iSTANBUL tlNiVERSiTESi E D E B !Y AT FAK"OLTES!

Yaymlarmdan: No. 574

LINGUISTIC FORM

by

C. E. BAZELL

Istanbul Press

Istanbul - 1953

PREFA CE

This is not an introduction to the subject of linguistic form, but a

brief commentary on current views and terminologies.

If it is possible to discover any aim common to all linguistic schools,

this aim is the reduction, by terminological devices, of the fundamental

asymmetry of linguistic systems. If there are phonemes, allophones and

phonemic components, then there must also be morphemes, allomorphs and

morphemic components. If there is a form and a substance of the expres­

sion, then there must also be a form and a substance of the content. If every phoneme can be split up into a set of relevant phonic features, then

every morpheme can be split up into a set of relevant semantic features. If the syntagm has a binary structure, so also does the syllable.

The relation between these four views (of which perhaps no two

are held by the same scholar) is unmistakable.

There is hence perhaps room for a work which seeks to stress the

fundamental asymmetry of linguistic systems, rather than to reduce it.

However parallels between different levels have been noted whenever they

seemed legitimate or at least suggestive.

Questions of historical linguistics have been left for treatment else­

where, and references have been reduced to a minimum, since a select

critical bibliography is being prepared for publication in technically more

advantageous circumstances. What remains is of course a mere sketch.

But space has been found to touch on several aspects of linguistic form

which pass unnoticed in more extensive treatments of the subject. On the

other hand the problem of segmentation, which claims almost a monopoly

of attention in such treatments, has for this reason been left in the

background.

Istanbul

June 1953 C. E. BAZELL

C O N T E N T S

I. GENERALITIES 1

A. Linearity . 1 B. Binarity 3 C. Fundamental Units 5

II. DISTRIBUTIONAL RELATIONS 12

A. Relations of Accompaniment 13 B. Relations of Substitution 15 C. Relations of Containment 22 D. Relations of Conversion 24

m. INCLUSIVE RELATIONS . 25

A. Relations between Members of a Distributional

Class 26 B. Overt Relations (Relations between Parts of a

Segment) 31 C. Functional Relations (Relations between Fac-

tors of a Pseudo-segment) 33 D. Relations between Aspects of a Theme 31

IV. THE PHONEME 40

v. OVERT AND FUNCTIONAL TERMS 49

A. Morph, Morpheme and Formative 51 B. Immediate Constituents . 64

VI. THE TRADITIONAL MORPHEME-CLASSES . 69

VII. THE SEMEME . 81

VIII. SCOPE AND CRITERIA 93

Appendix A: Phonemic Components 107 Appendix B: Morphemic Components . 113

I. GENERALITIES

�· Linearity

The linear character of linguistic expression, which was first taken for granted and later stressed, has recently been disputed. But the term linearity may be taken in various ways:

(i) Succession as opposed to simultanei ty.

Simultaneity of segmental phonemes is excluded by definition. Hence the assertion of lineari ty is here a tautology ' . But there re­mains the significant question why a fundamental unit of language should be so defined as to render the assertion tautologous.

The reasons are both substant ial and structural. A substantial reason is the absence of disconnected resonance-chambers functioning ie the production of speech-sounds. A structural reason is the relat ive unimportance of simultaneous features at other levels.

The latter reason is illustrated by the fact that non-automatic al­ternations between phonemes d iffering in respect of one minimal feature alone are seldom more frequent than similar alternations between phonemes differing in respect of several features. (That the morphs in English / naif/ , jnaivz/ differ in respect of a single feature lather than in respect of a whole phoneme may from the synchron ic standpoint be regarded as accidental, since there is no tendency for such alternations to be more productive than those between unrela­ted phonemes. )

In other words the s imultaneous features of segmental phonemes are morphologically irrelevant. A morphological description loses

1) For de Saussure's llnearite du signifiant as «nothing but a vicious circle», c:C. R. Jakobson, Recherches Structurales ( Copenhagen 1949) p. 207.

2

b ttle or nothing in coherence if the phoneme rather than the feature i� taken as minimal unit .

Supra-segmental features, on the other hand, have normally mor· phological relevance. (A morphological description of Greek would lose in coherence if an accentual feature were regarded as a feature of a segmental phoneme.) But such features are :.1 small minority unless supra-segmentality is so defined as to include m;my morpholo­gically irrelevant features.

To the general rule that phonemic features are morphologically irrelevant, while phonemes are morpholozically relevant, there are of course exceptions .

In a very few cases the morphological relevance of the features a3 such is shown (for the period in question) by the development of a new phoneme by the rare process of analogt, rather than by the usual process (loss of feature-contrast determining allophonic alter­nation) . Sufficient evidence is also provided by the analogical exten­sion of a feature-alternation to phonemes for which it was previously unknown . But such cases are also rather rare.

Phonemes without individual morphological relevance are far more common . In languages of so-called « isolating» structure the syll­able may often be regarded as the minimal unit having independent morphological relevance. However here there are normally vowel­phonemes constituting morphs by themselves ; the consonants though uot as such independently relevant are left as residue in forms from which the relevant vowels have been deducted. Moreover languages of this structural type usually show another peculiarity, namely that in the most characteristic syllabic type the sequence of phonemes is irreversible, hence has no distinctive function. But non-distinctive sequence borders on simultaneity.

This is not to deny the importance of the distinctive features, but merely to allot them a less central position in the system. It matters also very little whether one speaks in terms of features or of intersecting categories, providing that the basis of analysis is intrinsic character and not distribution alone.

2) For typical examples cf. R. Jakobson, Actes du sixieme congres international

de linguistes, Rapports p. 17 ; for a marginal example cf. E. Sapir, Abnormal types

of speech in Nootka ( Selected Writings) , p. 188 footnote 17.

3

(ii) Unidimensionality.

There is only one dimension of succession. (It is misleading to describe feature-analysis as «analysis in depth» . The second dimension in graphemics too applies only within letter-form; so far as the succes· swn of words is concerned «below» may be called an «allograph» of <tafter» . )

(iii) Uniqueness of segmentation as opposed to overlapping.

By postulate, each segmental phoneme follows or precedes others absolutely, and each suprasegmental phoneme covers a whole number '-t segmental phonemes. It is clearly by no means :1 trivial fact that the postulate seldom leads to fitting the facts into an unnatural mould. (It is true that the so-called supra-segmental phonemes are far better regarded as relations between segments; but the essence of the principle is not affected, since the relation then holds between segments consist­ing of a whole number of phonemes. )

A n exception may be formed by those systems having the mora

a� a unit, if the syllabic nucleus cannot always be regarded as con­taining at least two phonemes. In this case a suprasegmental unit would cover half a phoneme, or some odd multiple of a half.

Sentence-intonation would also form an exception, if segmental analysis is applied at alP. However this does not belong to the central structure of a language.

It is to be noted however that the intra-segmental range of a

snprasegmental phoneme has normally no distinctive relevance ; hence thi s range could appropriately be regarded as indeterminate .

B. Binarity

Binari ty may appear specially characteristic of two parts of the system : (i) inflectional oppositions, and (ii) immediate constituents of subordinational syntagms.

The binari ty of phonemic oppositions·• is less striking, since all

B) Cf. R. S. Wells, The Pitch Phonemes of English, Lang. 21, 27-�9.

•) On the «theory of the dichotomous scale» as «one of the epoch-making dis­

coveries in structural linguistics of the twentienth century», C'f. A. W. de Groot,

Word 9, 58.

positions in the chain normally allow for a plurality of choices. Nor is this necessarily altered when one speaks in terms of minimal features. Supposing that there are three labial consonants : voiceless oral, voiced oral, and nasal (with indifferent voicing) . It is of course possible to say here that there are two oppositions, «voiceless /voiced)) and «oral/ nasal) ) - in either case two choices. But it is at least as appropriate to say that there are simply three choices: «zero)) , «voice)) and «nasal) ) . By this formulation, voice and nasality become commutable features ; though whether one would talk of an opposition in this case is another, mainly terminological, matter.

