7 modelling the phoneme [new trends in east european phonemic theory] 1972

8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972

1/174

F.H.H.

KORTLANDT

»•**M>«>>tUfo&ia*Kmtomrtn̂ ^

MODELLING

THE

PHONEM E

>IOUTON


2/174

UNIVERSITEITSBIBLIOTHEEK LEIDEN

563267


3/174

MODELLING THE PHONEME


4/174

MODELLING THE PHONEME

New

trends

in

Fast European phonemic theory

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

TER VERKRÜGING VAN DE GRAAD VAN DOCTOR IN DE LETTEREN AAN DE UNIVERSITEIT

VA N AMSTERDAM OP GEZAG VAN DE RECTOR MAGNIFICUS, DR. A. DE FROE, HOOGLERAAR

IN DE FACULTEIT DE R GENEESKUNDE, IN

HEX

OPENBAAR TE VERDEDIGEN IN DE AULA

DER

UNIVERSITEIT (TUDELIJK

IN DE

LUTHERSE

K E RK ,

INGANG SINGEL 411,

HOEK SPUl)

OP

DINSDAG

30 MEI 1972, DES

NAM IDDAGS

TE

2.30

UUR

DOOR

FREDERIK

H E R M A N

HENRI KORTLANDT

geboren

te Utrecht

1972

MOUTON

THE HAGUE

·

PARIS


5/174

P R O M O T O R : P R O F.

DR.

C.L. EBELING

CORE FE RE NT : P ROF.

DR.

S.C.

DIK


6/174

SAMENVATTING

Het

doel

van deze Studie is tweeledig. In de eerste

plaats

tracht ik een overzicht te

geven van de recente ontwikkelingen van de fonologie in Oost-Europa. De nadruk

ligt

hierbij op mathematische en

semi-mathematische modellen

van het foneem. In

de tweede

plaats

geef ik aan wat

naar

mijn

mening de fundamentele

problemen

zijn

in een sluitende fonologische theorie. Bijzondere aandacht wordt geschonken aan

het feit dat een definitie van h et foneem als een klasse spraakklanken niet in overeen-

stemming is met het distinctiviteitsbeginsel.

In het

eerste hoofdstuk geef

ik een

kort overzicht

van de

Russische fonologie

voor 1962.

Het

tweede hoofdstuk

is een

kritische uiteenzetting

van de

fonologische

theorie

van S.K.

Saumjan.

In het

derde hoofdstuk behandel

ik

verzamelingentheo-

retische modellen

zoals

die van

I.I.

Revzin en S. Marcus. Het vierde hoofdstuk is

gewijd aan identificatiemodellen. In het

vijfde hoofdstuk geef

ik een

uiteenzetting

van het model van de

logicus

T. Batog. Het

zesde

en

zevende hoofdstuk hebben

betrekking op algemene problemen van linguistische methodologie, en het achtste

betreft

de linguistische aspekten van het foneembegrip. Het negende hoofdstuk gaat

over optionele distincties en het tiende over configuratieve eigenschappen.


7/174

Dedicated to the memory of N.S. Trubetzkoy


8/174

PREFACE

This stud y, which

is

subm itted

äs a

doctoral

thesis at the University of

Amsterdam,

has been

accomplished

under

the

inspiring

guidance of

Professor C.L. Ebeling.

The

opportunity

to

work with

him has

enabled

me

to draw

heavily

upon

bis

valuable

insights

and ample experience.

I am

most

grateful to

Professor

A. H.

Kuipers

for his

penetrating

criticism of the

manuscript. The stimulating discussions

which

we had

together have greatly added

to the

value

of this publication.

I am

also

indebted to

Professor S.C.

Dik and

Professor E.M. Uhlenbeck,

and to

my colleagues A.A. Barentsen, M.P.R. van den Broecke, N.S.H. Smith, H. Stein-

hauer

and

W.A.L. Stokhof

fo r

reading

th e

manuscript

and

commenting

upon

it.

I

thank Mrs. C.G. Blomhert

for the

copy editing

and

Miss

A. Pols for the

proof

reading.

Finally,

I

wish

to

express

m y

gratitude

to Mr. P. de

Ridder

for the

quick

publi-

cation of the book.

F.H.H.K.

February 8th, 1972


9/174

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface 9

Abbreviat ions 14

Introduction

15

PART I

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS

1. Russian

phonemic theory before 1962

1.1. Baudouin de Courtenay 19

1.2.

Scerba

20

1.3. Jakovlev 21

1.4. Trubetzkoy 21

1.5.

The

Moscow

school

of phonology 23

1.6. Thefifties 25

2.

Saumjan 's

two-level mo del

2.1. Introduction 28

2.2. Th e antinomy of transposition 29

2.3.

The identification

antinomies

31

2.4. Saumjan 's

definition

of the phoneme 33

2.5. The operator method of the paradigmatic identification of phonemes 35

2.6.

Criticism

37

2.7. Social and individual variants 39

2.8.

The

operator method

of the syntagmatic

identification

of

phonemes

40

2.9. Criticism 41

2.10. Distinctive features 43

2.11. Prosodic features 44

3. Set-theoretical models

3.1. Introduction 46

3.2. The initial objects of Revzin's model 47

3.3. Revzin's definition of the phoneme 48


10/174

12

TABLB

OF

CONTENTS

3.4.

A

paradigmatic

model . 51

3.5. Syntagmatic mo dels 53

3.6. Phonetic

an d phonemic Systems 56

3.7.

A

fundamental hypothesis

59

3.8.

Marcus'

definition of the phoneme 61

3.9. Criticism 63

3.10.

Nebesky's

conception of relevant

features

66

3.11. Graphic models 70

3.12.

Kanger's model

of the

phoneme

7 1

3.13.

Relations

between

models 7 2

4. Identification models

4.1. Introduction

7 6

4.2.

Th e

initial objects

ofUspenskij 's

model

7 7

4.3. Identification

rules 78

4.4. Uspenskij's definition of the phoneme 82

4.5. Beloozerov's model of the phoneme 83

4.6. Peterson an d Harary 87

5. Batog's logical model

5.1. Introduction

91

5.2. Logical prelim inaries 92

5.3.

Th e initial objects of B atog 's model 9 5

5.4. From phonetic chain to phonetic system 9 5

5.5. Th e

distribution

of

sounds

99

5.6. Batog's definition of the phoneme 100

5.7. Criticism 103

5.8. The role of features 108

PART II

FUNDAMENTALS OF

PHONEMIC

MODELLING

6. The use of m athematical methods in linguistics

6.1. The dehumanization of the study of language 113

6.2.

Criticism

116

6.3. Conclusion

118

7 . Models

and

modelling

7.1. Revz in's conception of m odelling 120

7.2.

Saumjan's

conception of mod elling 122

7.3. Apresjan 's conception of m odelling 12 4

7.4. Stoff's conception of modelling 126

7.5. Conclusion 129


11/174

TABLE OF CONTENTS

13

8. The phoneme

8.1. The motivation fo r taxonomic phonemics 131

8.2. Descriptive adequacy

133

8.3. Distinctiveness

135

8.4. Relevant features

137

8.5. Segmentation 140

8.6.

