the original form o f a single isolated sign , ,

b u t the com par ing of two d ifi e re n t si gns that have the sam e origin
(e g Latin p a te r S anskrit p i ta r o r the ra di cal of Latin gem? and
. .
,

that of ge s tu s ) im m e d iately brings to light the diachronic u nity

-

which relates both signs to a prototype that can be reconstru cted

indu ctively The m ore nu merou s the comparisons the m ore acc u
rate indu ctions will be and the resu lts—if s u fli cie n t data are at
.
,

hand—will b e tru e reconstru ctions .

The same applies to langu ages in their totality We can infer .

nothing abou t Bas qu e ; becau se it is isolated there is nothing with ,

which we can compare it B u t by comparing a grou p o f related lan

.

gu ages like Greek Latin O ld S lavic etc scholars were able to

, , ,
.
,

s ingle o u t the common original elem ents and to reconstru ct the

essentials of Proto Indo E u ropean as it existed before d iff erenti
- -

ation in space occu rred What was done for the whole fam ily on a
large scale was repeated o n a sm aller scal e —
.

and always by the

m —
sa e procedu re for each of its parts wherever this was necessary
and possible We know n um erou s Germanic idiom s directly
.
,

throu gh documents b u t we know Proto Germ anic—the sou rce of

,
-

these different idiom s—only indirectly throu gh the reconstru ctive ,

method Using the sam e m ethod with varying su ccess lingu ists
.
,

have also sou ght the original u nity o f other fam ilies ( see p .

The retrospective m ethod then takes u s far beyond the oldest

, ,

docu ments in tracing the history of a langu age Thu s it was pos .

sible to draw the prospective o u tline of Latin whose history hardly ,

b e gins before the third o r fou rth centu ry B C o nl y after the re . .

,

constru ction o f Proto I ndo E u ropean had given an inkl ing of what
- -

mu st have happened between the period of original u nity and the

first known Latin docu m ents .

With respect to reconstru ction evolu tionary lingu istics is like

,

geology another historical science Geology so m etim es has to

, .

describe stable states ( e g the present state of Lake Geneva Basin )

. .

withou t considering what m ight have preceded in time b u t its ,

main concern is the chain of events and transform ations that make
u p d iac h r o n ic s A prospective geology is conceivable b u t in reality
.
,

the viewpoint is u su ally only retrospective Before reco u nting .

what has occu rred at a given po int o n the earth the geologist m u st ,
214 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

reconstru ct the chain o f events and try to determine what is

responsible for the present state o f that part o f the globe .

No t only in method do the two perspectives contrast sharply ;

in teaching even to u se them s im u ltaneou sly in the same expo
, ,

sitiou is a disadvantage The stu dy of phonetic changes fo r in .

,

stance offers two very diff erent pictu res depending on the
, ,

perspective U sing the prospective viewpoint we m ight ask what

.
,

C lassical Latin 5 became in French We wou ld see that a single .

soun d by evolving in time varied and gave rise to several pho

, ,
‘
nem es : cf p edem .
p yc (p ie d vcn t u m vci ( ve n t

l éct u m l i ( li t n ec ar e n w a ye (n o yer etc .

Against that if we u sed the retrospective viewpoint to find what

,

French open e stands for in Latin we wou ld se e that this sin gle ,

sou nd is the terminal po int o f several originally distin ct phonemes :

‘
cf ter ( t erre earth ) ’ '
t err ain vcrz (ve rge rod )
‘ vir ga m f (fa it
’

e
‘
.
, ,

fact ) ’
fa ctu m etc We cou ld present the evolu tion o f formative
,
.

elements in two ways and the two pictu res wou ld be j u st as differ
,

ent ; everything that was said abou t analogical form ations ( see
pp 1 69 ff ) is a p r io ri proof Thu s the ( retrospective ) search fo r the
. . .

—
origin o f the su ffi x o f French participles in e takes u s back to Latin
’

—d tu m ; the Latin s u ffix is related etym ologically to deno m inative

Latin verbs in — are which go back m ai nl y to fe m inine su bstantives
—
,

in a ( cf p la n tare : p la n ta Greek ti m a é : t i m é etc ) fu rther m ore

—
.
,
.
, ,

atu m wo u ld not exist if the Proto Indo E u ropean su ffix — to had

- -

not been living and produ ctive in its o w n right ( cf Greek klu — to s -

— —
.
,

L atin i n c l u — t-
u s S anskrit cr u t a s etc ) finally — atu m inclu des t h e
-

—
.
, , ,

m m
for ative ele ent m o f the acc u sative singu l ar (see p .

C onversely a ( prospe ctive ) search fo r the French for m ations that

,

—
have the original s u ffix to w ill reveal that there are not only
the different s u ffix e s—whether produ ctive o r not—o i the past
participle ( a im e loved ‘ a m atu m
’ ‘ fi ni tu m clo s ’
fi n i ended
’

‘
, ,
*
closed c la u s u m for c l a ud t u m b u t a l so m any others like
’

— u — utu m ( cf co nu horned
r
‘ . co r n utu m )
— ’
,

tif (learned s uffix ) ,

Latin — ti vu m ( cf fu gi tif fu gi ti vu m s en s i tif n e ga tif etc ) and

’

‘
. .
, , ,
’
a nu m ber of words no longer anal y z able like p o in t dot Latin
‘ ‘
,

p un ct u m d é die da tu m ch et if wretched ca p t i vu m etc

’ ’ ’
.
, , ,
216 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

older than the Persian o f Firdau si In a specific case like this where.
,

o n e idio m has definitely developed from the other and where both

are e qu ally well known we shou ld o f cou rse reckon only with the
,

earlier idiom B u t u nless b oth conditions are m e t priority in time

.
,

has no im portance Thu s Lithu anian which is attested only since

.
,

1 5 40 is no less val u able than O ld S lavic which was recorded in the

, ,

tenth centu ry or than the S anskrit of the R ig Veda for that

,

matter .

( 3) Finally older may designate a more archaic langu age

,

state i e one with forms that are very close to the form s of the
,
. .

original model qu ite apart from any qu estion of dates In this

,
.

sense sixteenth centu ry Lithu anian is older than the Latin of the
-

third centu ry B C . .

O nly in the second o r third sense is S anskrit older than other

langu ages It fi t s both definitions O n o n e hand it is generally
. .
,

agreed that the V edi c hymns antedate the oldest Greek texts ; o n
—
the other hand and this is especially mportant S anskrit has a
i —
considerable nu m ber of archaic featu res in com parison with those
preserved by other langu ages (see pp 2 .