A minimum requisite for a system of binary oppositions would seem to be that one could set up a system of questions demanding a yes-or-no answer, ranged in order(s) such that no redundant question should have to be asked, until at a given point in the sequence of answers (though not necessarily the same point for each unit) the unit had been completely defined. It would be illicit that an answer later in the series should render a previous answer redundant. For English it would be illicit that the question <<nasal or oral?)) should be asked in a sequence which did not give full information before the question «stop or continuant?)) , since an answer to the latter question might make the answer to the former question redundant. (It would of course be allowed that the answers given, up to any point, should dictate the order of the following questions).

Binary systems so far set up for feature-analysis do not conform to this ideal (though implicitly or explicitly, they clearly aim at i t) . This does not mean that a table of phonemes classified according to the binary principle contains any superfluous information, since gaps may be left when· the information would be redundant. But such a table naturally proves nothing whatsoever in favour of the binary principle' s value.

On the other hand the prevalence of binary oppositions between inflectional morphemes is at first sight striking. However it woulri probably be more correct to speak of the tendency of binary morphf'·· mic oppPsitions to be inflectional , than of the tendency of inflectionaJ oppositions· to be binary . For the distinction beteen inflection and in­dependent particle depends largely on junctural niteria (and the cnterion of non-intercalation of free forms). But the smaller the num-

5

ber of choices. at any one point of the speech-chain, the smaller the probability of open juncture. The striking exception formed by the case-systems of many language proves the rule in a different way; for though the paradigmatic C;hoice is here multiple, the syntagmatic range of possibilities is normallv reduced.

The idea of an overwhelmingly predominating binary structure of immediate constitue1.ts is again largely illusory. Even the most commori English utterance-type does not fit into this view. In e. g. fohn started the primary criterion of substitution does not yield any analysis, since nei ther john start- nor start-ed can be replaced by a monomorphemic constituent. For this reason i t is usual to follow the word-division' ; but this is a very different sort of criterion. And it is not in the least surprising that if one applies one criterion after an­other in a fixed hierarchical order, until one comes to the first cri­terion that yields a binary division, one will be able to make this division sooner or later ; though a different order of criteria would have yielded a different result. The success of this method is a tribute, not to the importance of the binary character of the syntagm, but simply to the acharnement with which the linguists seek to split up utterance-segments into two.

C. Fundamental Units

One of the few things on which most linguists would appear at first sight to agree, is the status of the morpheme as one of the two fundamental units of language, the second being either the phoneme or the distinctive feature. However the agreement is superficial, since the term is used in at least three different senses. As used in Europe, it answers very approximately to one of two other American terms : (i) the morphemic component, including the morpheme with only one component, or (ii) the morphemic segment or «morph)) . These uses have subvarieties. (The earlier distinction of morpheme and se­manteme is obsolete except in non-structuralist circles.)

It is only too obvious that either all linguists are wrong in reckoning with two units which are fundamental in a sense that others

') This is taken as axiomatic by R. S. Wells, Immediate Constituents/, (Lang.

23, 81-117 ) , the only thorough study of the subject.

6

are not, or that most linguists are ·wrong in their choice of units having this central status. A third conceivable solution, namely that each linguist is free to choose the units he will regard as fundamental, is clearly unsatisfactory. For if he is free to choose the units, he is surely also free to choose their number. Hence the choice of two fun­damental units would have no particular significance.

There should be a very strong initial suspicion that the duality of fundamental units derives from the old dichotomy of form and meaning, reinforced by the modern fashionability of the binary oppo­sition.

The notion of the morpheme as fundamental unit of meaning has widely ceded to the notion of morpheme as distributional unit. But since the unit was always determined, in practice, by distributional criteria, no alterations in the range of the term have their source here.

Now all uses of the term morpheme (with an exception to be no­ticed immediately) have one thing in common : namely that the mor­pheme cannot overlap the boundaries of a word. The importance of this restriction has never been sufficiently stressed. The word is not a unit determined by purely distributional (let alone semantic) cri­teria. Phonemic considerations, especially juncture, play a large part in its delimitation. Such distributional criteria as play an important role (for instance occurrence in zero-environment) are rather special cri­teria which elsewhere play a secondary role in the determination of constituents . The criterion of commutation, which elsewhere is the distributional criterion paT excellence, is here simply one criterion among others.

Now the morpheme is (let it be granted) determined on the basis of distributional criteria alone, especially on the basis of the criterion of commutation. But it is determined within the limits of another unit, which is not determined on the basis of distributional criteria alone, and which anyway is not determined on the basis of the same distri­butional criteria. This gives to the morpheme (in whatever sense the term is taken) a highly mixed character .

Hence the morpheme is not a purely distributional unit, and even in so far as it is, it is not a pure distributional unit. And if distribution is (as will generally be granted) the surest clue to seman­tics, it is neither a semantic unit, nor the basis of semantic analysis.

7

At this point an exception must be noted. It has been proposed" that, in the type of Latin hortu.s bonus, the first and second occurrence of -us do not entail two distinct morphemes, but represent together a single morpheme, with the «morphemic components» nom., sing., etc. This follows from the principle of commutation, since the mor­phemic segments are not independently commutable. Only the rest­riction of a morpheme to a single word previously hindered such an analysis. But it will be seen below that, once this restriction is aband­oned, the way is open to far more peculiar analyses. It will quite rightly be objected that such analyses are not morphemic; and this objection will be countered by using a new term. But any analysis that does not respect word-limitation is not a morphemic analysis in the old sense. As soon as this limitation is disregarded, we have already to do with a fourth sense of the term morpheme. Inevitably we shall be confronted with the question (which by now should have begun to wear a little thin) whether this fourth «morpheme» is more or less fundamental than the others.

But first it must be asked why the older <<morphemes» are not to be regarded as all equally fundamental.

Morphemic segments may frequently be classed together under one morpheme in the American sense, and considered from this standpoint are regarded as «allomorphs» . If the latter term is meant to imply no more than complementary distribution (together with maximal similarity of distribution in all respects except the distribu­tional factors in virtue of which the occurrence can be predicted) it may be considered harmless. But complementary distribution does not here imply irrelevance. An allomorph is paradigmaticallv relevant : diffe­rences of meaning are affected by substituting the allqmorph of one morpheme for the allomorph of another morpheme. Now it has also been said that the same is true of allophones : that they are paradigma­tically relevant, since the substitution of one allophone for another entails a functional distinction, when the allophones are allophones of different phonemes7• This confuses the issue, for the substitution in question is a simple result of the substi tution of relevant feat­ures one for the other . But in the case of allomorphs there are no relevant features to be substituted, except precisely those contained m the allomorphs themselves.

a) Cf. z. S. Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics, p. 306-309.

7) Cf. B. Trnka, Rapports (op. cit. ) , p. 29.

8

Allomorphs can be treated as irrelevant when one passes to the level of the morpheme, for their irrelevance at this level belongs to the definition of the morpheme. But the hierarchy of levels has nothing to do with differences in fundamental importance. Such a difference is only too likely to be conveyed by the highly metaphorical language used in speaking of morphemes, which are said to «occur in different shapes» . Morphemes are distributional ft,1nctions, or (if one prefers) classes of units having complementary distributional functions ; of nei ther can it appropriately be said that they occur in this or that shape.

It is also of some consequence to notice that allomorphs are not to be regarded as segments, since this way of treating them gives rise to the impression that they are not minimal units, i . e . that they can be split up into smaller segments, phonemes and ultimately phonemic features.