Phonemic

units

143

8.7. Identification 14 4

8.8. Un iqueness 147

8.9. Joint features 148

8.10. Conclusion.

A

characterization

150

9. Optional features

and

heavy phonemes

9.1. Phonemic overlapping

152

9.2. Phonemic interchange 154

9.3. Optional features

and

heavy phonemes

157

9.4. Theproof 161

9.5. Optional phonemes

162

9.6. Junctures 163

10. A

note

on configurational features

10.1. Inherent

and

configurational features

165

10.2. Relations between features 166

List

of

references

16 7


12/174

ABBREVIATIONS

Am.

Bu.

Ch.

Cz.

Dan.

Du.

Eng.

Fr.

Ge.

Gr.

It.

Jap.

Li.

Po.

Ru.

R u m .

SCr.

Skt.

Sp.

Sw .

Tu .

American

Bulgarian

Chinese

Czech

Danish

Dutch

English

French

German

Greek

Italian

Japanese

Lithuanian

Polish

Russian

Rumanian

Serbo-Croatian

Sanskrit

Spanish

Swedish

Turkish


13/174

INTRODUCTION

The

purpose

of

the present

study is twofold. Firstly, I

will

try to give a su rvey of th e

recent

developments in phonemic

theory

that

took

place in

Eastern Europe during

the sixties. Emphasis is laid upon mathematical and semi-mathematical models of

the phoneme.

Since

I am

only

concerned

with

theoretical phonemics

in the

present

study,

phonetic

investigations remain

out of the

picture. Secondly,

I

will give

an

account of the

problems

which I

regard äs

fundamental in any

consistent theory

of

phonemics. Special attention will be paid to the important but often neglected fact

that

a d efinition of the phoneme äs a class of speech so un ds is incom patible with th e

principle of distinctiveness.

Mathematical methods in linguistics

fall

into two classes, quantitative and non-

quantitative. Quantitative methods are not discussed in the present theory-oriented

study. This is a consequence of the fact that no linguistically relevant features are

of

the

continuous-scale type (cf. Hockett

1955:

17).

Th e

mathematical disciplines

that

are relevant fo r

T H E O R E T I C A L

linguistics are, above all, algebra, se t theory, and

logic. However, only th e most elementary notions from these disciplines play a part

at the present stage in the development of linguistics. Mathematical concepts are

introduced gradually

in the

course

of

this book

in

order

to

make

th e

topics under

discussion accessible

to

scholars without

any

previous training

in

mathematics.

Formal definitions of basic mathematical concepts

have

been deferred to section 5.2.

The only parts of the book where more mathematical sophistication than ordinary

common

sense

is

required

are

sections 3.10

an d

5.4-5.6.

I

have purposely m inimized

the number of

formulas

in the

second part

of the

book.

In the first

chapter

I give a

brief survey

of

Russian phonemic theory before 1962.

Th e only aim of this chapter is to outline the background of the new developments

in

Soviet linguistics during

th e

sixties.

It is

shown

how all of the

three main trends

in

phonemic thought, represented

in

Russian linguistics

by Scerba,

Jakovlev,

and

Trubetskoy, essentially

go

back

to

Baudouin

de

Courtenay,

and how

they

finally

stood with regard to each other.

The second chapter is an exposition and discussion of S.K. Saumjan's two-level

theory, which

has

hitherto found hardly

any

response outside

th e

Soviet Union.

Attention

is

focused

on the

paradigmatic

and

syntagm atic

identification of

phonemes,

which I regard äs the main problem in phonemic theory.


14/174

16 INTRODUCTION

In the third chapter I give an account of th e set-theoretical

models

that

have

been

proposed for various aspects of phonemic analysis. The main part of the chapter is

devoted

to the

theories that have been

pu t

forward

by I.I.

Revzin

and S.

Marcus,

w ho

are the

leading

theoreticians on

language

models

in

Eastern Europe. Among

the other models that a re discussed in this chapter are some im portant contributions

by L. Nebesky and S. Kanger. Here, äs well äs in the subsequent chapters, consi-

derable attention is paid to the initial objects of the models

under

discussion and to

the

formal definitions

of the

phoneme.

The models discussed in the third chapter are characterized by a lack of interest

in and explicitness about the identification problem. This is wh y I have devoted the

fourth

chapter to models

that

are primarily concerned with the identification of

phonemic units. This

chapter

contains

an

explicit Statement

of

identification rules

and

their logical implications. It

is shown

that different relative priorities

of the

identific-

ation rules lead to different phonemic Solutions.

In the fifth chapter I

give

an exposition of the

formally most elaborate model

of

phonemic analysis, which is the one that has been presented by T. Batog. The expo-

sition is preceded by a short account of basic mathematical notions. The last two

sections of this chapter are a review of my objections to the model put forward by

Batog äs well

äs,

more generally, to any

predilection

for criteria

other

than the

principle

of

distinctiveness.

Chapter 6 deals with the possibilities and limitations of the application of mathe-

matical methods in linguistic investigations, an d Chapter 7 with the definition of the

concept of 'model'. These chapters are not concerned with phonemic theory but

only

with general issues

of

linguistic methodology. Various Standpoints

are set up

against each other, and a tentative conclusion is drawn.

In Chapter 8 I defend the

thesis that

a grammar lacking a taxonomic phonem ic

level cannot achieve descriptive adequacy because it cannot account fo r lexical

innovations that

do not

conform

to existing

phonemic patterns.

The

existence

of

linguistically relevant units on the phonemic level derives from th e fact

that

not

only the presence vs. absence of features but also

their

relative ordering plays a part

in the distinguishability of linguistic forms. As a criterion for both the paradigmatic

and the syntagmatic delimitation of phonemic units I adhere to the principle of

distinctiveness. The impossibility of assigning certain features to a single phonemic

unit

leads to the postulation of

'joint features'.

In Chapter 9 the optional character of certain distinctive oppositions^is discussed.

This phenomenon, which

in

theoretical linguistics

has not yet

received

th e

attention

which

it

deserves,

is illustrated

with

a considerable

number

of

examples from different

languages. C hapter 10 is a

small

excursus on configurational features.


15/174

PART ONE

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS


16/174

l

RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962

1.1. BAUDOUIN

DE

COURTENAY

Russian phonem ic theory goes back to pre-revolutionary days. The first phon ologist

on

the Russian scene was the

famous

Polish

linguist

J . Baudouin de C our tenay, who

can be viewed äs th e

predecessor

of

both

th e

Moscow

and

Leningrad schools

of

phonology.

1

As early

äs

1881 he wrote (1963: 122):

Th e concept 'phoneme' is decomposed into tw o

essentially different

notions:

1)

the

mere

generalization of

anthropophonic

[i.e.,

phonetic]

properties,

2)

the mobile

[i.e.,

variable] component of a morpheme and the mark of a certain morphological

category.

This

coincides with two categories of

correlates.

In the

course

of the

further

development o f these ideas it will b e necessary to make a strict distinc-

tion between the two aspects of the concept of a phoneme and at the same time to set up separate

terms

f or them.

It took Russian linguistics 7 5 years before th e necessary distinction was finally

established (Avanesov 1956). Particularly du ring the last twenty years of this period

a

great amoun t

of

unproductive discussion

w as

wasted

on the

question

of

whether

a phonem e should be regarded äs a

fam ily

of

phonetically

related sounds, which was

essentially th e view

held

by the Leningrad school, or

äs

a family of automatically

alternating sounds, äs th e Moscow school maintained. It is remarkable

that

not only

the first opinion goes back directly to Baudouin de Courtenay, bu t that th e second

opinion does

äs well, for it

corresponds ra the r closely

to the

same au tho r's earlierview s.