B u t the earl iest lingu ists becau se o f their confu sed notion of age
, ,

p u t S anskrit ahead o f the whole fam ily The res u lt was that later .

li ngu ists tho u gh c u red of the notion that S anskrit is the mother
,

langu age continu ed to attrib u te too mu ch importance to the

,

evidence that it fu rnishes as a collateral langu age

In L es O r igin e s ind o —
.

eu r o p é e nn es ( see p 2 24 ) A Pictet while . .

,

explicitly recogni z in g the existence o f a primitive nation with its

o w n lang uage still insists that we m u st first cons u lt S anskrit and
, ,

that the evidence which this langu age fu rnishes is worth more than
that of several other Indo E u ropean langu ages com b ined The - .

same delu sion has for many years obscu red issu es of prim ary
importance su ch as that o f the Proto Indo E u ropean vocalism
,
- - .

The mistake has been repeated o n a smaller scale and in detail

Those who stu died specific branches of Indo—
.

Eu ropean thou ght

that the earliest known idiom was a com plete and satisfactory
representative o f the whole gro u p and did not try to become better
ac qu ainted with the original state Fo r example instead o f speak .
,

ing of Germanic they had no scru ples abou t citin g Gothic and
,

stopping there for Gothic antedates the other Germanic dialects

,
 THE O LDE S T L AN GUA G E AND THE P R OTOT YP E 217

by several centu ries ; it u su rped the role of prototype and becam e

the sou rce o f the other dialects As regards S lavic they based their
.
,

research excl u sively on S lavonic or O ld S lavic whi ch is attested

,

from the tenth centu ry beca u se the other S lavic dialects are
,

attested fro m a later date .

O nly on very rare occasions do two specimens o f lan gu age that

have been s e t down in writ ing at su ccessive dates represent exactly
the same idiom at two moments in its history More often we find .

that one of the dialects is not the lin gu istic su ccessor o f the other .

E xceptions prove the ru le The m ost fam ou s exception is the

.

R om ance langu ages with respect to Latin : in tracing French bac k

to Latin one certainly follows a vertical rou te ; the territory of the
,

R om ance langu ages happens to match the territory where Latin

was spoken and each idiom is no more than a later state of Latin
,
.

Persian is another exception to the ru le ; the Persian o f the in

s c rip t io n s of D ariu s is the sam e dialect as the Persian o f the Middle

Ages B u t the Opposite occ u rs mu ch more frequ ently The written

. .

documents o f d iff erent periods generally belong to different dia

lects o f the sam e fam ily Germanic for instance appears su cces
.
, ,

s ive l y in the Gothic of U lfi l a s ( its su ccessor is u nknow n ) then in ,

O ld H igh Germ an texts later in An glo S axon and O ld Norse texts

,
-
,

etc N one o f these dialects or grou ps of dialects is the continu ation

.

o f the one attested previou sly The following diagram

. in whi ch ,

letters stand for dialects and dotted lines for su ccessive periods ,

su ggests the u su al pattern :

T hi s patte rn is a valu able asset to lingu istics If su ccession were

.

vertical the first k nown dialect (A) wou ld contain everything that
,

we cou ld dedu ce by analyz ing su ccessive states B u t by searching .

for the point o f convergence of all the dialects (A B C D etc ) in , , , ,

.

the pattern we m ay find a form older than A (i e a prototype X)

,
. .

and thu s avoid confu sing A and X .

218 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

Ch ap te r III

R E C ONS TR U C TI O N S

1 . The ir Na t u re and A im
The sole means of reconstru cting is by comparing and the only ,

aim o f com parison is a reconstru ction O u r procedu re is steril e .

u nless we view the relations of several forms from the perspective

of time and su cceed in r e — establishing a single form I have re .

p e at e dl y e m phasi z ed t his point ( se e pp 3 ff and p 1 9 8 Thu s . . .

we explain Latin me diu s against Greek m esos witho u t going back ,

t o Proto Indo Eu ropean by positing an o l der form m e thyo s as the

- -
,
*

sou rce of both m e diu s and mésos O r we m ay com pare two forms of
.

the same langu age rather than two words o f different langu ages :
Latin ge r o and ge s t us go back to a radical ge s that was once
*

com mon to both form s .

W e note in passing that comparisons having to do with phonetic

changes mu st always rely heavily on morphological considerations .

In exam in ing Latin p a tio r and p a s s u s I bring in fa ctu s d ictu s etc , , ,

.

becau se p assu s is a form ation of the same class By basing m y con .

elu sion o n the m orphological relation b etween faci o and fa ct us ,

di ce and dic t u s etc I can s e t u p for an earlier period the same

,
.
, , ,
*
relation between p a tiar and p a t t u s R eciprocally I mu st u s e -
.
,

phonetics to throw light o n a morphological com parison I can .

'
compare Latin m e li b re m with Greek h edi o becau se the first form
*
goes back phonetically to me lios e m m e lio sm and the second to
*
, ,
* * *
h dd io a , ha d io s a , hd dio s m
’

Lingu istic comparison is not simply a mechanical operation It .

implies the bringing together o f all relevant data B u t it mu st .

always resu lt in a conj e ctu re whi ch we can express b y some form u la

and which aims to re — establish som ething that has preceded ; it
always resu lts in a reconstru ction of forms .

B u t is the aim of viewin g the past to reconstru ct the whole ,

concrete form s of the previou s state ? O r is reconstru ction lim ited

2 20 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

Order to speak it well ) There is even less j u stifi cation fo r it in the

.

case of individ u al words o f prehistoric langu ages .

R econstru ction thou gh always su bj ect to revision is necessary

, ,

for an overall view o f the langu age stu died and of its lin gu istic type .

I t is an indispensable instru m ent fo r depicting with relative c as e

a great num ber o f general facts both synchronic and diachronic ,
.

The whole set of reconstru ctions i mm ediately illu minates the broad
o u tlines of Proto Indo E u ropean For instance we know that s uf
- -
.
,

fix es were formed from certain ele m ents ( t s r etc ) to the exclu , , ,

.

sion o f others and that the co m plicated variety of the vocali sm

,

o f German verbs ( cf w e rd e n w ir s t w a r d w u rd e w arde n ) obscu res

the ru les governing o n e and the same original alternation : e— —

.
, , , ,

o z e ro .

The resu lt is that reconstru ction is a great help in stu dying the
history of later periods fo r withou t reconstru ction it wou ld be
,

m u ch more difficu lt to explain the changes that have occu rred

since the prehistoric period .

2 . R e la t ive A ccu racy of R eco n s tr uctio n s

We are absolu tely certain o f som e reconstru cted forms b u t ,

others are either open to dispu te o r frankly problem atical We have .

j u st seen that the accu racy Of whole forms depends on the relative
accu racy that we can attrib u te to the partial restorations that go
into the s ynthesis O n this score two words are almost never
.

identical Between Pr o t O Indo E u ropean forms as illu minating as

- -

‘ ‘
.