Many allomorphs are only too obviously not segmental in charac­ter. It is clearly a mere far;on de parler when sang is «split up» into the segments (i) sing and (ii) i>a. The segment sing does not occur as part of the form, and a substitution is a process, not a segment. If a segment is spoken of here, this is because the process of substitution (i>a) is deemed to have the same role as the segment -d in live-d. But so Ear as the roles are the same, / i>af corresponds not to the segment -d, but to the addition of the segment -d. Segment must be compared with segment, and process (e.g. substitution) with process (e.g. addi­tion) . Allomorphs are not to be thought of as segments, but as pro­cesses of formation: not as the parts of forms, but as relations between forms. It was these processes or relations which the old-fashioned par­adigm was designed to bring out, and which the modern segmentation is designed to obscure.

This yields at least three fundamental units: (i) a unit of com­position, the phoneme (resp. distinctive feature) ; (ii) a unit of distri­bution, the morpheme (resp. morphemic component): and (iii) a unit of formation, commonly called {allo-) morph in America and morph­eme in Europe (outside Copenhagen), and for which the present writer has proposed8 the term formative .

The term mm·phen·.ic component should now be comidered. It

") Acta Linguistica V, p. 144.

is applied in America to the most typical examples of what in Europe i" called cumul. A Latin case or number are said to be morphemic components" , since nei ther is ever associated with any specific for­mative ; on the other hand two morphemes are distinguished for Eng­lish went (also an instance of cwnul) on the grounds that the morph-

. emes in question («go» I «past») have distinctive formatives in other occurrences. Gloss('Platists woulrl distinguish two morphemes (not mere components) in either case, so far as they use the term . This is also a possible usage in the modern scho()l of Grneva, where there is a tendency to use the otherwise unknown term moneme for the Amer­ican morph.

It would seem that the last use is to be preferred. So far as distribution alone is in question, the distinction between live I lived on the one hand, and golwent on the other, i s wi thout any interest, but so also is the distinction between Latin mont-iurn I mont-ibus on the one hand, and Turkish tepe-ler-in I tepe-ler-de on the other. The fact that we cannot find within Latin any individual morph associated with a case independently of a number, has nothing to do with distri­bution; and if the morpheme is a genuinely distributional unit (apart from the limitation indicated above) it may be neglected on this level .

But it will be useful to keep the term morphemic component for the moment, for i t will serve to show just how it is that morphemic analysis becomes something very different indeed as soon as the limi­tation to single words i s abandoned .

According to the old-fashioned school-paradigms, laudal : laud­atur = laudavit: laudatus (-a -um) est. Structuralists have already grown tired of pointing out that this is very bad morphology indeed; and this is very obvious, if morphology is the study of morphs or for­matives. But the distributional proportion is impeccable. Hence if the word-l imitation is abandoned, it will be as legitimate to disengage «morphemic components» from the distributional parallelism between these four sets, as it is from the four sets laudat: laudant = laudas: taudatis.

It would not be possible to localise these components anywhere within the boundaries of one word, but this they would have in common with all morphemic components. However, not only would they not be localisable, but it would be impossible to say, i n a gen-

9) Cf. e.g. Harris, loc. cit.

10

eral way, that the location was somewhere in theword. This they would have in common with the masculine and nominative compon­ents in hortus bonus, which nevertheless can be localised «Somewhere» in an imaginary segment -us -us. But worse than this, they could not be localised at all in the imaginary segment -atus est, which nevertheless is supposed to consist of at least four morphemes. And to say that a morphemic component is not part of any one morpheme, means that the component is not a morphemic component, or that the morphemes are not all morphemes.

The components which arise when the criterion of word-bound­aries is abandoned are not components of morphemes. We propose to call them sememes. It is unfortunate that the latter term has been used in quite different senses10, but there are very few accessible terms which have not been exploited in one sense or the other.

It ought not to be necessary to stress that the sememe is still a distributional unit rather than a semantic unit. It differs from the morpheme, not by being based in a smaller degree on distributional criteria, but by being based more consistently on distributional criteria. For this very reason, it corresponds more closely to a semantic unit. But it is not such a unit.

This is not to say that the sememe is a more fundamental unit than the morpheme. If the word is a well-defined unit in the system concerned, the morpheme is likely to be better-defined than the se­meme. For though the distributional proportions from which the morpheme (resp. «morphemic component» ) is concluded, are liable to be rough proportions, and the distributional proportions from which the sememe is concluded, are bound to be at least equally exact, and liable to be more exact, proportions, there is always the possib­ility of rendering sememic analysis more exact by extending the scope of the syntagms forming proportional distributions. And there is here no unit such as the word (at least beneath the total utterance) before which a limit of scope can readily be drawn; different sememic levels might be distinguished ad infinitum. Hence a gain in consistency is offset by the absence of a limit up to which the search for consistency must be pursued. The criteria of fundamentality here contradict each other. But the criterion of minimality is fulfilled in either case.

1o) Cf. e. g. E. Nida, A system for the description of semantic elements, Word

7, p. 7.

11

That the sememe is not a semantic unit follows from the fact that not all criteria have been relaxed in virtue of which the morpheme cannot be one. Two types of distribution still play their role: the free and the bound. Semantics is essentially a question of free distribu tion. Syntactically bound distribution is negatively relevant to meaning; since meaning presupposes a choice, every syntactic limitation implies zero-meaning. In those positions in which a past but not a present morpheme is possible, the morpheme is voided of whatever semantic role it may have in other positions, if the opposition is binary.

The pre-eminent role played by bound distribution in the de­termination of the morpheme is shown by the limitation whereby no analysis is undertaken of formationally indivisible units, except when they are in a relation of proportional bound distribution to other units over part of their range. No linguist wishes to analyse «glove» on the basis of the proportion «foot : shoe : hand : X)), and would not even if the free distribution were more precisely parallel than it is. This is legitimate reluctance. But it remains paradoxical that the semantic relation between «foot: feet = hand: hands» should be re­garded as better demonstrated by the bound distribution many feet) many hands) where the plural morpheme is necessarily voided of mean­ing, than by the parallel distributions in free position. That the free distributions are doubtless less perfectly parallel, is a good reason for preferring the analysis by means of bound distributions in the first place, but this does not in fact diTectly yield any semantic informa­tion at all . Similarly with the sememe.

However, this does not mean that there is a unit nearer to a se­mantic unit than the sememe. For the nearer we get to semantics, the further away we get from units) in any profitable sense. A stage is soon reached at which discrete analysis ceases to be adequate, and at which all form becomes blurred. The sememe is the optimum unit for semantic study so far (and it is not very far) as this can be held within the limits of structural linguistics.

II. DISTRffiUTIONAL RELATIONS

The distribution of a unit is the totality of its possible relations to other· units in speech .

In the case of the phoneme, distribution is usually taken as equivalent to the totali ty of relations of sequence between units, in­cluding the relation of simultaneity for the suprasegmental phonemes.

In the case of the morpheme the relations are purely functional, since a morpheme as such has no sequence. It is important to stress this, since morpheme- distribution is usually illustrated by examples in which the correlation between morph and morpheme is very close, so that it is tempting to identify the distribution of the morph, which occurs in sequences, with the di stribution of the morpheme, to which the notion of sequence is inapplicable.

While the notion of distribution is applicable to the morph, there is small profi t in applying it to the the morph as such. In speak­ing of the distribution of a morph, it will therefore always be un­derstood that the reference is to a morph in so far as this is correlated with a particular morpheme, fixed by the context.

Distributional relations, which by definition cannot hold between the parts of a segment (considered qua parts of a segment) are the basis of functional relations, which by defini tion can only hold between the parts of a (pseudo-) segment.

The functional relations of morphs are the basis of the functional relations of the morphemes wi th which they correlate. Hence the func­tions of morphemes are indirectly based on the distribution of morphs. It is only by an extension of meaning that a vocabulary literally appli­cable to morphs ( ((occurrence» , ((combination» etc . ) i s applied to the level of the morpheme.