On the one

hand

th e

principal object

of

Bau douin

de

C ourtenay's

studies

was the

determination

of

strictly synchronic laws.

On the

other,

his

phonological theory

required the comparison of morphemes for the investigation of synchronic relations

in the

sound system

of a

language.

Bu t

relations between morphemes

had not yet

been touched upon

by

synchronic analysis. Baudouin

de

Courtenay regarded

th e

establishment of morphemic correspondences äs being justified only historically,

etymologically. There were tw o

ways

out of this profound contradiction. One

could

either give

up

morphological criteria

in

phonology

or

rebuild

th e

description

of

1

Cf. Jakobson I960, Leont'ev 1959, 1961, Schogt 1966, Häusler 1968.


17/174

20 THE DEVELOPMENT

ÖF

MODELS IN PHONEMlCS

morphemic structure on a synchronic base. Baudouin de

Courtenay went

both

ways.

Bu t if the com parison of morpheme alternants in phonemic

iden tification

is rejected

and

morphemic

units

cannot be

identified

on

etymological grou nds,

a

ne w

criterion

is

needed

fo r

each problem.

The

criterion chosen

by

Baudouin

de

Courtenay, under

th e

influence

of psychologism in the linguistics of his day, was the feeling of the native

Speakers.

2

This notion, which is not present in his 1881 publication,

became

th e

cornerstone

of his

later

work. His new

ideas

are most fully

expounded

in Proba

teorji alternacyj fönetycznych (l 894), wh ich appeared in a revised German translation

th e

ne xt year.

His

de finitions

of the

phoneme

and the

morpheme

now ran

äs follows

(1895:9f.):

Das Phonem =

eine

einheitliche, der phonetischen

Welt

angehörende Vorstellung, welche mittelst

psychischer Verschmelzung der

durch

die Aussprache eines und desselben Lautes

erhaltenen

Ein-

drücke in der Seele entsteht = psychischer Aequivalent des Sprachlautes. Mit der einheitlichen

Vorstellung des Phonems

verknüpft

sich (associiert sich) eine

gewisse Summe

einzelner

anthropo-

phonischer Vorstellungen,

welche

einerseits Articulations-Vorstellungen, d.h.

Vorstellungen

voll-

gezogener

oder in

Vollziehung

begriffener

physiologischer

Articulationsarbeiten, anderererseits

[ s i e ] aber akustische Vorstellungen, d.h.

Vorstellungen

gehörter

oder

im

Gehörtwerden

begriffener

Resultate jener physiologischer

Arbeiten,

sind. [...]

Morphem =

jeder, mit dem

selbstständigen psychischen

Leben versehene und von

diesem

Stand-

punkte (d.h. von dem

Standpunkte

eines selbstständigen

psychischen Lebens)

aus weiter

unteilbare

Wortteil.

Dieser Beg riff

umfasst

also: Wurzel (radix),

alle

möglichen Affixe, wie Suffixe,

Praefixe,

als

Exponenten syntaktischer

Beziehungen

dienende Endungen,

u.s.w.

1.2. SiERBA

These were

th e

foundations

of the

Petersburg/Leningrad school

in

linguistics.

During

th e

twenties

and thirties of the

present

Century

Baudouin

de

Courtenay's

most prominent pupil, L.V. Scerba, dominated the linguistic scene in the Soviel

Union. The inherited phonological theory remained basically unchanged in these

years though

th e

stress

laid on the

psychological Interpretation

of the

phoneme

varied considerably. In 1912 Scerba emphasized the word-differentiating

function

of

the phoneme, which Baudouin de Courtenay had stated äs early äs 1869 (Ivic 1965:

133). This criterion

is a

sufflcient

one for

establishing

the

number

of

phonemes

in a

given position but not for the assignment of variants in different positions to the

respective phonemes. Following Scerba, sounds in complementary distribution

should be

identified according

to

their resemblance. This

can mean two

different

things. Firstly, the feeling of the Speakers can be resorted

to:

this was Baudouin de

Courtenay's solution, which came

to be

known

in

Soviet linguistics äs

th e

'sub-

jective method'. It m et

with

sharp criticism in the

young Soviet state because

it was

regarded äs a man ifestation of

subjective

idealism. Besides, it did not

yield

a solution

in many instances. Some of Scerba's disciples considered the first

vowel

of Ru.

a

Cf.

Panov

1967: 371ff. and Ivic 1965:133f.


18/174

RUSSIAN

PHONEMIC

THEORY BEFORE

1962

21

golova

[gslavä] 'head' a variant of /a/, others identified it

with

/i /

(which

has an

unrounded back variant after hard consonants

in

both stressed

and

unstressed

positions). And, äs Panov

puts it

(1967: 376),

"if the first

solution

of the

problem

turns

out to be more widespread,

then

it is only because it is supported by Scerba

himself,

th e very

au thority

on

'linguistic feeling' ".

The

charge

of

idealism made Scerba stop referring

to the

feeling

of the

Speakers,

but it did not

basically affect

his

ideas (1958:

HOff.). The

only criterion left

for the

identification of phonemes in different environments was phonetic resemblance.

This criterion, characteristic of the

so-called

Objective method', did not solve th e

Problem just mentioned either, because [a] resembles an y unrounded füll vowel

equally

well. So there was simply a change of labels. However, it made linguistic

theory

less

vulnerable from th e Marxist methodological point of view. At the same

time

it

opened

a way

back

to

traditional

phoneticism, and

this largely explains

th e

popularity of

Scerba's

ideas among phoneticians

after

the elimination of psycho-

logical formulations.

1.3. JAKOVLEV

There were tw o ways of avoiding the Scylla of psychologism and the Charybdis of

phoneticism. The first possibility w as to re turn to

Baudouin

de Courtenay's earlier

views

and to

take

into

account

the alternations that morphemes show in juxtaposition

with other morphemes. This

was the

standpoint

of the

eminent Caucasist N.F.

Jakovlev,

w ho

äs

a

result became

the

forerunner

of the

M oscow school

of

phonology.

As early äs the

beginning

of the twenties he remarked

that

the individual feeling of the Speaker can

hardly

serve äs a

particularly reliable

basis for

phonemo-

logical

[ s i e ] investigations, and in fact it is no such basis in the works of the followers of phoneme

theory

[...]

one should regard

[the

phoneme] äs wholly conditioned by a

definite

correlation of

phonetic and

semantic

elements with the

lexicon

and

morphology

of a given

language (1923:66f.)

and a

fewyear s later

he

actually defined

th e

phoneme äs asetof alternating sounds

in

different positions (1928).

3

Thus,

the first

vowel

of Ru. voda [vadä]

'water'

is to

be identified with /o/ because of the plural vody [vodi], not with /a/ äs in

Scerba's

theory. He clearly realized the consequences of this approach: "physically absolutely

identical sounds are sometimes

different

grammatical sounds,

diiferent

phonemes"

(Jakovlev

and

Asxamaf 1941:

407). One cannot bu t w onder why the M oscow school

of phonology

did not

come into existence

ten

years earlier than

it

actually did.

1.4. TRUBETZKOY

The other way was

found

by the outstanding

Russian linguist, N.

S.