* ’* ’
e s ti he is and did O t i he gives there is a di fference for the re , ,

d u plicated vowel o f the second form gives room fo r dou bt ( cf .

S anskrit dad d ti and Greek did Os i) .

There is a general tendency to consider reconstru ctions less

accu rate than they actu ally are Three facts shou ld fortify o u r .

confidence .

The first fact which is of capital im portance was m entioned

, ,

earlier ( see pp 39 We can distingu ish clearly the sou nds o f a

.

particu lar word their nu m ber and their delim itation We have
, ,
.

also seen ( p 5 4) how we shou ld regard the obj ections that certain
.

lingu ists s qu in t ing into the phonological m icroscope might raise

—
.

In a se qu ence li ke s n there are do u btless fu rtive o r transitional

sou nds b u t to give weight to them is an t ilin gu is t ic ; the average
— —
,

ear does not single them o u t and even m ore important s peakers ,
 RE C O N STR U C T IO NS 22 1

always agree o n the number o f elements in su ch a sequ ence We can .

therefore state that the Proto Indo E u ropean form e k l w o s had

* - -

only five distinct d ifferential elements t o which speakers had to

,

pay heed .

The second fact has to do with the system of the phonological

elements of each langu age An y langu age operates with a clearly
.

delim ited gamu t of phonemes ( see p The least frequ ent ele .

ments o f the Proto Indo E u ropean system appear in no fewer than

- -

— m —
a do z en forms and the ost fre qu ent in a thou sand all attested
throu gh reconstru ction With this we are su re of knowing them all
. .

Finally we do n o t have to delineate the positive qu alities o f the

,

phonic u nits in order to know them We mu st consider them as .

differential entities that are characteri z ed by their be ing distin ct

(se e p. This is s o basic that we cou ld designate the phonic
elements of an idiom that is to be reconstru cted b y n u m bers or by
any signs whatsoever There is no need for determ ining the a b s o
.

“
lu te qu ality o f e in ék l s o r fo r pu z z ling over whether it was open
*

o r closed j u st how far forward it was articu lated etc Al l this is

, ,
.

u ni m portant u nless several types o f e have been identified The .

i m portant thi ng is that we do n o t confu se it with another element

singled o u t by langu age ( 6 5 6 This is another way of saying
, , ,
*
that the first phonem e o f ek l w os does not d iffer from the second of
’

*
méd hyb s the third o f dgb etc and that withou t spec ifying its
* ’

.
, , ,

phonic natu re we cou ld catalogu e it and assign it a nu mber in the

,

table of Proto Indo E u ropean phonemes The reconstru cted form

- -
.

ek l s means therefore that the Proto Indo E u ropean e qu ivalent

*’
- -

o f Latin e qu o s S anskrit a gva s etc was co m posed o f five definite

,
-
,
.

phonem es taken from the phonological gamu t of the original idiom .

Within the lim itations j u st ou tl ined reconstr u ctions d o retain ,

their fu ll valu e .
2 22 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUISTICS

Ch a p t er IV

T HE C O NT R IB U TI ON O F L ANG UAG E
TO ANT H R O P O L O G Y AND P R E H I S T O R Y

1 . L angua ge a nd R a ce
Thanks to his retrospective method the lingu ist can go b ack ,

throu gh the centu ries and reconstru ct langu ages that were spoken
by certain nations long before their written history began B u t . .

might not reconstru ctions also provide inf orm ation abou t the
—
nations them selves their race filia t io n social relations c u stom s
, , , ,

institu tions etc In short does langu age provide so m e an s wers t o

, ,

qu estions that arise in the stu dy of anthr opo l ogy ethnography , ,

and prehistory ? Many people think so b u t I beli eve this is largely ,

an illu sion Let u s examin e briefly some parts o f the general

.

problem .

F irst race It wou ld b e wrong to assu me that a com m on lan

,
.

gu age im plies consan gu in ity that a fam ily of langu ages matches
,

an anthropological fam ily The facts are not so s imple There is

. .
,

for instance a Germanic race with distinct anthropological charac

,

t e ris t ic s : blond hair elongated craniu m high statu re etc ; the

, , ,
.

S candinavian is its most perfect exam ple S til l n o t all popu lations .
,

who speak Germanic langu ages fit this description ; thu s the Ger
man from the foot o f the Alps differs strikingly from the S candi
navi an Might we at least assu me however that an idiom belongs
.
, ,

exclu sively to one race and that if nations belonging to other races
,

u se the idio m this is only becau se it has been i m posed u pon them
,

throu gh con qu est ? N o dou bt nations often adopt or are forced to

su bmit to the langu age of their con qu erors ( e g the Gau ls after the . .

victory o f the R om ans ) b u t this does not explain everyth ing For
,
.

instance even if they had su bj u gated s o many diff erent p o p u

,

l at io n s the Germ anic tribes cou ld not have absorbed all o f them ;
,

we wo u ld have to imagine a long period o f prehi storic domination

and still other u nsu bstantiated circu mstances .
224 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

m it t e d more or less directly throu gh social fi liat io n to every nation

that speaks one of these langu ages today .

3 . L in gu is t ic P a leo n t o lo gy
Lin gu istic u nity may all ow u s to predicate social com m u nity ,

b u t does lan gu age reveal the natu re of this com m on ethnic u nity ?
For a long t ime langu ages were considered an in exhau stible
sou rce of docu m ents conce rning the nations that spoke them and
their prehi story A dolphe Pictet a pioneer of C eltism is known .
, ,

especially fo r his book L e s O rigin es in do e u rop é enn es ( 1 85 9 -

H is work has served as a model for many others ; it is still the most
engagin g o f all Pictet looks to the Indo E u ropean langu ages fo r -

”
.

data that will reveal the fu ndam ental traits of the civil i z ation of
“
the A ryans and believes that he can fix the most varied details :
material things ( tools weapons domesticated animals ) social life , , ,

(whether they were a nomadic o r an agricu ltu ral nation ) fam ily , ,

governm ent etc H e seeks to identify the cradle of the Aryans

,
.
,

which he places in B a c t riana and stu dies the flora and fau na o f the ,

cou ntry that they inhabited His is the most im portant u nder .

taking O f its type The science that he fou nded is cal led lingu istic .

paleontology .

O ther e ff orts in the same direction have since been made O ne o f .

—
the m ore recent is H ermann H irt s Die In d o ge rman en ( 1 905 1 907 ) 1 ’
.