A similar extension is not profitable with the term sequence, since

13

ei ther (i) the sequence of morphs is not distinctive, and hence loses interest at the morphemic level in the same way as the non-distinctive use of the morphs ; or (ii) the sequence serves to distinguish between otherwise homophonous morphs, thus playing the role of a marginal constituent of the morphs ; and i t would be abusive to say that the morpheme <<has this position in the sequencen in much the same way as it would be abusive to say that it «contains these phonemesn , or (iii) the sequence serves to distinguish bracketings (constituent layers) and its role comes under the heading of the immediate constituent; or (iv) its role is taxemic ( cf. under taxeme ) .

In the same ';vay it should not be said that the morpheme occurs in this or that word. Word-boundaries do not affect morphemic iden­tity (cf. e.g. Turkish omm ile = onun-la). The word belongs to the aspectual level of the morph, not 1.0 the aspectual level of the morph­eme.

For much the same reasons, such expressions as «localising a

morphemic component in a given morphn (p. 1 o) , though used for the purpose of argument, are str ictly inappropriate . The morpheme has no «situation>> within the overt sequence.

A. Relations of Accompaniment.

By their classification under distribu tional relations, relations of accompaniment .are shown to be understood as relations in the system, e .g . the relation of A to B such that if A occurs in whatsoever segment, B will also occur in the same segment. The relations of A to B in any given segment come under di fferent headings.

It would of course be possible to formulate all the facts of the system either in terms of the relations of accompaniment between units, or in terms of the relations of subs titution between units (though in ei ther case only if other relations are specified). A substitu­t ion-table might equally well be called an accompaniment-table.

But from this it does not follow that ·we need a whole set of terms tor s imple relations of accompaniment' in the same way as we need

1) For a set of such terms cf. L. Hjelmslev, Om Sprogteoriens Grundlaeggelse

p 37. (The relations under the heading lmrrelation here do not appear to answer to

our «relations of substitution». )

i4

a whole set of terms for simple relations of substitution. For whereas substitutional relations may be stated very often without limitations to a given pattern (e.g., A may always be substi tuted for B) , accom­panimental relations are usually unilluminating when stated in this form. The statement that A may combine with B is an empty one, until the precise conditions are given; and once the conditions have been given, the relation is no longer a simple one.

Obvious exceptions to the triviality of simple relations of accom­paniment suggest themselves : they are those which are usually cited. For instance, a consonant is invariably accompanied by a vowel (in a given system) . But this is an example of a different sort of triviali ty, for in the systems concerned every word (or every syllable) must con­ta�n a vowel , and need not contain a consonant. Once this has been st;tted, the relation of presupposition (consonant presupposes vowel) follows trivially : the fundamental relation holds between word (resp. syllable) and vowel, not between consonant and vowel .

The relation 'if A, then B ' , in the realm of accompaniment, covers too many different sorts of fact to be of any use by i tself. Either it i s general but trivial, or else i t is not general . It becomes applicable only with the restrictions indicated below.

In any case the term selection would seem to be adequate. The four possib ilities correspc>nd to the four simple relations of substitu­tion :

Accompaniment A selects B and B selects A A selects B but B does not select A A selects non-B (incompatibility) No selective relation

Substitution Identical distribution Inclusive »

Complementary »

Overlapping »

The term selection should only be used when the presupposition does not follow from a presupposition of containment (d. below) , plus another relation of containment (perhaps also a presupposition). If every syllable contains a vowel, while not every syllable contains a consonant, it will not be said that consonant selects vowel. But if not every syllable contains either a front vowel or a front consonant, and if every syllable containing a front vowel contains a front consonant, then a front vowel will be said to select a front consonant.

More generally, if the rules for the occurrence of a unit A can be formulated without reference to a unit B, B will not be said to select A. For instance, if the rules for the occurrence of verbs may be fully formulated without reference to adverbs, adverb will not be said to select verb. (Transitive verbs by definition select a noun; the distribution of nouns cannot be formulated without reference to this relation. )

Most often the relation of selection includes specification, not only of a segment-type within which the relation holds, but also of a relation within the segment (in the case of the phoneme most usually sequence).

The selection of A by A is known as congruence. (The tauto­logical triviality of the corresponding substitutional relation illustrates, if this were necessary, the futility of establishing a common termino­logy for the two types of relations.)

B. Relations of Substitution

(i) Identical distribution.

Two units are said to have identical distribution when no diffe­rences between their ranges of occurrence can be brought under some general rule, or connected with some principle.

The fact that (the cluster-lp occurs finally, whereas) the cluster -lf does not occur finally, might be subsumable under the very general rule that fricatives cannot occur in final position, under the fairly general rule that fricatives cannot occur in final clusters, or under the more special rule that fricatives cannot occur as second element of final clusters. The specific rule that final -lf does not occur would not be held a sufficient reason for stating that p and f have different distributions. However if pl occurred initially while fl did not, the still rather specific rule <<no word-terminal cluster of f and ln would probably be held to justify the statement that the two consonants have different distributions; and this would certainly be the case if there were some general connection between the clusters occurring initially and the reverse clusters occurring finally.

2) For a very full account of the criteria cf. E. Fischer-Jorgensen, Acta Lin­

guistica VII, esp. pp. 33-34.

A secondary consideration is that of frequency. For instance, if f were less frequent than p in all posit ions where both were found, and if p were very rare in those posi tions where f was not found, the non-occurrence of f in these posi tions might be regarded as «acciden­tal» .

However this consideration is annulled when a gap in distribution is phonetically plausible .

Observation: identical distribution or general commutability has been used as an argument against the sufficiency of formal (non-sub­stantial) definitions3• For wi th the distribution of two minimal units the same, it is evident that their formal definition must be the same. (The distributions of the phonemes k and p, in many languages may serve as an example) .

This argument is based on a confusion. A formal definition can claim no more than to be adequate qtta formal definition. It cannot claim to render other definitions superfluous ; and such definitions would be neit her more nor less superfluous if all distributional defi­ni tions uniquely defined a unit .

Two units may have the same formal definitions, and formally these definitions are adequate. This does not mean to say that, for­mally, there is only one unit . Formally there are two units, but with the same definition.

This may be shown by takin.:r, a system in which substantial de­finit ions are really irrelevant . This is the case with games, such as chess. The knight and the bishop have different formal definitions (in terms of their potential moves) . «Blackn and <tWhito> have the same

formal defini tions. But this neither means that one can describe a game of chess without taking the opposition of black and white into consi­deration, nor docs it mean that the substant ial definition (in terms of actual colours) is any more relevant than the substantial definition (in terms of actual shapes) where formal definitions uniquely define chessmen .

(ii) Permutational distribution .

Two units A and B may be so distributed that while A caimot be replaced by B, AB may be replaced by BA. This is the relation

s) Most recently by A. Martinet, Word 8, 387.

between strong and weak stress in most languages which have this phonemic distinction (but cf. p. 33).

(iii) Inclusive distribution.

In English, ai may occur in any positiOn where au may occur, whereas au cannot occur in some positions in which ai may occur (e.g. before labials) . Hence the distribution of ai includes the distribution of au.

Apart from the limitation indicated in (iv) , the distribution of voiceless stops in German, Turkish and Russian includes the distribu­tion of voiced stops (which cannot occur in word-final) .

When the two units s tanding in this relation are in minimal oppo­sition, the unit whose distribution includes that of the other is the unmarked member of the opposition.

(iv) Overlapping distribution.

1. Parallel distribution.

The distribution of voiceless and voiced stops in English is over­lapping, since the two classes of consonants are mutually exclusive in adjacent positions ; but there are no other restrictions, of a non-par­allel kind, to the occurrence of voiceless consonants in positions per­mitting voiced consonants, or vice-versa.

2 . Non-parallel but equipollent distribution.

The distribution of s and t in many languages (Latin, English) is restricted by the fact that only certain sequences are permitted (only st in Latin, or initially in English) , but the total range of occurrence is of roughly equal width in the two cases. Differences in aperture, of orali ty nasality etc . are often related in this way.