Trubetzkoy

(Trubeckoj), a member of the Prague Circle, who in Western

Europe

is generally

5 Reformatskij 197Q;

129f,,

cf, Zinder 196$; J 9 < 5 ,


19/174

22 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS

regarded

äs the

founder

of

phonology.

In bis

opinion,

the final

consonant

of Ru. prud

'prut]

should neither be identified

with

/t/ on the basis of phonetic resemblance nor

with /d/ on account of its alternation with [d] before case endings, because neither

phonetic nor morphological criteria should be decisive in the identification of pho-

nemic u nits.

W ord-final

[t]

is in fac t not identical with pre vocalic [t] becau se it is not

opposed

to

[d],

so from th e functional

point

of

view

it

lacks

a

featu re which

is

inherent

in /t/. On the

other

hand, prud is

homophonous w i th

prut, so

these w ords cannot

be

phonologically distinct: the O pposition between /t/ and /d/ is 'neutralized' in word-

final position. This insight, which was fundamentally inspired by de Saussure,

necessarily leads to the postulation of a new unit, th e

'archiphoneme'

(Trubetzkoy

1939:70f.).

4

The notions of 'neutralization' and 'archiphoneme' have given rise to a lot of

confusion and

misunderstanding which eventually prevented them

from

gaining

general acceptance. A t least three interpretations have to be distinguished. The most

widespread

misconception is

stated

by

Panov

in the

following words

(1967: 397 ):

"N.

S. Trubetzkoy and his fellow-Praguists were the foun ders of syntagmatic phono-

logy". This was NOT what Trubetzkoy w as primarily interested in , however. The

cornerstone of his

whole

theory is the concept of distinctiveness, which is a para-

digmatic relationship (in the sense of Hjelmslev 1943: 36) and has no thing to do with

tactics. If Ru .

word-final

[t] can not be identified with

/t/,

this is not becau se fd] does

not

occur

in the

same position (which

is a

tactical characteristic)

bu t

because

th e

Substitution of the latter sound for the former cannot yield a change of meaning.

Consonants are always

hard

be fore unstressed [a] in R ussian, but it does not

follow

that th e Opposition hard ~ soft is neutralized in this position, äs Panov suggests

(1967:

400).

The

non-occurrence

of soft

consonants be fore unstressed

[a] is a

necessary

but

insufficient

condition for the phonemic identification of the sequence C + [a].

In the present instance, the vowel is an archiphoneme, not the consonant, äs is clear

from the fact that [ν'αζύ] is interpreted äs

vjazu

'(I) knit', not

vozu

'(I) carry,

conduct',

and

[nan'asu] äs nanesu '(I)

shall

inflict',

not

na

nosu

On th e nose'.

The

second

common

misconception regards

th e

notion

of

neutralization. Strictly

speaking, it is incorrect to say that the Opposition between the final consonants of

the words prud and prut is neutralized. These words are homonyms ending in [t].

The fact

that

this sound alternates with [d] and [t] respectively before case endings

is

irrelevant äs

to its

phonemic identification. Neutralization

is

non-distinctiveness

of

phonemes in a

certain environment

and

cannot

be

established merely

on the

basis

of morphemic alternations. Trubetzkoy's Interpretation of tense o in Ru. [sonca]

'sun'

äs

/öl/ is not based on morphemic alternation, äs Panov suggests, but on the

non-distinctiveness between [o] and [öl].

5

4

"Tout

le mecanisme du

langage [...]

repose sur des oppositions de ce

genre

et sur

les differences

phoniques

et

conceptuelles qu'elles

impliquent"

(Saussure 1916: 167).

&

Cf. Trubetzkoy 1939: 56 and Panov 1967:400. The identification holds no longer for contemporary

Standard Russian, which has

ordinary

[o], cf. Avanesov and Ozegov

1960:553.


20/174

RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962

23

Finally,

a

sharp distinction

should be

made between

neutralization and defective

distribution.

The initial clusters [vzt] and [fxt] do not

occur

in Russian, but not for

the same reason: whereas a native

Speaker easily identifies

the formet

cluster

with [fst],

th e latter cann ot on the basis of

phonetic

cues be

identified

with any cluster

actually

occurring in the langu age.

Though

[on

vztal]

is

easily und erstood

äs on vstal 'he got

up', the string [on fxtal] is

uninterpretable

but for the presence of extralinguistic

indications in the Situation. Obviously, the Opposition between voiced and

voiceless

fricatives is neutralized,

while

the Opposition between dental and velar fricatives is

not:

the phonem e /x/ simply does not occur in the position und er consideration.

1.5. TH E MOSCOW SCHOOL OF PHONOLOGY

Political

circumstances

often

have an important impact on the development of

linguistic science. The

very fact

that Trubetzkoy had left his native country made it

possible

for his ideas to

spread

all

over Western

Europe but

isolated them from

Russian

linguistic thou ght.

The

Russian translation

of

Trubetzkoy's

Grundzüge

der

Phänologie (1939), a book filled with subtle observations on his mother tongue,

appeared only in 1960. On the other band, the Moscow school of phonology, to

which belonged such important linguists äs R.I. Avanesov, V.N. Sidorov, A.A.

Reformatskij, and P.S. Kuznecov, remained almost unnoticed in Western countries

until the present time. The fundamental theses of this school are summarized by

Zinder

äs follows

(1968: 197).

6

1. It is

necessary

for the

characterization

of phonological

oppositions

to distinguish a strong

Position (in which th e maximum number of distinctions is operative)

from

a weak position (where

neutralization

is

possible).

2. Distinction is made between the

basic

shape of a phoneme (appearing in strong

position),

variations, which

ar e

tactically conditioned

modifications of a

phoneme

in

positions where

the

oppositions to other phonemes are not neutralized, and variants, i.e. tactically cond itioned modifica-

tions in the case of n eutralization. A Variation is alw ays related to one phoneme, a variant to two

phonemes.

3. The make-up of a phoneme is revealed only in strong positions.

4. Th e fact that a sound occurring in a morpheme belongs to a given phoneme is also revealed

only in strong position.

5. If

a

m orpheme contains

a

sound that cannot

be

placed

in

strong p osition (e.g.,

the flrst

vowel

of

the

word

korova

[i.e. [karovs]

'cow']),

this sound cannot

be

assigned

to any

particular

phonem e; it is

a

member

of a

'hyperphoneme',

i.e. a group o f phonemes wh ich are connected by positional or com-

binatory alternations.

Thus, alternating sounds in

different

positions are to be regarded äs variants of

th e

same phoneme.

As a

consequence

of

this Ide ntification principle,

different

sounds

6

In

1970

an

interesting book

by

Reformatskij

appeared: it

contains

no t

only

an

excellent exposi-

tion of the ideas and d evelopment of the M oscow school of phonology but a lso a reader in which all

'classical' papers of the school have been reprinted, e.g., Jakovlev 1928, Avanesov

1947,1948,

1955,

Ku znecov 1941, 1948, 1958, 1959, Refo rm atskij 1941, 1955, 1957,


21/174

24 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS

m ay represent

th e

same phoneme

and different

phonemes

th e

same sound.

The

identification is based on the comparison of morphemes.

There

are

several difficulties connected with this approach. First

of

all,

a

position

which is

'strong'

with respect to one pair of phonemes is not necessarily so with

respect

to

another pair

of

phonemes.