Basing hi s research on the theory o f J S ch midt ( see p H irt . .

tries to identify the cou ntry inhabited by the Indo E u ropeans B u t -

.

he does not slight lingui stic paleontology Lexical facts show him .

that the Indo E u ropeans were farm ers and he refu ses to place
-
,

them in sou thern R u ssia which is better su ited to nom adic life The ,
.

fre qu ency of occu rrence o f nam es of trees espe cially o f certain ,

kinds (fir birch beech o ak ) m akes h im think that their cou ntry
, , , ,

was wooded and that it was l ocated between the H arz Mou ntains
,

and the Vistu la m ore specifically in the region of Brandenbu rg and

,

Berlin We shou ld also recall that even before Pictet Adalbert

.
,

Cf l o d A b i d Jub invill L p r mi r h b i t n t d l E p
1
a s
’
r o s e a e, es e e s a a s e
’
u ro e

O Schr d r Sp chv rgl ich g d Urg chicht nd R ll i n d indo g

.

. a e , ra e e un un es e a ea ex co er er

m i h n A lt t m k nd ( w ork t h t pp r d l i t t l e r l i r t h n t h vo lum
a n sc e er u s u e s a a ea e a e a e a e e

b y Hi t ) nd S F i t E ro p
r i m I/
a ic hte d V rg hi hte . e s[ Ed ] ,
u a er o es c c .
 AN TH R OPO LO GY AND PREHI S TO RY; 2 25

Ku hn and others had u sed lingu istics to reconstru ct the m ythology

and religion of the Indo Eu ropeans -
.

No w we cannot expect langu age to fu rn ish su ch info rmation fo r

the followi ng reasons :
First is the u ncertainty o f etymology S cholars have at last .

reali z ed how rare are words with well established origins and have
-
,

becom e more cau tiou s H ere is an exam ple of the rashn ess that once
.

prevail ed Given s ervu s and s e rvare scholars com pared the two
.
,

they probably had no right to do this—and by giving the first word

the m eani ng gu ardian they were able t o concl u de that a slave
,
“
was originall y u sed in the sense of to gu ard No r is that all The .
” .

m ean ings of words evolve The meaning of a word often changes

.

whenever a trib e changes its place o f abode S cholars were also .

wrong in assu ming that the absence o f a word proves that the

“ ”
prim itive society knew nothin g of the thin g that the word names
Thu s the word fo r to plow is not fou nd in the A siatic langu ages
.

b u t this does not mean that in the beginnin g plow ing was u n
known ; it might j u st as wel l have been discarded o r cond u cted by
other procedu res known by different nam es .

The possibility o f loan words is a t hi rd cau se of u ncertainty

-
.

An obj ect that is borrowed m ay bring its nam e along with it For .

instance hem p cam e into the Mediterranean world at a very late

,

date and into the co u ntries to the north even later ; each ti m e the
, ,

nam e for hem p cam e with the plant In many instances the absence
.

o f extral ingu istic data does not allow u s to ascerta in whether the

presence o f the sam e word in several langu ages is d u e to borrowing

o r is proof of a comm on original tradition .

The foregoing lim itations do not preclu de o u r dist ingu ishing

with no hesitation som e general traits and even certain precise
data For example comm on terms indicating kinship are ab u ndant
.
,

and have been transmitted very clearly They allow u s to state that
am ong the Indo—
.

Europeans the family was a com plex and stable

institu tion for their langu age cou ld express su btleties that o u rs
cannot In H o m er e in d t er e s m eans sisters—
.
,

,
“
in—
l a w with reference
”
to the wives o f several brothers and ga lé b i denotes the re l ation
,

shi p between the wife and the sister o f the hu sband Latin .

ja nitri ce s corresponds t o e ind te res in form and in signification .

226 C OUR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

S im i larly brother in law (the hu sband o f the sister) is not

nam ed by the sam e word as brothers in—
,
- -

la w ( denoting the rela -

”
t io n s h ip a m ong the hu sbands o f several sisters ) H ere we can .

identify a m inu te detail b u t u su al ly we mu st be satisfied with ,

general i nf ormation The same applies to ani m al s Fo r im portant . .

species l ike the bovine we can rely o n the coincidence o f Greek

b o u s German K u h S anskrit ga u —s etc and reconstr u ct the Proto

—
, ,
.
,

Indo E u ropean fo rm gzows ; besides the inflection o f the word

* -
,

has the sam e featu res in each langu age and t h is wo u ld be im p o s ,

f '
sib l e if it h a d been borrowed from another lan guage at a later date .

H ere w e m ight consider another morphological fact that has the

d u al characteristic of being li mited to a definite z one and o f tou ch

in g u pon a point o f social organi z ation .

In spite of everyt hing that has been said ab ou t the relation o f

do m in u s and d o m u s l ingu ists do not seem to b e com pletely satis
,

fi e d for the u s e o f the suffix no in form ing secondary derivatives

,
-

*
is m ost extraordinary There are no form ations l ike o i ko n o s or - -

—
.

a cva n a from a gva in S anskrit

* *
o i ke n o s from o i k o s in Greek o r
-
,
-
.

B u t this very rarity gives the su ffi x of d o m in u s its valu e and

prom inence S everal Germanic words are I thi nk qu ite revealin g :
— — ‘
.
, ,
* *
( 1 ) be a n a z head o f the beu ii o king Gothi c biud an s
’
, , ,

O ld S axon t hio dan Gothi c biud a O scan t o u t o

( 2 ) dr u x ti na z ( partiall y changed to dru x ti n a z ) head o f
* ~ - - * ‘ - - -

the dru x ti z army (whence the C hristian nam e for the M aster
* - -
,
’
,

i e God ) cf O ld Norse D rottin n Anglo S axon D ryh ten both with -

final —
,
. .
, ,
.

ina z -

— ‘ —
.

( )
3 *
ki n d i n a z head of the *
ki
-
n di z Latin ge n s S ince the .
’

head of the ge n s was a vic e r uler with respect to the head of a -

*
beu O o the Germ anic word kindin s ( com pletely lost elsewhere ) is
’

u sed by U lfi l a s to name the R o m an governor for in his Germanic ,

way of thinkin g the delegate of the emperor was the head of the
,

clan with respect to the piu dan s ; however interesting the associ
ation m ay be from a historical viewpoin t there is no dou bt that ,

the word kind in s which is wholly u nlike everythin g R oman, ,

indicates a division o f the Germ anic pop u lations into kindi z -

—
.