3·· Non-parallel non-equipollent distribution.

Examples may be found of all stages between inclusive distribu­tion and complementary distribution. The English phonemes r and l stand in this relation : the range of l is much wider than that of r (which never occurs before another consonant) , but r i s found in some positions in which l cannot occur (e .g. shrew trill).

A particular instance of non-parallel non-equipollent distribution may be described as quasi-permutational distribution . Two consonants

F. 2

separated by only one syllabic nucleus in Greek may not both contain the feac�ure of aspiration, hence when one of these consonants has the feature, the other consonant is not commutable with an aspirate, but only permutable with the first consonant. This difiers from (ii) in that there are positions in which non-aspirate is commutable with aspirate, and in that there are no posi tions in which aspirate is not commutable with non-aspirate under parallel conditions. (Rather si­milar relations hold between the two vocalic quantities in Slovak.)

(v) Exclusive distribution .

When the ranges of A and B are mutually exclusive, it is usual to speak of complementaTy distribution. However this term is best con­fined to the most important case of exclusive distribution, namely that where the units concerned are maximally similar in some respect. In practice it is already unusual to insist on the relation unless this (at least prospectively) holds.

Wi th allophones the maximal similarity of the units in relation of exclusive distribution is intrinsic (phonic similarity), with the so­called allomorphs extrinsic (distributional s imilarity, except in respect of the environmental factors which determine the exclusive relation) .

The word intTinsic should not mislead here. Evidently a phone­mic feature may be perceptible as such only in relation to the envir­onment. But an environmental factor, which is intrinsic to the seg­ment, is not a d istributional factor . The distinction between focus and environment has nothing to do with the distinction between intrinsic identity and distribution.

It is also of course not to be denied that distribution plays a

certain role in the actual identification of the features . I ntrinsic ident­i ty may play a similar role in the identification of morphemes. But these roles are subsumable under the ubiquitous head ing of pattern-pressure.

Hence the term allomorph, which suggests the spurious parallel with allophone, should be abandoned . Distribution is only a clue to identification in the case of the phoneme, whereas it is the identifi­catory principle i tself in the case of the morpheme.

Exclusive distribution is the common relation between morph­eme-classes. (Basic, affixal and inflectional morphemes are usually in exclusive distribution by definition, though there is no theoretical

19

reason why this should be so. The definition derives from the fact that overlapping is rare in most systems.)

When two classes of base (e .g . noun and verb in Turkish) are in exclusive distribution, while the stem-morphemes in either class are more similar than those of any class in exclusive relation with either of these classes, the two base-classes may be said to be in complemen­tary distribution. (This is a particular case of the complementary distribution of constructions.)

Observation : Complementary distribution of constructions.

(i) Constructions containing the same morphemes.

An instance would be the type of German ihn shickt I schickt ihn. In such cases i t would not be misleading to speak of the variants of a single construction.

(ii) Constructions not containing the same morphemes.

An instance would be the Latin subject plus finite and accusative plus infinitive constructions. In this case it would be misleading to speak of variants of a single construction, though the distinction is irrelevant on the sememic level .

A rather different case is the complementari ty of the Turkish types adam gelir (only final) I adamzn geldigi (only non-final) , for the latter shows the same pattern as (while at the same time containing a different pattern from) the type adamzn evi, which is not in a re­lation of conversion to any type occurring finally . But here again the distinction is irrelevant on the sememic level .

It is only when there are relations of conversion between con­structions that complementary distribution is non-trivial.

The criteria for marked and unmarked in the case of construc­tions are similar to those applied in the case of .morphemes; e.g. the accusative-with-infinitive construction is marked as against the sub­ject-with-finite construction since only the latter may occur as an utterance . But derivational cri teria play a larger role in the case of constructions, less often contradicting the other criteria. For instance the Latin marked construction here can be uniquely derived from the unmarked in every case, while the reverse does not hold (tense -distinctions being more numerous in the marked construction) . The

same is true of the Turkish example. The reverse relation occurs, but is far less common than with morphemic formatives.

The derivational process constitutes a sememic formative (cf. below) .

Observation .2: Strictly speaking permutational distribution is also a form of complementary distribution, with the peculiarity that the environment in terms of which the occurrence of one unit may be predicted, consists of th� other unit. But since the term comple­mentary is associated with non-distinctiveness it is never in fact used for this case.

Permutation may be confined to relevant transposal, just as com­mutation is confined to relevant substitution.

Note: Neutralisation

The most typical instances of neutralisation fulfill the following conditions :

(i) Inclusive distribution (as between two members of an oppo­sition) .

(ii) A single feature shared by the including and the included member.

(iii) The distributional positions from which one member is excluded, allow that member which from other standpoints also may be regarded as <mnmarkedn (d. p . .28) .

(iv) Morphological emergence of the excluded member in allow­able positions.

All these conditions obtain for the neutralisation of the voice­opposition with final occlusive consonants in Turkish, German and Russian ( cf. German Bund Bunde as against bunt bunte ).

One of these conditions may be lacking :

(i) The distribution may not be inclusive, but rather overlapping.

English has the clusters -sp zb but not the clusters sb or zp. (s emerges as z in allowed positions, cf.jnju : z f , f nju : speipa f .) If voice

.21

is regarded as a feature of the cluster and not of its parts, the non­occurrence of the absent clusters follows automatically. But the re­semblance to neutralisation still remains marked.

English k to the exclusion of t in initial cluster with following l fulfills this condition and cannot be disposed of in the same way, though the relation between k and t is one of overlapping. However the other conditions are not fulfilled.

(ii) Neither r nor h can occur before a consonant in English. The other consonant sharing a feature with r, namely l, can occur in this position. This may be described as «non-trivial defective distribution» . Its total dissimilarity to neutralisation derives however partly from the failure to fulfill other conditions.

(iii) This condition was also unfulfilled in the case (i), though the fulfillment of the second and fourth conditions sufficed to maintain the resemblance to normal neutralisation. Examples in which only this condition is unfulfilled are probably very rare.

(iv) often remains unfulfilled in absence of conditions in which it could have been fulfilled. In Greek, the opposi tion mjn is neutral­ised in word-final position, but there are no morphemes in final -m

which also appear in word-final .

All cases of neutralisation (including the marginal types) are discounted at the level of the morph : e .g. German Bund (phonetically bunt) is the same morph as that in Bund-es. Differences between such forms come under the heading of morphophonemics. This term is an inappropriate one, since it suggests that it is a question of phone­mic alternations within morphs ; whereas in fact the conditions of va­riation are disposed of entirely on the phonemic level.

I t would be more appropriate that the terms should be confined to alternations which are not entirely automatic, and yet cover so wide a range, and are so similar to (or bound up with) automatic alterna­tions in other respects, that they cannot be regarded as belonging to morphology proper. Turkish vowel-congruence is a case of this sort . With very few exceptions, all productive bound morphs are subject to congruence-alternations ; and though the few exceptions (which do not for the rest affect the complete range of congruential formulae) prevent the treatment of the alternations on the purely phonemic level, they are not sufficient to entail treatment on the level of the morph

(on a par, for instance, with the non-congruential alternation of high and low vowel in the aorist) .

The term has also more recently been used for the study of morph-structure proper• . This seems as unfortunate as the first use, since the old term morphology (which is hardly any longer used in opposition to lexical study) will serve perfectly well .

Alternations of the so-called morphophonemic type may apply to relations as well as to terms. The relation of sequence may for ins­tance be irrelevant at the morphological level. This is most strikingly illustrated in Zoque\ where the impermissibility of many sequences of consonants leads to a non-phonemic transposition of phoneme-order in the event of suffixation (e. g. kumyl\y «seven days hence» for kuy­' seven' plus -ml\y 'days hence' ) , in numerous cases. Examples in Euro­pean languages are isolated.