In

Dutch,

th e

Opposition /a/

~

/a/, which

is

operative in stressed syllables, is neutralized pretonically in disyllabic words, so the

word

banaan

'banana' can be pronounced either [banän] or [banän], or something

half-way

between (Cohen etc. 1961: 49). On the other hand, th e Opposition

/ Λ / ~ / a /

is restricted to unstressed closed syllables and neutralized under stress and in open

unstressed

syllables

(Ebeling 1968:

141

f.). An oth er exam ple of an Opposition which

is neutralized

under

stress is found in Taj ik (Panov

1967:

195fn.). In Dutch an d

English the

phonemes

/ h / an d / n / are in

complementary

distribution, so there is no

'strong position' in which th e Opposition is operative.

Secondly, the choice of the

'basic shape'

of a

phoneme

is

rather arbitrary.

In

Russian,

there

is [i]

instead

of [i]

after hard consonants

and [e]

instead

of [ε] before

soft con sonants (cf. Kortlandt forthcoming

b, ms. p. 2).

T here

is n o

objective reason

for [i] or [ε] to be

mo re basic than

[i] or [e]

respectively, how ever.

It could be

argued

that

th e

ba sic shape

of a vowel is

found between pauses,

bu t

several langua ges (e.g.,

Arabic,

German, Kab ardian) have been described äs having no

word-initial

vowels.

Such

a

criterion does

not

yield

a

satisfactory solution

for

consonants either, since

word-initial and word-final neutralizations are especially common. Neither do

consonants display their 'basic shape' intervocalically

in

view

of the

fricativization

of

stops that many languages (e.g., Danish, Spanish, Tamil) show in this position.

The

distinction between 'variations'

and

'variants'

rests upon

th e

criterion

of

distinc-

tiveness, which is basically alien to a theory that advocates phonemic

identification

through th e comparison of

morpheme

alternants.

Thirdly, th e concept of the hyperphoneme requires some comment.

This

concept

is

a

hybrid result

of two

lines

of thought . The

positionally determined neutralization

of an Opposition leads to the impossibility of assigning at least some sounds (like [a]

in the example cited above) to a definite phoneme and therefore, if one does not want

to make an arbitrary choice, it also leads to the postulation of a new kind of units.

This is essentially the justification of Trubetzkoy's 'archiphonemes'. In the theory

under discussion, however, phonemic identification should be conformed to mor-

phemic alternation.

From

this point of view, the sound [a] in Ru .

[karovs]

is assigned

to a

'hyperphoneme'

because

it

does

not

A L T E R N A T E with either

[a] or [o].

This

is

quite different from what Trubetzkoy

did

when

he

assigned

it to an

'archi-

phoneme' /A/ because it is not

D I S T I N G U I S H E D

from these sounds,

that

is, it can be

replaced

by [a] or [o]

without impairing

the

intellegibility

of the

linguistic sign.

Whereas Trubetzkoy's identification is a direct consequence of the view of language

äs a code, th e Muscovite introduction of 'hyperphonemes' results from a choice

concerning

th e

things

to be

described. Now, there

are two

possibilities.

If one

distin-

guishes

a sound [a] that does not show

alternation

with [a] or [o] from another [a]


22/174

RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962 25

that does,

one

should also distinguish

an [o]

that alternates

with [a]

f r o m

one that

does not. C onsequ ently,

the

four sets

of

sound alternants

[ο, a, a], [o,

a],

[a, a],

[a],

which characterize the first vowel of the

words

voda 'water', doktor 'doctor', topor

'axe',

saraj

'barn',

respectively,

are

f o u r

diiferent

phonemic entities (cf. Gvozdev

1958:

84f.

and

Hal le 1963: 15). H ow ever,

if one

does

not

w a n t

to make

such

a

distinction

and combines [o,

s]

w i th [ο, a, 9] into one 'phoneme'

,

there is no reason

not to identify both

[a ,

s] and [a, a,

s]

w i th one and the same symbol . This is

j u s t a matter of simplicity since the m orphoph onem ic rules [...] will always select

th e appropriate phoneme [the author means sound] regardless of what other Symbols

are added to those already included in the brackets" (H alle 1963: 15). In that case,

the arbitrariness of the choice whether to include [a, s] in or in is whol ly

irrelevant because either solu tion yields the same results, and that is the only restraint

simplicityminded authors would

impose.

So the

'hyperphoneme'

does not originate

from

a single conception: on the one

band,

it does not

fully

take into account the

autom atic al ternations that exist

in the

language

and

therefore does

no t

give

complete

Information about them; on the other, the Information which it does convey is

redundant

within

th e

f r am e w o r k

o f a

System

o f

morphophonemic rules.

It is not

quite clear what Panov means when he writes

(1967:

404):

"When

speaking about

the l inks between the M o sc ow

phonological

school and

Jakovlev's

group it needs to

be emphasized that the 'M uscovites ' made a very big step forward: the doctrine of

th e

neutral ization

o f

phonemes emerged".

7

1.6. THE FIFTIES

The

1950's

are

marked

by two

important trends

in

Russ ian phonemic theory:

the

search

for a

synthesis between

th e

ideas advocated

by the

M o sc ow

and

Leningrad

phonological schools,

and the

penetration

o f

Western structuralism into Soviet

linguistics. The controversy about structuralism started in 1952, when an article by

S.K. Saumjan appeared under the title 'The problem of the phoneme'. In this article,

which was written under the influence of both Trubetzkoy ' s and H jelmslev's ideas,

S a u m ja n emphasized the "dual aspect of Speech soun ds, their physical and functional

aspects" (1952:

334, cf. M ilivo jevic 1970: 17). His

main

objection against T rubetzk oy's

phonemic theory concerned the absence of a consistent

differentiation

between the

phonemic and the phonetic level of language. This view led Saumjan to a

strict

distinction

between

the 'level of observation' and the

'level

of

constructs '

in his

later

work (1960, 1962, 1965). But at the time that the article appeared, Soviet lin

guistics

was not yet

ready

for a

favorable discussion

o f

structuralism

and

S au m j an ' s

paper

m et

w i th sharp

criticism

from

all

prominent Soviet

linguists.

8

T he

discussion

7

Thi s

remark

is all the more surprising in view of

Panov's judgment

o n

Trubetzkoy:

Trubetzkoy 's

theory

is not

free from contradictions;

th e

very core

o f

this theory,

th e

doctrine

of the archiphoneme,

is

vulnerable

(Panov 1967:401).

8

Avanesov 1952,

Reformatskij

1952, contributions by Bernätejn, Gvozdev, Panov, Zinder

and

pthers i r » the

following

issues of ftv

4

N SS§R ÖL Ja ,


23/174

26 THE

DEVELOPMENT

OF

MODELS

IN PHONEMICS

w as renewed in 1956,

when

the

Russians

suddenly feit th e necessity of 'catching up

and

overtaking

the

achievements

of

Western structuralism'.

Th e

synthesis

of the

view that

the phon eme is the

smallest

phonic

com ponent

of a

morpheme

and the

view

that it is the

smallest

phonic

constituent

of a

word form

could

b e

achieved

in three different ways. O ne

could

either restate th e Moscow defmi-

tion of the phoneme in terms of the Leningrad phonological school or vice versa,

or

devise

a

new,

'neutral'

terminology

in

which both kinds

of

phonemes would

find

their proper place. Avanesov chose the first possibility, Kuznecov the second,

Bernstejn

th e

third.