Th s the secondary su ffix n a when added to any Proto

u
‘
Germ anic them e m eans head o f a certain com m u nity Al l that .
’
,

rem ains now is to observe that in the same way Latin t rib un us
2 28 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GU I S TI CS

their ancestors W e have seen ( p 1 9 5 ) that the innovation was d u e

. .

t o an accident which was not only material b u t also negative the ,

elim ination o f the a in b e ta hus E veryt hing occu rred ou tside the.

mind and in the realm o f sou nd changes whi ch readily i m pose a ,

tight yoke on thou ght and force it into the special way that the m a
t e rial state o f signs opens to it A great n u m ber o f si m ilar observ a
.

tions confirm s thi s conclu sion The psychological character o f the

.

lin gu istic gro u p is u ni m portant by co m parison with the eli m ination

o f a vowel a change o f accent o r m any other s imilar things that
, ,

may at any m oment revolu tioni z e the relation between the sign
and the idea in any langu age form whatsoever .

It is always o f interest to determine the gram matical character

o f langu ages (whether historicall y attested or reconstru cted ) and

to classify langu ages accordin g to the procedu res that they u se fo r

expressing tho u ght B u t even after we beco m e ac qu ainted w ith the
.

stru ctu res of langu ages and classify them we can draw no accurate ,

conclu sions ou tside the domain o f l ingu istics proper .

Ch ap t e r V

L AN G UA G E FA M ILI ES AND
LI NG U I S TI C T Y P ES "

We have j u st seen that langu age is not controlled directly by the

mind of speakers Let m e emphasi z e in conclu d ing o n e o f the
.
, ,

consequ ences o f this principle : no family o f langu ages rightly

b elongs once and for all to a particu lar lingu istic type .

To as k the type to which a grou p o f langu ages belongs is t o for

get that langu ages evolve ; the im plication is that there is an
elem ent o f stability in evolu tion H o w is it possible to impose .

limitations o n an activity that has none ?

O f cou rse m any people really have in mind the traits o f the
original idiom when they speak of the characteristics o f a family ;
3
Th i ch p t e r t ho u gh it do n
s a es ot d e al i h r t ro p c t iv l i gui t ic
w t e s e e n s s, is in
c lu de d in P rt Fiv b c u it rv
,

a e e a se se e s as a co n c l u io n for t h w ho l w or k
s e e .
[ Ed ]
.
 LAN GU A G E F A M I LIE S AND L I N GUI S TI C T YP E S 2 29

their proble m is not ins olu ble since they are dealing with one
langu age and o n e period B u t when we assu m e that there are per
.

manent traits which neither time n o r space can change in any way ,

we clash head o n with the fu ndam ental principles of evolu tionary

-

lin guistics No characteristic has a right to perm anent existence ;

.

it persists only th rou gh sheer lu ck .

Take the Indo E u ropean fam ily We know the d istin ctive traits
-
.

o f the lan gu age from which it derives The so u nd syste m o f Proto .

Indo Eu ropean is very simple There are no complicated cl u sters

-
.

o f consonants or do u b le consonants and its m onotone system ,

gives rise to an interplay o f extrem ely regu lar and profo u ndly
grammatical alternations ( see p 1 5 7 and p the tonic accent . .

can in principl e be placed on any syllable in a word and therefore

has a role in the interplay o f grammatical oppositions ; qu antitative
rhyt hm is based solely o n the Opposition of long and short syllables ;
com pou nds and derivatives are easily formed ; nominal and verbal
inflections are nu merou s ; and the inflected word with its se lf
contained determiners is independent in the sentence al lowin g ,

mu ch freedo m of constru ction and greatly restricting the nu m ber

o f gramm atical words with determinative o r relational val u e

( preverbs prepositions
, ,

N o w it is clear that none o f the forego ing traits has been retained
in it s original form in the d iff erent Indo E u ropean lang u ages and -
,

that several of them ( e g the role o f qu antitative rhyt hm and of

. .

tonic accent ) no longer appear in any member of the grou p S o m e .

langu ages have even changed the featu res of Pr o t O I n d o E u ropean - -

to su ch an extent that they su ggest an ent irely diff erent lingu istic
type ( e g E nglish A rmenian Irish
. .
, , ,

It wou ld be more fitting to speak o f certain transformations that

a ff ect different languages b elonging to the sam e famil y For in .

stance progressive weakening o f the infle c t io n al mechanism is

,

characteristic of the Indo E u ropean langu ages altho u gh they all

-
,

o ffer striking d iff erences S lavic has p u t u p the strongest resis tance
.

whil e E nglish has redu ced inflection almost to z ero To o ff set this a .
,

rather stable word order has developed analyt ical processes of

-
,

expression have tended to replace synthetic processes prepositions ,

express case valu es ( see p au xil iaries have taken the place of
.

co m pou nd verbal form s etc ,

.
230 C O U R S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUI S TI CS

We have seen that a trait of the prototype m a y not appear in

some o f the derived langu ages The reverse is e qu ally tru e It is not . .

u n u s u al even to find that the com m on traits of all the representa

t ive s of a family d o not appear in the Original idiom This is t ru e of .

vocalic ha rmony ( i e similarity o f som e type between the timbre

. .

of every s u ffi x e d vowel and the last vowel of the radical) This .

salient trait is fou nd in U ral Altaic ( a large grou p Of langu ages -

spoken in E u rope and Asia and extending from Finland to Man

chu ria) b u t is probably d ue to later developm ents V ocalic har .

mony is then a co mm on trait b u t not an original o ne ; conse qu ently

— —
we cannot invoke it any m ore than agglu tination to prove the
co m m on origin (hi ghly debatable ) o f these langu ages We also .

know that C hin ese has not always been monosyllabic .

The thi ng that first strik es us when we co m pare the S emitic ,

lan gu ages with their reconstru cted prototype is the persistence of ,

certain traits The S em itic langu ages seem m ore than any other
.
,

family t o constitu te a typ e u nchangeable and perm anent with

, , ,

traits o f the fam ily inherent in each langu ag e The following traits .
,

many o f which contrast sharply with those o f Proto Indo E u ro - -

pean set Proto—

,
S emitic apart Com pou nds are practically non .

exi stent D erivation plays only a small part The in fle c t io n al

. .

system is poorly developed (better in Proto S em itic however than -

, ,

in the dau ghter langu ages ) with the resu lt that strict ru les govern ,

word order The m ost notable trait has to do with the stru ctu re o f
-
.

the root ( see p It regu larly inclu des three consonants ( e g

— ‘
. . .

i
’
q
-
t l kill ) which are retained n every form within a given langu age
( cf H ebrew t a l go tta t Z qitli and which do not change, , ,

”
.
,

from o n e langu age to another ( cf A rabic qa ta la qu tila In .

, ,
“
other words consonants express the concrete sense o r lexical
,

—
valu e of words whi le vowels with the help of certain prefixes and
—
su ffix es o f cou rse have the exclu sive role of indicating gram
,

m at ic al valu es throu gh the interplay of their alternations ( e g

‘ ‘ ‘
. .