In neutralisation of the nuclear type one may distinguish between those cases in which the feature appearing in the position of neutrali­sation is identifiable with a definite phonemic feature from the phon­etic standpoint, and those in which it is intermediate beween two features or oscillates between them (e. g. final aspirate and non­aspirate stops i n Danish) . An instance of intermediacy would be the unstressed i (e) and u (o) of early Norse (with a temporal graphic oscillation) . The equivalent for sequence would be the simultaneity of the phonetic features of two distinct phonemes, in the position of neutralisation of sequence-opposition .

C. Relations of Containment.

Relations of containment are such as apply between units on different levels, for instance between syllable and vowel, such that every syllable requires (or does not require) a vowel .

By this criterion one may often distinguish between central and marginal elements of units (e.g. a central vowel and a marginal con­sonant) . But this distinction as such belongs to the functional relations.

•)' Cf. e. g. S. E. Martin, Morphophonemics of Standard Colloquial Japanese,

Language Dissertation No. 47, passim.

s ) · Cf. W. J. Wonderly, Zoque, IJAL 1951-52.

Note: Pamdigmat ics and Syntagmatics

I t is common to contrast paradigmatic relations (i . e. substitutional relations) with syntagmatic relations. The latter are not understood as the relations of accompaniment above, but as the segmental rela­tions below. Thus it is said that in the sequence sit, s, i, t are in syn­tagmatic relation6 (a relation < < in praesentia» ), wherea.s s is in paradig­matic relation with f h n p etc . , which can significantly be substituted.

These two relations are said to contrast as a «both-and» relation and an «ei ther-or» relation. But this comparison with the «conjunc­tion» and «exclusive disjunction>> of logic is spurious. There is no direct contrast between the presence of two units in a sequence, and the possibility of their substitution. These are facts which belong to quite different levels, and they cannot be made to appear on the same level by saying that in the former case we have two units «before us» (both A and B), and in the latter case one of two units «before us» (either A or B). For what we have «before us» in the latter case is quite simply a given unit, not a choice between two units. Or in other words we do not have «either A or B» in the sense that we have «both A and B» ; we either have A or we have B, and that is quite a different matter.

However, though there is no logical opposition between paradig­matic and syntagmatic relations, a comparison between them is perhaps less unprofitable than between any other sets of relations. It is legitimate to contrast the paradigmatic marginality of two phon­emes whose phonetic distinction is slight and may tend to be blurred, with the syntagmatic marginal i ty of two phonemes in juxtaposition whose boundaries are more than usually indistinct. (Historically, either case is likely to lead to one phoneme where there were pre­viously two; though the paradigmatic fusion will decrease the phon­eme-inventory while the syntagmatic fusion will probably increase it . )

The two terms are useful since they may immediately serve to distinguish otherwise similar statements. The question «is there a distinct u: -phoneme in English?» may be taken to refer either to the question whether long and short u are distinct phonemes (their func­tional opposition is slight) or to the question whether the long vowel

s) Cf. L. Hjelmslev, op. cit. p. 34.

is to be split up into two short vowels. The former is a paradigmatic question, the latter a syntagmatic question.

It may be that there is anyway no serious possibility of misunder­standing here. But examples may be found where misunderstanding is possible and has in fact occurred. For instance a linguist asserts that there is no one-one correspondence between morpheme and sememe, and is met with the answer that nobody supposed tjlat there was : a morpheme may represent a bundle of sememes, a whole set of se­mantically distinctive features (d. the appendix on morphemic com­ponents) . But this was not what was meant : the meaning was that there is no one-one correspondence of morpheme and sememe syntag­matically, which is not to say that the morpheme cannot answer to se­veral sememes (which nobody who uses the term would deny), but to say that i t does not answer to any discrete set of sememes at all (which has been denied) . In other words it may be impossible to distinguish the sememes of one morpheme from those of a neighbour­ing morpheme (a syntagmatic fusion) as well as impossible to separate the sememes from one another in terms of correspondence to mutually substitutable morphemes, each identifiable with a morph in some occurrences at least (a paradigmatic fusion) .

By a similar confusion it may be asserted that all phonemic features are relational, not only e.g. the feature of stress, but also the feature of vowel-aperture. (The u of one speaker may be phonetically similar to the o of another, providing that the o of the second is more similar to a in phonetic rendition.) The relation in the case of stress is syntagmatic, in the case of vowel-aperture paradigmatic.

D. Relations of Conversion.

The frequency with which two morphemes are found together in any constructional pattern is trivial if this frequency can be accounted for (i) by the theoretical possibility of the occurrence of the morphemes in given positions in the pattern and (ii) the frequ­encies of occurrence of the morphemes independently of any given patterns. When however the frequency of co-occurrence is much greater in several patterns than may be accounted for in either or both of these ways, the patterns concerned are said to stand in a relation of conversion .

The morphemes man and eat occur together frequently in the patterns ' subj . plus verb ' and 'past participle - - by - - noun' , but not in the pattern 'verb plus object ' , where however their occurrence is theoretically permissible (and not unknown) . And similarly with many other pairs of morphemes. Hence the former two constructions are said to stand in a relation of conversion, while neither stands in a relation of conversion to the third.

Relations of conversion between patterns are the basis of con­slructional derivation (cf. p. 1 9) and of the relation of attachment (cf. below) . The relation of attachment stands to conversion as the relations of ordination stand to substitution.

The relation of conversion is not a distributional relation between constructions, nor a distributional relation between morphemes, but a relation between constructions in respect of the frequency-distri­bution of the morphemes which enter into them. It does not therefore stand on the same level as the relations of accompaniment or substi­tution . The same is true for a different reason of the relation of containment. These are however both relations between units in the system (as opposed to functional relations), both depend directly on distribution (as opposed to overt relations) , and neither (unlike also aspectual relations) are inclusive, i .e . hierarchical . Their more direct relation to the distributional relations proper has led to their being both classified under this heading.

ill. INCLUSIVE RELATIONS

A. Relations between members of a distributional class.

When units are classed together simply by reason of their distri­bution, as is the case with morphemes, nothing more remains to be stated about their relations, except the details of distribution (inclusive, parallel, identical etc.) and the correlations with other levels. But when substantial considerations have also played a part, as in the case of the phonemes, there remains the question of adjustment of the substantial to the formal, within the limits of feasibility.

Given two phonemes A and B, with a prima facie substantial relation. The interpretation of this relation will be decisive for the formal analysis of the phonemes in question.

If the two phonemes are identically distributed, all differentiatory features are likely to be regarded as equipollent.

If the relation is inclusive, a feature of one phoneme will prob­ably be regarded as formally zero.

If there is a third phoneme C, substantially intermediary, then it will be likely to be interpreted so that at least one feature is re­garded

(i) as complex, if its distribution is notably nar.ower than that of either A or B .

(ii) as purely intermediary, i f i ts distribution is similar to that of A and B.

The relation between two phonemes one of which has zero where the other has a positive feature, is called privative.

A privative opposition is sometimes said to be one between the presence and the absence of a feature. Strictly speaking this is a con-

fusion of two standpoints : phonemes can be in privative opposition, i . e . one has zero where the other has a positive feature, but the presence and absence of a feature do not make an opposition. (Pre­sence and absence are opposites, and one feature and another may be opposites ; by extension, units ·with and without a feature may be said to stand in opposition . But to speak of the presence and absence of the feature as such, in terms of opposition, is to stretch the sense of the word rather grossly. )

Nevertheless i t is in accordance wi th tradition to talk of a pri­vative opposition between features when one of these might have been regarded as the absence of a feature. Thi s tradition i s kept below.

The so-called gradual oppositions are simply oppositions with an intermediary term, and are not to be opposed to other types ; for the extreme terms of such oppositi ons may or may not be equipollent.