9

So the

'Moscow' phoneme, which remained

th e

only

true pho-

neme in Kuznecov's opinion, changed into a

'phoneme

series' (fonemnyj rjad) in

Avanesov's new terminology and into a 'phoneme of the second degree' according

to

Bernstejn's proposal.

The 'Leningrad'

phoneme

became

Avanesov's

'phoneme',

Bernstejn's

'phoneme of the first degree', and Kuznecov's 'language sound' (zvuk

jazyka),

wh ich of course is to be

carefully

distinguished

from

both the same

author's

'speech sound '

(zvuk

reci)

and

Bernstejn's 'language

sound'

(not

to

mention Bern-

stejn's 'speech sound'). Moreover, Kuznecov's

'speech

sound'

Stands

for at

least

tw o

essentially different things

(1959: 30f.): on the one

band,

"any

utterance

by any

Speaker in any language [...] consists of

some

sequence of speech

sounds"

in the

sense

of

tokens

of

sound types,

and on the

other

"w e can

recognize

and

identify [...]

one and the same

infinitely

repeated speech sound" in the sense of a type of 'speech

sounds' in the previous sense. The latter entity is commonly called a 'variant', bu t

this term is inappropriate fo r Ku znecov because it

signifies

something quite

different

in

Moscow phonological tradition (see above). Bernstejn, however, states that "the

positional

modifications

of one and the same phoneme of the first degree are called

the

'variants'

of the phoneme" and "a language sound is an articulatory-acoustic-

auditory formation used in a given language äs a variant of some phoneme of the

first

degree",

while

'speech sounds'

are in his

opinion elements

from a universal

phonetic classification of sounds (1962: 66f.). In addition to phonemes of the first

degree

an d

phonemes

of the

second degree, Bernstejn distinguishes phonemes

of the

third degree, i.e., series of phonemes that show non-automatic alternation such äs

[k]

~

[c] in Ru. [rukä] 'band',

[rucnoj]

'band (adj.)'. Thus, a phoneme of the first

degree, which

is also called a

'variational

series', is a set of positionally determined

variations in the 'Moscow' sense; a phoneme of the second degree, which is also

called

a

'substitutional

series', is a set of

automatically alternating variants

in the

'Moscow ' sense;

and a

phoneme

of the

third degree, which

is

also called

a

'trans-

formational series',

is a set of

grammatically alternating variants (Bernstejn 1962:

73).

10

If Bernstejn's exposition of phonemic theory had been published 25 years

earlier, äs

it was

originally intended

to be, it

would have saved Soviet linguistics

a

lot

of

vain

discussion.

9

Avanesov

1955, 1956, Kuznecov 1959, Bernstejn 1962. Cf. also

Klimov 1967:90.

10

Cf. Reformatskij 1955b: 99 and

Bloomfield

1926:160f.


24/174

RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962 27

At the

time when

th e

controversy around

th e

nature

of the

phoneme

w as dying

a

natural

death, th e

Isolation

of Ru ssian linguistic thou gh t

from W estern

structu ralism

was

finally

ended.

The

Ru ssian translations

of

Trubetzkoy's G rundzüge der

Phänologie

and Hjelmslev's Prolegomena

to a

theory

oflanguage

were published

in

1960

and the

translations

of

C homsky's Syntactic structures

and a

number

of

papers

by

Jakobson

and

Halle appeared

in

1962. Jakobson's binarism gave rise

to discussion on the

possibility of identifying distinctive features with their phonetic correlates.

11

This

was the background of Saumjan's two-level

theory,

which we shall

examine

in

Chapter 2.

11

Kuznecov

1958,

1959,

Piotrovskij 1960,

1963, Reformatskij

1961, Ivanov 1961, 1962,

Nork

etc.

1962, Kibrik 1962, Grigor'ev 1962, 1964, 1967.


25/174

2

SAUMJAN'S

TWO-LEVEL MODEL

2.1.

INTRODUCTION

The

year 1962 was,

in a sense, a

m ilestone

in Soviel

linguistics.

N ot

only Bernstejn's

article,

w hich finally put an e nd to

th e

discussion

b etween the

Moscow and

Leningrad

schools

of

phonology,

but also the first two books of the new,

mathematically

oriented trend: I.I. Revzin's Models of language

an d

S.K.

Saumjan 's

Problems of

theoretical

phonology, were published

in

1962. Since

both of

these important con-

tributions to modern linguistics have been translated into English (the former in

1966, the latter in 1968), quotations will be made from the translations. This chapter

is devoted to Saumjan's

two-level

theory. Revzin's ideas, äs far äs they directly

concern phonemic theory,

will be

dealt with

in the

subsequent chapter,

in

which

other set-theoretical m odels are also put un der exam ination.

An outline of

Saumjan's

theory had been published in 1960 in the fifth issue of

Voprosy

jazykoznanija,

so wh en two years

later

the

füll

exposition of the theory

appeared it did not entirely come äs a

surprise.

In fact, its main

tenet,

the

complete

Separation of the functional from the physical aspect of Speech sounds, is no more

than

th e

ultimate consequence

of the

view

pu t

forward

in

Sau m jan's 1952 paper

on

the phoneme and goes back directly to Hjelmslev's ideas. The theory is presented

äs a critique and, at the same time,

äs

a

fur ther

elaboration of Trubetzlcoy's phono-

logy, which Saumjan calls th e 'relational-physical theory of the phoneme' (relja-

cionno-fiziceskaja teorija fonemy).

This name

is

based

on

Trubetzkoy's definition

of

phonological

oppositions, which

is reformulated by

Saumjan

äs

follows: "phono-

logical oppositions

are

these

sound

oppositions

which

can

differentiate

between

the

signifiants

of two

words

of a

given language"

(19 68:23f.). So

phonological oppositions

are sound oppositions, i.e., oppositions between physical entities. However, the

property that makes sound oppositions phonological is their ability to differentiate

between the signifiants of two words, i.e.,

refers

to a relation within the System of

th e language. A member of a phonological Opposition is a 'phonological

unit'.

A phonological unit which from the standpoint of a given language cannot be

further

segmented into

smaller consecutive phonological units

is a

'phoneme'

(1968: 32). This System

of

definitions

"should be

regarded

äs a System of

hypotheses

whose function

is to

explain

th e

principle

of the

invarjanee

of

sounds

in any

lan-


26/174

S A U M J A N s T W O - L E V E L

M O D E L

2 9

guage"

(1968:

33). Such a System of definitions

which

can be regarded äs a

System

of

hypotheses

about

observable

phenomena

is

what

I will hen ceforth

call

a

MODEL.

1

2 . 2 . THE ANTI NOMY O F TRANSPOSITION

From

the model outlined here two Statements evolve

(Saumjan 1968: 35):

(1) Phonemes are elements whose function is to differentiate

between

signifiants.

(2)

Phonemes

are

acoustic elements.

The first Statement

leads

Saumjan to the following conclusion:

If it is true that the function of

phonemes

is to differentiate betwee n signifiants then it follows that

there exists an inherent po ssibility of transposing the acoustic

substance

into other fo rms of physical

substance

— graphic, chromatic, tactile. Any System of distinctive

features

and phonemes can be

presented

no t

only

äs

acou stic properties

but äs

graphic, chromatic

or

tactile Symbols

äs

well.