H ebrew gata l he killed qtol to kill ; with a su ffix qtal a they

’ ’
-

killed ; with a prefix ji— ‘ —

, ,
’
l he will kill and with b oth j qtl u
i
’
gl o -
;
‘
, ,

they wil l kill ,

’

A gainst the foregoing facts and in spite of the statements that ,

they have elicited we mu st defend o u r prin ciple : there are no nu

,
23 2 C O UR S E I N G ENERA L L I N GUIS TI CS

grou p tends constantly to lead langu age along certain fix ed rou tes .

From the incu rsions we have made into the borderlands of o u r

science o n e lesson stands o u t It is wholly negative b u t is all the
,
.
,

m ore interesting becau se it agrees with the fu ndamental idea of

this course : the t ru e an d u n iqu e o bject of lingu is ti cs is langu age
s t ud i e d in a nd fo r i t s e lf
.
236 I N D EX
C li m at e and l ingu ist ic ch an g e s,D o bl t o u e s, n n pho ne t ic ch ar c t e r of a

1 47 f , 1 98 1 15 f
D lit i l i
. .

Co m m n i t y f sp k r 78
u o ea e s, ua e s, n gu s t i ic
Co m p ri o n f u nr l t d l ngu
a s o e a e a a ge s ,

1 92 of r l t d l ngu g e a e a a es, 4, E co n o m y po l i t ic al , 79
1 99 , 2 1 8 E nt i t i e s co n cr e t e , o f l an gu age ,
Co m p r t iv phi l o l o gy m i
a a s t ak e s of 1 02 f ; ab s t r cta 1 37 f
I
e , . .

t h s choo l o f
e 3 f 24 f .
, .
,
1 63 , 1 84, E t hn ic un it y 223 f ; , . t al ic
an d G e r

209 f .
,
21 5 m an 226
Co m po nd produ c t f n l o gy
u s, s o a a , E t hn o gra phy an d lin gu i t ics
s , 6 , 20,
1 78 nd n o t ; G r m n ic
a 1 41 f e e a 222
P ro t o I nd Eu rop n
,
.

227 f ; .
-
o- ea E t ru s c a ns a n d L at ins 223 ,

1 78 n o t 22 7 f e, . E t ym o l o gy fo lk 1 73 f , . w th i
Co n c p t 1 2 66 ; c ll d ignifi d 67
e , , a e s e , , an d i ho ut d form t io n 1 74 ; in
w t e a ,

1 03 1 1 3 f
, . co m p l t 1 74 f ; e e co m p r d . a e

Co n ngu ini t y n d ling i t ic o m

sa a u s c w it h n l o gy 1 7 4 f
a a , .

m ni t y 222
u , E t ym o l o gy n d or t h ogr phy 28 3 1 ; a a , ,

Con on nt
s 48 5 7 f
a m idd l s, , . e u n c r t a int y
e f 225 f d fini o . e

t e n u e s , 35 t io n 1 73
b gin
,

Co n t ru c t io n n d t ru ct u r
s a s e, 1 78 E vo lut io n lingu i t ic 8; , s e s

C ordin t in g f c u l t y 1 3
o- a a , in p k i n g 1 8 98
s ea f gr m , , o a

Cord voc l s, 41 a m t i l f c t s 1 42 ;
a ca Ch ng a ,
se e a e s,

C u rt iu 3 s, pho n t ic e

E pir t io n 42 f
x a , .

D a rm s t e t e r , 32 E p l o io n 5 1 f d u r t io n f
x s 60 a o

D i i i of i i ic
.
,

el m t ng l n gu s t u ni t s , 1 04 f ; . E t ns io n g o gr phic l
x e f l n
,
e a a o a

pho
of n e m e s , 38 gu g a 2 1 ; s e Lin gui t ic
es, g o e s s, e

D e n t a ls , 45 gr phic la a

D riv iv prod ct
e at es, u s of an a l o gy
F
,

1 78 ct s gr m m t ic l
a n d l in gu i t ic
a a a a s

D ch m p 25
,

es a s, un i t 1 22 s,

D i a chro n y 81 ; se e a ls o Lingu i t ic s s, F cu lt y f p ch 9 f
a o s ee

F m ili f l ng g 6 191 f ;
, , .

di chro ni c
a a es o a ua es,

D i l c t l b orro w d form In do Europ n f m ily 2 204 f

, .

a e a e s, 1 56 - ea a

209 f ; B n t u
, , , .
,

D i l ct n t ur l
a e s, do n t a a o ex is t , 1 92 ; F inn o Ugric
a -

202 ; di t in c t io n b t w n
.

s e ee an d 1 92 ; h v n p rm n n t a e o e a e

l an gu age s , 2 03 f ; an d l t e a i r ry t r i t s 228 f ; Ur l At l i
a 230 a - a c

F hion 75 1 51
,
. .

l an gu age , 21 , 1 95 as

Di
, ,

ez, 5 For m l rt icu l t ory

u as , a a

Di r c
ff e e n e s , le in ro
e at n g of cr i o un ds 44
s ,

v a lu e s , 1 1 4 f , 1 1 7 f ; t h e e a re . . r Fort u i t o ch r c t e r f l ngu ge
us a a o a a a

o y
nl in l angu a ge , 1 20 s t at e , 85
D i r i io
ff e e nt at n , lin gu s t i ic Fric t iv 46a e s,

t in u o u s t e r t , 1 99 f ; r i ory . Fu rt iv e o un d s s, 5 4 f , 220 .

p r
s e a at e t e t e s , 2 08 rri ori f
D iph ho ”
.

t n g, m l s e l n k , 61 ; i p o iv i
as G illiéro n , 3 1 n ot e, 32 n ot e, 202
c e n din g 61 Go i
l t t s, 41 f
D iv r i y
.

e s t o f l an gu a ge s , 191 f . Go t hic 2 1 6 ,

a m ng o e lat e r
l an gu ag e s , 191 , d Gr d f t h voc l ic y t m 4
a es o e a s s e ,

1 97 ; a b s l u t e 1 92 o Gr m m r d finit ion 1 34 ; t r di
a a , e , a

o
D m in u s , e t m l g o f y oo y t io n l c l ic l
a 1 82 ; is or as s a ,
 I NDEX 23 7

orm t iv e nd t t ic 1 82 ; g n
n
r l
e a 1 00;
“
a

his t oric l 1 34
a s a ,

a
,
” e

,
in t rd p nd
19 ;
e e

is
e

a
e nt

form
, 1 8; h o w
, no t a su b
ex

s t an e
i
c
st s,

1 42 1 43 n o t , e 1 1 3 , 1 22 ; l a n g u a ge s an d di al e ct s,

Gr m m o nt 32 n o t e
a ,
204
Gri m m 3 25 , , L a n gu a ge s , G rm n ic
e a 5, 2 16 ;
G u t t u r ls 44 46 ; p l t ls 44 46 ;
a , , a a a , , R o m an c e 5 , 2 13, 2 1 7 S em t ,
i ic
v l r 45 46 nd n o t e
e a s, ,
a 22 7 , 230
L rch 96
a

48 ; in F r e n ch 32 f
,

h, pir t
as a e L ryn 41 f
a x

H rm o ny voc lic of t h Ur l
.
, , .

a , a e a L t r l co n o n n t 47 f
a e a s a s, .