The types of opposi tion above have a binary basis, however many members they may contain. Opposi tions with a ternary basis are also possible , as those of any other degree.

The various types of opposition are listed below. Though com­mutaticn with zero does not strictly speaking differentiate a type of opposition, commutation ·with zero is indicated by 0. Zero-term, as distinct from zero, is indicated by Z. C = cornplex, I = intermediary term.

(i) AB

Although this is the type of opposition par excellence, it is relat­ively rare in linguistic systems. Of two potentially opposed features, one is usually of notably greater frequency than the other, and this feature may usually, in absence of a prima facie zero in relation of commutation, be itself susceptible (in harmony with the substantial rendering) of zero-interpretation .

In phonemics, the opposition of front and back with vowels, in triangular systems, may often plausibly be regarded as an instance of equipollence. Among consonantal oppositions, that of r 11 where no further feature-divisibility is plausible, may generally be regarded as equipollent .

(ii) AZ

This is the most frequent type of opposition in phonemics ; e.g. nasal I oral, voiced I voiceless, aspirate I non-aspirate.

(iii) AO

All examples of (ii) could by definition have been treated in this way. Among the reasons for not posing 0 is precisely the fact that there is only a commutation between two potential features. It is only when the commutable units are numerous, or do not enter into direct oppositions from the substantial side, that prima facie zero is conven­tionally treated as such. Overwhelmingly greater frequency would also be an argument for zero-treatment1•

(iv) ABZ (or ABO) A plausible phonemic example would be the opposition aspirate/

voiced/ unvoiced-unaspirate in the classical Greek consonantal system.

(v) ABC The German phoneme-series t j s j ts and pj fjpf illustrate this

type. Phonetically the series of front unrounded, back, front rounded

is fitted to take this form from the articulatory standpoint, whereas from the acoustic standpoint it rather fitted to take the form ABI. Rarely, as in Finnish, the distributional facts favour ZAC .

(vi) ABI The vertical vowel-oppositions are usually of this type, at least

in quadrangular systems.

(vii) AZC An example is given above from Finnish . Though there may be

a stronger temptation to pose an epipollent opposition when there is a complex term, there is no bar to this type in theory, and it could often plausibly serve instead of ABC .

(viii) ABD A plausible ternary opposition is often formed by the series of

consonant-articulations in depth. In contrast with the interpretation ABI, this interpretation is not directly opposed to the acoustic facts, though these would also be susceptible of an interpretation in two dimensions.

The dental series is often marginal as between B and Z, the distri­bution favouring B and the frequency favouring Z.

1 ) Danish «non-aspiration» is treated as zero when contrasted with phonemes

(Aar : Haar) and as a feature when contrasted with features (Daa : Taa) . (A. Mar­

tinet)

(ix) ABD . . . N

Multiple oppositions, rare or unknown in the signans, are normal in the sigm.tum. Distributional criteria seldom provide grounds here for a narrower structuralisation. (When this is possible, as with the numerals, the structure shows no analogy to that of the common types above. )

Note: Subsidiary criteria for privative opposit ions.

Besides the primary criterion of wider distribution, other associa­ted criteria play a role in the distinction of unmarked from marked unit. The most obvious is that of frequency. It i s natural that units with wider distribution should normally be more frequent (both in the inventory and in texts) than those with narrower distribution, but there is often a considerable difference in frequency despite a similarity of range. For instance voiced consonants may be far less frequent than voiceless even where (as in French) there is no position of neutralisation.

In the signans, there may often be some prima facie phonetic ground for taking one of the units as marked (e.g. the additional chamber of resonance in the case of nasals as against orals) . The nearest equivalent in the signatum is the assumption that roughly equivalent (mutually translatable) pairs of units in different lan­guages are likely to show the same privative relations. (E.g. the equi­valents of young, small, shallow are likely to be rarer than the equivalents of old, b ig, deep in the equivalents of such combinations as «how . . . . ?» , when there are equivalents) .

In most cases there is a relation between the structure of morphs and the frequency of the morphemes with which they are associated. In the Latin sin�ular there is no morph containing three phonemes, as is found in the plural (-bus), similar relations of length hold in many European languages between these two categories and others in the same frequency-relation (indicative/ subjunctive etc . ) . In Turkish <<Unmarked inflectional units» are almost invariably with zero-morph (exception : the < <timeless» form of the verb has positive morphs) . The structure of Turkish is here probably the most usual in the languages of the world; the other extreme, represented by IE and Semitic languages, is certainly less typical .

9. 0 , I

Marked categories arc generally associated with a relatively small number of morphs (syncretism), whenever there is a difference in this respect. Cf. e.g. the relatively great number of morphs for singular as against plural, for indicative as against subjunctive, for present as agai nst past in many IE dialects (the Old English verbal system may serve as a class ical example, the French verbal system as a singular exception) .

A cri terion which far more often contradicts the others is that of derivation. The morphs associated with a (by other criteria) marked unit may more frequently be derived unambiguously from those associated with an unmarked unit than vice-versa. However exceptions are very common; the most notorious example is . that of the French feminine adjective, which serves as basis for the derivation of mas­culines by excision of the final consonant. Such exceptions can some­times plausibly be avoided by morphonemic manipulations; but the res!due is still large. A far simpler set of rules can be given for deriv­ing the present in English from the past than vice-versa .

A not uncommon situation is the presence of a single morph for all marked units in some category. In English verbs of the type put, marked tense, person, number, and (where surviving) mood are all zero-terminative, the completely unmarked 3rd. sing pres. incl. alone having a positive termination ; In Middle English adjectives the plural and definite are alike marked by the termination -e, only the indefinite singular being uncharacterisecl. (Since the latter may or may not al­ready terminate in -e, the marked forms are derivable from the un­marked but not vice-versa) .

Observation 1 : For morfJh in this note read morph or formative throughout. (Formative = base or formation, cf. above p. g and below.)

Observation 2 : In the case of phonemic opposi tions, the most striking case of a contradiction between the criteria of freedom of distribution and frequency would be the opposition of stress and unstress, if these are taken as features . Stress normally has the greater freedom of distribution, alone being able to characlerise a segment constituting an entire utterance ; and at the same time a lower frequen­cy, being limi ted to one occurrence in a worcl-se:sment (e.g. Russian and modern Greek) . But once one operates with relations rather than with suprasegmental features this contradict ion is no longer striking.

B. Overt Relations (Relations between the parts of a segment) .

Overt relations are constituent features of utterances i n the same right as the terms related. There are three main types.

Asymmetric relation with equipollent orientation : sequence Asymmetric relation with privative orientation : prommence Symmetric relation : juncture

Substantially, sequence is normally represented by temporal suc-cession, prominence by stress or pi tch, and juncture by pause or syllabic thrust (or their absence) .

Substantial pitch does not come formally under the relations in systems in which each unit has i ts pitch independently of other units in the segment. Even when relational, it does not come under the formal heading of prominence when «higher-pitched than» is equi­pollently opposed to «lower-pi tched than» , in the way that «before» is equipollently opposed to <<after» . The latter case is perhaps un­known, but the former defines the so-called << tone-languages» .

The opposition of close and open juncture may theoretically be either commutational or permutational ; only the former case appears to have certain examples.

Different degrees of juncture might be regarded as «degrees of sequence>> between adjacent terms, thus answering to the <<degrees of prominence>> when several are possible . (But when the latter is the case, as with stress in English, two degrees are normally commutable, i .e . the degree of prominence is partially independent of the degrees of prominence of other units in the segment. The feature is then a borderline-case between a relational and a non-relational feature. )

Observation 1 : the test of equipollence versus privative relation­ship is behaviour in zero-environment. Substantially, a unit is both before and after zero in a zero-environment, but more prominent than a zero-environment ; hence the former relation has equipollent, the latter privative orientation. But the form need not answer to the substance : i t is empirically true that a syllable in zero-environment normally has the characteristics of a stressed syllable (e.g. vowels which appear in zero-environment in English are always vowels which could be stressed in a positive environment) , hence this might not always hold .