However, "if it is t rue that phonemes are acoustic elements it follows that they

cannot be transposed into other forms of physical substance since in

that

case they

would

cease to be themselves, i.e. acoustic elements" (1968:36). According to

Saumjan,

the resulting contradiction, wh ich he

calls th e

'antinomy of transposition',

constitutes

an

inherent theoretical

difficulty in

Trubetzkoy's model

of the

phoneme.

The reasoning is clearly incorrect. If we substitute 'green table' fo r

'phonemes',

'thing'

for

'elements',

and 'colour' fo r

'function',

w e

obtain something

like this:

(1) A

green table

is a

thing whose colour

is

green.

(2 )

A

green table

is a

table.

If it is

t rue

that th e

colour

of a

green table

is

green then

it

follows

that

there exists

an inherent possibility of transposing its table-ness into other forms of thing-ness.

How ever, if it is true

that

a gre en table is a table it follows that it cannot be transposed

into other things since

in that

case

it

would cease

to be a

table.

Analogy is a bad argument and I am no su pporter of the kind of debating

exhib-

ited in the preceding paragraph, but it certainly shows that a bit of superficial logic

does

not make up for the

lack

of

explicitness with re gard

to the

u nderlying

assum p-

tions. Saumjan's reasoning would hold true if the first Statement were reversible,

but

that

is

clearly

not the

case

if the

second Statement holds.

In

principle, there

is

nothing

against

defining

phonemes

äs

acoustic elements whose function

is to

differ-

entiate between signifiants. It just does not

touch

upon th e real problem, which is

I D E N T I F I C A T I O N A L . And it is with respect to the identification of phonemic units that

different

'schools'

propose

different

Solutions.

Now, there are several questions to be answered. First of all, one

m ay

wonder

whether justice is done to Trubetzkoy in the model

that

Saumjan ascribes to him.

In

fact, Trubetzkoy

defines th e

phoneme

NOT äs an

entity possessing

both

physical

1

Saumjan does

not

mention

the

concept

of

'model'

in

this connection

but his use of the

term

elsewhere in his book (1968) does not seem to con tradict the paraphrase given here, cf. the discussion

on modellin g in Chapter 7 of this book.


27/174

30 TH E

DEVELOPMENT

OF

MODELS

IN

PHONEMICS

and

functional properties

bu t äs

"die

Gesam theit der phonologisch

relevanten

Eigen-

schaften

eines

Lautgebildes" (1939: 35), i.e., a purely

functional

entity. His identi-

fication rules,

however,

refer

to physical

rather

than

functional

phenom ena, and this

is where a confusion of levels arises. So even if Saumjan's argument against an

admittedly

fundamental inconsistency in a Statement concerning

th e

N A T U R E of a

defined concept — a Statement

which

is incorrectly attributed to Trubetzkoy — is

based on an elementary logical

error,

it does

point

to a possible contradiction between

the definition of the concept — which is an abstraction in the sense

that

it

requires

at

least some generalization

from

directly

observed data

— and the I D E N T I F I C A T I O N

rules

that

make

entities in reality correspond to the concept in a de finite way. Every-

thing is mixed up, bu t the spirit of Sau mjan's

criticism

is basically

right

with reference

to the spirit of

Trubetzkoy's

theory.

Secondly,

Saumjan

does not overlook the

objection

that

if

phonemes

are

elements

whose

function

is to

differentiate between signifiants and,

at the

same time, acoustic

elements, then

the property of the

differentiation

between signifiants and the property of being an acoustic element

are equally essential for the phoneme and the bond between these two properties must be considered

indispensable within the

limits

of natural languages.

Therefore,

we are not

justified

in

deducing

from

Statement

l

that

the

phoneme

can be

transposed from acoustic substance into other forms

of

physical

substance. (1968:36)

Since Saumjan's method of

refuting

this

view

is characteristic of the

nonchalance

that many contetnporary linguists show in referring to logic äs the sole

basis

of all

trustworthy

insight,

I cann ot resist the tem ptation of

quoting

h is observations in

füll.

It must be noted beforehand that "a mental experiment is a deductive

process

which

consists of the

deduction

of specific consequences from Statements

acknow-

ledged to be

t rue

which,

although

not

confirmedly empirical

facts, appear to be

fundamentally possible" (1968:31). This is Saumjan's

comment

on the

view

ex -

pounded above.

This objection can be answered äs follows. If we regard

definitions

äs convenient compressed descrip-

tions

of

directly observed data then, since

in

natural languages phonemes

are

always sound elements,

we are not justified in separating the functional properties of the phoneme

from

its acoustic properties.

But the

subject matter

of

science comprises

not only

empirical data,

not

only what is

but

also that

which

in principle

can

be;

hence,

if a mental experiment arrives at what can be, we disclose the essence

of the studied subject. We regard the definition of the phoneme not äs a convenient compressed

description

of an

empirical fact

but äs a hypothesis,

i.e. speaking

in the

words

of H.

Reichenbach, äs

a

nomological

Statement. "In a general nomological Statement the ränge of the all-operator is given

by

all possible argument-objects and is not restricted to all real

argument-objects."

(Reichenbach

1947:401) The antinomy of transposition develops specifically at the level of the Interpretation of the

relational-physical definition of the phoneme äs a nomological Statement. At this level there exists

the question whether the communicative function of natural language

would

be violated if its acoustic

substance were transposed

into

other forms

of

physical substance. Obviously,

no

such violation would

occur. We are, therefore, justified in transposing phonemes, by

means

of mental experiment, from

acoustic

substances into

other

forms

of

physical

substance. The results of the mental

experiment

contradict, however,

the

Interpretation

of the

acoustic properties äs

the

essential properties

of the


28/174

S A U M J A N S

T W O - L E V E L M O D E L 3 1

phoneme,

since

if the

acoustic

properties are

essential

properties of the phoneme the phoneme

cannot be

transposed from

an

acoustical

substance into any other

form

of physical substance.

So if the definition of the phoneme is a description of directly observed data, the

phoneme

has

both functional

and

acoustic properties. But

if

we take into account

not only empirical

facts bu t

everything which is fu ndamentally possible, äs science

should, the definition of the phoneme is a hypothesis or — even better — a nomo-

logical S tatem ent. This gives

us the

chance

to

drop

in at Reichenbach's,

quietly ab and-

oning

one of the two

essential properties

of the

phoneme.

The

only question

left

after we

have passed

the

heights

of logic is "whether the

communicative function

of

natural language would be violated if its acoustic substance [sc., of the phoneme]

were transposed into other forms of physical substance". This is exactly what we

have seen before, but the

tail

of the argument is nevertheless formulated with pain-

staking

care. Such a reasoning unduly discredits logic in the

eyes

of linguists and

linguistics

in the eyes of

logicians.

I

should

be

noticed that

all

this

is not a n

argument

against Saumjan's two-level

theory.

I m erely wa nt to stress that there is no L O G I C A L

justification fo r

this

model of the

phoneme.

2.3. THE IDENTIFICATION ANTINOMIES

Thirdly, one may wonder if the

identification

rules should

reflect

the physical and

th e

functional aspect

of

speech sounds

to the

same extent. This

is

where

the

real

difficulty is encountered. Sameness on the functional level need not coincide with

sameness

on the physical level.