A lt ic l ngu ag 230
a a es , L aut v r c h ie b u n g
e s se M ut t io n e a

H i t u 59 f
, ,

a s, . co n o n nt l s a a

H irt 224 L w V rn r
a 1 45
e e
’
s

H i t o ry f lingu i t ics 1 f 81 f ;
, ,

s o s re L aw s lingu i t ic 9 1 f ; yn chro n ic s s

l t i n b t w n po l i t ic l
.
, , ,
. .

a o s nd e ee a a g n r l b u t n t i m p e r t iv
a re e e a o a e,

pho n t ic ch ng 150 e a es, 92 f di chro ni c imp r

a ar e e a

H o lds o si t ant 52 n d n o t
.

r s s, a e t iv b u t n t g n r l 93 ; pho n t ic
e o e e a ,
e

93 f ; w ro ng t t m nt of s a e e

I d t i t y y ch ro ic 1 07 f ; di
.

en ,
s n n . a pho ne t ic 1 45 f of al t rn . e a

chro i c 1 81 f
n t io n 1 58
I dio m 1 9 1 f
.
,

L t ff ort c u
e as e f pho n t ic a se o e

I m m t b il i t y f t h ig 7 1 f
, .
,

u a o s n, ch ng 1 48
a es,

I m p lo io 5 1 f d r t io f 60 f
e .

s n, u a n o L e s kie n , 5
I dir c t p lli 29 ; fl c t t i g
. .

n e s e n gs , u ua n L ico o y p r
ex r
l g , a a t o f g a mm a , 1 35 r
29 f Writ i
; se e ng Li i i
m t ng o f a r b i r ri i for
t a n e ss , b as s
I do E rop
.

n - ch r c t ri t ic
u f e an , a a e s s o dy of
t h e st u l an gu age , 133f .

229 Li i ic
n gu s t s is a p r a t o f se mio o y l g ,
In fle c t io n , 1 85 ; z e 1 85 ro 15 f ; of la n gu a ge an d of
I i io
.

ns t t u t n , l a ngu a ge is a s oci al p i
s e ak n g , s e e L r
a n gu a ge ; e x t e n a l

1 0, 1 6
I t rco r
n e u s e o r un ifyin g forc e ,
205 f ; .
an d i r
n t e n al
ic
o r s t at
f y chro ic
20
81 , 99 f ;
s n

hi oric
st
n

al , .
.

”
t form
wo s of 206 di chro n ic vo l t io n ry 81
I t rj ct io
a ,
or e u a , ,

n e e ns , 69 9 9 1 40 f ; g o gr phic l 1 91 f
I o glo l i , . e a a .

s ss n e s, 2 03 Li q id 44 47 f
u s, , .

Li t h u ni n 24 2 1 6
a a , ,

Je s p e rs e n , 40 n ot e, 42 n ot e Lo n w ord 2 1 36 1 55 f 225
a - s, , ,
.
,

o
J ne s , 2
M ch n i
e a sm of l an gu a ge , 1 27 f , 1 30, .

Ko in e o r l i t e r a ry Gr eek, 1 96 165
Kuh n 3 204, 224 , , M i not e
e l l e t , 92

M t r 36
e e ,

l, d e nt al , gu t t u r al , n as al , an d pa M t hod co m p r t iv
e 3f ;
,
of a a e .

l at al 47 t rn l
ex e n d o f in t r n l lin g i
a a e a u s

L bi a a ls , 45 t ic 22 f ;
s, f yn chro ni c nd o s a

L ab io d nt ls 46
.

- e a , di chron ic l ingu i t ic 90 f ; pro

a s s, . s

L ng g n or m of t h e f c t s f
a ua e , a o p t iv ec n d r t ro p c t iv e a 2 12 f e s e e .

p ch 9 ;
s ee is oci l ho m o g n
, s a , e Mi gr t io n 204 f ; t h ory f
a 2 09
s ,
. e o

o n d co n cr t
us, a 14 f ; i di e e, s s Mill d t 202 n o t
ar e e

Morpho l o gy ins p r b l fro m yn

.
,

t in c t fro m p k in g 1 4 f 1 7 f 77 s ea , .
, .
, , ,
e a a e s

1 65 ; is n t n m g ivi ng y o a a e- s s t ax ,
1 35
t m 1 6 65 ;
e , nd p ak ing
, a s e a re Morris , 16 n ot e
 238 I N D EX
Mo t iv t io n 1 31 f a , . t a gm at ic a n d ass oci t iv r a e e l at io ns ,

Mov m nt f cil i t t ing rt icul t ory

e e s, a a a a 1 30 f
P ho
.

55 f
ne t cs , i
n d gr m m r 32 . a a a ,

M u ll r 3 e 17 f 1 5 2 ; pho n t ic m n n n e ea s o
M u t b i l i t y of t h ign
, .
,

a e s , 74 f . ign ifi n t 1 8 1 40 f ;
s cai a p rt , , . s a

M t t ion con on n t l
u a s a a 25 , 1 44, f di chro n ic l i ngu i t ic
o a 1 40 s s,

P hon o gr phic r cording 23

,

207 a e s,

P ho n o lo gic l p ci 40 53
P hon o lo gy 32—
a s e e s, ,

N a m e s d e n o t ing k i ns hip P ro t o 6 4 ; w ro n gl y c l l d
, a e

Indo Eu rop e an 225 f -

, .
pho n t ic 32 f e i
p k ing 33 ; co m b in t ory
p rt o f
s, . s a a

N a sa l i z e d s o u n d s 43 s ea , a

50f
,

N as als 45 ; voic e l e ss 45
P hy io lo gy nd l ingu i t ic 7
.

N avil le 1 6 n o t e s a s s,

N e o gra m m a ri an s 5 1 84
,

, ,
P hy io logy f oun d
s P ho nol o s s, see

N o n s o nan t s 5 7 f o gy
P ic
-
.
,

Nyro p 36 t e t , 2 1 6 , 224
,
Pl r l d d l 1 16
u a an ua

P o l i form l 68
,

O ccl iv 45 f
us es, .

Po 3 tt,
te u as ,

O ld t hr , m n in g of t h w ord
pp l i d t l n g g 21 5 f
ee ea s e
P r fi 1 87 f
e x

P r hi t o y d l i g i t ic 6 223 f
, .

a e o a ua e,
an n u s
.
e s r s,
O ld S l vic 22 2 1 7
P r po it io Pro o
.
,

k o
a

On o m t opo i 69 i un n wn t
, ,
e s ns , n
a

O ppo i t io n nd diff r nc 1 2 1
e a,
I do E rop 1 80
n -
u e an ,
s

Ort ho gr phy 25 f ; e Wri t ing nd

a e e e,
Pr rv t io f li i t ic form 1 73
ese a n o n gu s s,

Sp ll in g
a , . se a
P r v rb k o w i P ro o I do
e e s, un n n n t - n
e
E rop
O t hoff 5
s
u1 80
Proc d r d proc di t i ct io
e an ,

O p n in g o u n ds 52
,
e u e an e ss , s n n
e s ,
b 1 76
e t we en

P ro ci io d ri t i 29 f ;
nu n at n an w n g,
P l t l 46 f
.

a a a s, d t r m in d b y t y m o l o gy 3 1 ;
e e e e

P l 41
.
,

a at e , corr u p t d b y w ri t i n g 31 f r le e a

P l o t o l o y l i g i t ic
, .

a e n g n u s t iv fr do m o f
e 1 19 ee

P ro t o In do E rop n 228 f
,

P an c h i vi w poi t 95 f
ro n c e n - - u ea

P r di m i fl i l P rovinci li m n d int rco r 205 f

, .
,

a a g s, n e ct o na a s a e u se ,

P r icip l pr P ycho lo gy s oci l n d lingu i t ic

.

a t 96 e e se nt s a a s s,

P r of p ch 1 09 138
, ,

a ts s ee 7, 1 6
P l 5
, ,

au

P k voc l ic 57 n d b u rr 4 7
,

ea a r, ri ll d
t e a

P rm io y o ym f
, ,

e u t at n, s n n o alt e na r R c nd l an gu g 222 f
a e a a e, .

t io 160 n, R dic l
a th m a 1 85 f or e e,

P r p c iv y chro ic
.

e s e t e, s n n an d di a R di ng n d w ri t i ng 34
ea a ,

chroni c 81 87 , , 90 ; pro p c t iv
s e e R l i t y yn chro n ic
ea ,
1 09 ; dia
s

a n d r t ro p c t iv e s e e 2 12 f chron ic 1 81
P hi l ol o gy m t hod
.

, e of 1, 7 ; co m R co n t r c t io n l ing i t ic
e s u 2 18 f ,
u s .

p ara t ive 2 R l t ion yn t gm t ic d

e a s, oci
s a a an a ss a

P ho n at n, io l an gu ag e , 1 8 r
u n e la t e dt o t iv e 1 22 f ; t h ir int rd p n d e e e e

P ho
.

ne m es, x e nu m b e of 1 5, fi d r nce 1 28 f e, t h ir ro l in d t r m . e e e e

34, 40, 1 1 9 , 220; t e el m t a h ir d i i i n ing pho n m 1 30 f e es, . a re

io
t n , 3 8, 42 f ; t e es t n, . h ir d crip io th b ie for t h di vi io n f
as s e s s o

39 f ; a re f e e n t al , 5 4 , 1 1 9 ,
. di f r i gr m m r 136 f
a a , .

221 ; a n d s u n s , 66 ; t e s yn o d h ir R h o t o ciz a t io n , 1 44, 146

240 I N D EX
Um l t 24 83 f 1 57
au , ,
W k r 202 .
,
en e ,

U i t l i i ic
n s, 1 03 f
n gu s t co m p l W ll h ori 2 09 ex e ent e e,

Whit y 5 1 0 76
.

1 05 f 1 24 pro b l m i d fi ; e s n e n ne
W lf 1
.
, , , ,

i ng 1 1 0 f ; i m por t c of an e o

Word d it co t r t d 1 05 f
.
,

1 1 0f diff r i l ch r c t r of
.
; e e nt a a a e s an un s n as e , .
,

1 21 f d r m m t ic l f c t an 1 13 f g a a a a s,

Word i t d pho t ic ch
. .

1 22 1 79 di chro ic ;1 81 a n 94 -
un an ne a n ge s ,

Wri i
,

U il b i h 6 1
ns sc ,
d l 15 ; c it y t n g an a n gu a ge , ne e ss

Uvu l a, 41 f . fo r s t u ng dyi
23 ; is st n t di i c
from l an gu a ge , 23 ; is n o t n e c

Va lu e , lingu s t i ic 1 10f it n
e s sa ry i ic b i i y
fo r l n gu s t st a il t , 24 ;

ce p t ua l id 1 14 f ; i di t i n c t
. s co
i r ry
an d t h e l t e a l a n gu a ge , 2 5 ;

fro m
s e ,

ign ific t ion 1 1 4 ; it m

. s s
cha n ge s fr
le ss y h
e qu e n t l t an
s

id 1 1 7 f
a ,
s a
y o o ic
l an gu a ge , 27 ; e t m l g a l 28 ;
t e ria l
V e l ars 46
s e, .

t ro b c
u le s d
au s e by pho o 29 ; n
,

V e rn e r s l aw’
1 45 f o ic
l g al f i rpr io of
33 nt e e t at n .

V e rs ifi c a t io n , 36
, .

34 f r cordi of i p o io
e ng . m l s n

r
Vi b an t s , 47 an d e x p o io y
l s n , 5 2 f , 60 f ; s s t e m . .

i r io ry
V b a t ns , l a n ge al of co p r d i h
m a e w t y t h e s st e m

oc ic p
V al e a k , 57
f
o f l an gu a ge , 1 1 9 .

o
V w e ls co r d i h co o
n t as t e w t ns n a n t s ,
ri i y
W t n g, s s t e m s of f id o25 e .

48 co r d i h o
nt as t e w t s n an t s
g a r phic Chi
( nese ) pho and

57 f ; op c o d hi p r d
e n an d l se , w s e e ,
ne t ic y ic
26 ; s l lab ( C yp ri
an d
.

voic f
e l e ss 48
o t s ) , 26 , 39 , 5 0; co o ns n an t a l
.

S i
( e m t e s ) , 39

W av e s inn ov at in g
,
203 , 206 d
Z e n , 22
W e igan d 202 n o t e ,
o
Z ne s , di
a l e t a l , 1 99 c f .
 Unive rs it y o f C al ifo rn ia Lib rary
Lo s An ge le s
Th i s b ook is DUE o n t he las t d at e s

R EC EWED

M
AR l 7 2005

UCLA LAW LlBRA