Saumjan

Signals

the existence of two identification

antinomies, of which the first regards th e 'paradigmatic' and the second th e 'syn-

tagmatic' identification of phonem es. These term s are explained äs

follows

(1968: 37):

Every language differentiates two basic

types

of relations: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Paradigmatic

relations are relations of linguistic units which undergo a mutual alternation within the same position.

Syntagmatic relations are linear relations

between

linguistic units within the

speech

flow.

This

is in

conformity with general usage

in

modern

linguistics.

2

Saumjan

points

ou t

correctly that the two kinds of relations do not, however, correspond to disjunction

and conjunction in logic,

äs

Hjelmslev suggested. If two linguistic units can occur

in the

same position,

a

choice between them (and, possibly, other admissible units)

is to be made in every occurrence of that position, so

that

th e units are necessarily

mutually exclusive:

"the specific

character

of the paradigmatic relations precludes

th e coexistence of the members of the relations [...] Therefore, the paradigmatic

relations

can be

analogous only

to the so-called

exclusive disjunction"

(1968:

39).

The

digression

o n Hjelm slev's views makes it all the more

striking tha t

th e

m eaning

of

th e word 'paradigmatic' in Sau mjan's 'antinomy of the paradigmatic identification

of

phonemes '

is qu ite

different

from the one outlined here: it corresponds instead to

2

Cf. Martinet

1960:27

and

Hjelmslev

1943:36.


29/174

32 THE

DEVELOPMENT

OF MODELS IN

PHONEMlCS

th e

traditional meaning

of the

word 'paradigm'

in the

sense

of a set of

word forms

representing

the

same lexical item

in its

various syntactic environments, such äs,

e.g., Skt.

{devas, devam, devena,

devä ya, devät,

devasya,

deve, deva}.

The

'antinomy'

runs äs follows (1968:

40):

If in the

speech

flow in

Position PI

we

encounter

a class of

phonemes KI, then

in

position T ? z there

exists a

class

öl phonemes K2,

which

corresponds to the class of phonemes KI in such a w ay

that

the

phonemes which

differ in

respect

to

their phonation

are in

identical correspondence while those

phonemes which are identical in respect to their phonation are in non-identical correspondence.

Thus,

if we

encounter [q], [k], [k'] before back vowels

and

[k], [k'],

[c]

before front

vowels, functional identity does not coincide with acoustic identity. There is, how-

ever, one possible Identification which Saumjan does not take

into

consideration,

thoug h it violates neither the fun ctional nor the physical properties of the phonem e.

He w rites:

if,

in

accordance

to Statement l [see above], phonemes possess a function of differentiation between

signifiants, then phonemes which occur in different

positions

can be

altered

in respect to their phona-

tion äs

sharply

äs desired äs long

äs

they do not get confused w ith one another. (1968:41)

According to this view, one could, strictly speaking, regard any pair of sounds

äs

variants of one and the same phonem e provided

only

that they are in complementary

distribution: thus [q] in position PI can be

identified

with [c] in position P2, and

subsequently [k] and

[k']

can be identified in accordance with their acoustic pro-

perties. It follows

that Saumjan 's

antinomy cannot be logically derived from his

Statements

l and 2 alone, but

that

it

rests upo n

an

additional assumption conc erning

the

mutual relations between phonemes äs well. This does

not

diminish

the

value

of his argument because such an assumption is explicitly present in Trubetzkoy's

work.

The identification of phonemic units in

different

positions

äs

discussed in the

preceding

paragraph

presupposes their paradigmatic and syntagm atic delimitation

in any one environment. Here 'paradigmatic' is again u sed in the Hjelm slev sense of

'referring to equally admissible but mutually exclusive alternatives'.

Within

th e

relational-physical theory

of the

phoneme,

two

antinomies concerning

the

paradigm-

atic

(in

this sense)

and

syntagmatic delimitation

of

phonemes

can be

inferred. Saumjan

mentions only the latter of these and calls it the

'antinomy

of the sy ntagm atic iden-

tification of phonemes'. The form er is wholly analogous to Sau m jan's

'antinomy

of

the paradigmatic

Identification

of phonemes' except for the positional

difFerence

between the sounds involved: even in one and the same position it holds true that

phonetically

different sounds may be functionally identical and phon etically identical

sounds may not be functionally equivalent. The first possibility is generally called

'free

Variation'.

Such

a

relationship holds between, e.g., apical

r and

uvular

r in

Dutch.

The

second possibility

is no

less common though rarely referred

to in

publi-

cations on

T H E O R E T I C A L

linguistics. This is the relationship between, e.g., e an d ζ

in Polish. T he [e] in Po . [bjore] Ί take' and many

other

w ords can be replaced by [e]


30/174

S A U M J A N S T W O - L E V E L

M O D E L 3 3

without affecting th e meaning

of

the word, while th e same Substitution

of the [e] in

[xore] 'sick (nom.pl., no male persons) ' and many

other

w ords yields a non-existing

form.

3

So these two phonetically and

positionally identical sounds

are nevertheless

functionally

different.

The

'antinomy

of the

syntagmatic identification

of

phonemes' consists

in the

fact

that on the one

band

phonetic sequences made up of e.g. stop + spirant or vowel

+ semivowel such äs [ts] or [ej] are in some languages interpreted m onophonemically,

cf. R u . /c/ and Du. /e/, while on the other fairly homogeneous sounds may in some

languages

be

identified with sequences

of

phonemes, like

Du. [s]

f- /sj/

or Sw. [d]

l- /rd/.

4

It is not clear whether

Saumjan

acknowledges th e latter

possibility

because

he

discusses

only th e

former. This antinomy again rests upoji

an

additional assump-

tion, namely that there exists

a

natural segmentation

of the

speech

flow

into sounds

which does

not

coincide with

th e

segm entation into phonemes. A ccording

to

Saumjan,

"physical

segmentation

of the

speech

flow

into separate sounds, i.e., into separate

acoustic Segments, is an objectively ascertained phonetic fact" (1968:42) .

5

In that

case a sequence of acoustic segments can, in principle, constitute a single phoneme.

2.4. SAUMJAN'S DEFINITION OF THE PHONEME

The 'three

fundamental theoretical difficulties' which Saumjan signalizes

in the

relational-physical theory

of the

phoneme

and

which

he

calls

th e

'antinomy

of

transposition', the 'antinomy of the paradigmatic identification of

phonem es ',

and

the 'antinomy of the

syntagmatic identification

of

phonemes'

lead him to a

strict

distinction between the

level

of observation and the

level

of constructs. The relation-

ship that holds between 'sounds', which are directly observable entities, and 'pho-

nemes', which

are

constructs,

is

termed

th e

relation

of

'embodiment'

(voploscenie),

denoted

by the

symbol

/. The

fact that

th e

soun d segment [ts] embodies

th e

phoneme

/c/

in Spanish is denoted

äs

follows (Saumjan 1968:

50):

I(tS,

"c") (2.1)

In German, however, th e sound segment [ts] embodies th e phonemic sequence

/ts/:

/

(i,

t }

(2.2)

Ι( ,

α

η

(2.3)

This

notation

is

equivalent

to the one

defined

in

footnote

4 of this chapter, an d

will

be

used

throughout the

present book:

Sp. [ts] H /c/ (2.4)

Ge.

[ts] µ /ts/ (2.5)

7 modelling the phoneme [new trends in east european phonemic theory] 1972

Documents