In the case of pitch, there is no substantial character of prom­inence in the relation, for it makes no sense to say that a segment has higher or lower pitch than its environment when this environment is zero. And since pitch less often affects the other characteristics of a segment than stress does, the principal criterion here becomes the possibility of only one occurrence of a given pitch-relation within the segment, to all other units in the segment . (If only one syllable can have the relation ((higher-pitched than» to all other syllables in the word-segment, then high pitch is formally prominence.)

The juncture-opposition i s a privative opposition, since a unit in zero-environment has by definition open juncture at both rims.

Observation 2 : There is both a formal and an actual relation between subordination and (non-) prominence on the one hand, and between cohesion and juncture on the other. Whereas sequence has no counterpart among the functional relations, the nearest to such a counterpart being interordination.

Observation 3 : There not infrequently occurs a situation which may be classified under the heading «marginality between prominence and permutational juncture» .

For instance in I talian, there are found the phonetic combinations a : ta and atta, but not a: t ta or ata . This may be interpreted as a rela­tiOn of prominence between vowel and consonant, length representing prominence. Then in the first type a : t will be interpreted as a>t, and in the second type att as a<t . (If there were a third possibility at, this would be interpreted as a = t. With all four possibilities, an inter­pretation in terms of prominence would of course not be feasible.)

But i t would also be possible to say that a: ta shows open juncture of first vowel and consonant, and close juncture of consonant and . second vowel; while atta shows closed juncture of first vowel and consonant, and open juncture of consonant and second vowel, in other words the second half of the duration of long vowel or consonant would be interpreted as representing open juncture. (Open juncture could not of course be given this meaning except within the limits of a word-form.)

This interpretation is particularly plausible where, as in many Germanic languages, the quantitative opposition is neutralised in word-final . Since the juncture would be between a vowel and the following consonant, this neutralisation would be automatic where

3 3

there was no following consonant, and n o specific statement of neutrali­sation would be needed. But where the opposition is kept in final position (e.g. in ancient Greek) junctura! relations between vowel and zero would have to be posed : a highly artificial interpretation. (It would be equally artificial to treat voice as a junctural ralation between consonant and vowel , for the reason merely that it could not characterise a final cluster in the system.)

C. Functional Relations

( Relations betv;rcen the factors of a pseudo-segment) .

The minimal units with which functional analvsis has normally tCJ operate are morphemes (including the so-called morphemic com­ponents) .

For the morpheme as distributional factor cf. be}ow. For the way in which part of the terminology properly applicable to segments, is transferred to nonseg-mental units, cf. above (p. 1 2 ) .

When feasible, the morpheme i s named after a n associated morph . Morphs not associated with any distributional factor (e.g. the proper names) are used as variant names of the same factor, according to which morph happens to occur in the utterance in question.

All factors (the morphemes themselves and polymorphemic fac­tors) are by definition immediate constituents. A word need not be the name of an immediate consti tuen t ; but for easier quotability examples are sought in which it is .

(i) Ordination

(a) Subordination . In a binary syntagm AB, A is subordinate to B if the overall environmental range of the syntagm is similar to the environmental range of B but not of A.

In pam· man> poor is subordinate to man} s ince man can occur in all environments in which the whole syntagm can occur (e.g. the (poor) man is . . . , . . . saw (poor) man in . . . ) whereas poor cannot occur alone in many such environments.

(b) Co-ordination . In a syntagm AB, A and B <�re co-ordinate if the overall environmental ranges of both A and B are similar to that of the syntagm.

F. 3

34

In poor old (man), poor and old are co-ordinate, since either word may singly occur in those environments in which both may occur .

(c) Inter-ordination. In a binary syntagm AB, A and B are inter­ordinate if neither A nor B can occur independently in the same en­vironment.

In by men ( . . . was killed by men . . . ) by and men are interordinate, since neither word can be omitted.

Marginal cases.

(a) In the pooT (prefer . . . ) neither word can be omitted. At the same time, in the vast majority of environments, poor would be essential, while the often would not ; it may thence be said that the is partially subordinate ; partially interordinate.

(b) In boy friend) either word may be omitted in all environ­ments. But whereas the other words which might be substi tuted here for boy are mostly such as must be regarded as subordinate, most of those which might be substituted for friend are not. It may be said that boy is partially subordinate, partially coordinate.

(c) In a group such as rich and poor) rich poor is taken to be a

coordinative constituent on the analogy of simpler coordinative g-roups; the relation of and to this constituent is interordinational, in the sense that neither part of the whole group could be omitted; but there remains the fact that either of the coordinated adjectives could have the same environments as this whole group. One may therefore say that the adjectives are quasi-coordinate, and that the conjunction is quasi-subordinate to the pair of adjectives.

Note : trinary co-ordinational syntagms are not uncommon, and have no features otherwise distinguishing them from the binary syn­tagms. Co-ordination is a simple symmetrical relaticn. The complex symmetrical relation of inter-ordination and the asymmetrical relation of subordination are less favourable to trinary synta�ms.

Observation : The sub ject-predicate construction.

The subject-predicate construction in that large number (ma­jority?) of langua�es in which «the subject may be understood>> is a

borderline case between sub- and inter-ordination. At first sight there i1- a gulf between the system of Latin and that of English, so that

35

one might attribute the obstinate «feelin:sn that the Latin construction is not purely subordinational to the influence of West-European speech-habits. However it would be untrue to place the «subject» in Latin on the same level as other subordinates .

(i) The normal subject-predicate syntagm stands in a relation of complementary distribution to the accusative-and-infinitive syntagm, yet the latter, unlike the former, does not stand in a relation of free variation with a syntagm wi thout nominal element.

(ii) The variation between «expressed» and «unexpressedn subject cannot be described as entirely free. Even from the purely distri­butional standpoint limitations are apparent if (a) units larger than the utterance are taken into consideration and (b) frequency is treated as relevant.

(iii) There is a class of verb-bases standing in a relation of quasi­incompatibility to nominative nouns in two-word utterances (namely the c c impersonalsn ) . This relation is similar to that of some intransitive verbs to the accusative. There are corresponding analogies between c c transitiven and c cpersonaln . No such analogies are to be found among the clear cases of subordination (adverbial complement etc . )

(iv) Semantically, with personal verbs, the expression of subject i � always potential in a stronger sense than that of normal subordinates, i .e . the listener maintains the righ t to c cdemandn the expression of subject in a further utterance. (Cf. the distributi onal fact of con­gruence) .

None of these facts need weigh too heavily by i tself. Even taken to-:-ether, they may be outweighed

-by some clear and striking feature

of the g-eneral system ; for example in Turkish , where the system of vvorrl-order is based on the principle of ccprior subordinate» (subject preceding predicate) . But in absence of such contrary evidence, the bo!-derline status of the predicative syntagm in confirmed .

(ii) Cohesion

The cohesion between two units depends on the frequency with whtch they are commutable with a single unit . The members of a

compound are by definition in close cohesion ; subordinational syn­t.agms have relatively close cohes ion of ICs, since by definition the whole syntagm may be replaced by the superordinate member alone ;

however the reverse process may not always be possible. The standard example of loose cohesion is afforded by the subject-predicate syntagm (m the English language-type) which, except when it constitutes the whole utterance, is seldom replaceable by any single morpheme.

The units forming a constituent A within a constituent B need not necessarily be in closer cohesion than the units within the consti­tuent B. In if he came, there is closer cohesion between if and he came than between he and came.

Derivationals are by definition in close cohesion, inflections by definition in loose cohesion, with the other member of their consti­tuent.

(iii) Adhesion

A unit is in close adhesion to another if no simple unit can be intercalated between them. It is in relatively close adhesion if few simple units, or no units of small complexity, can be intercalated.

Adhesion is not a purely functional relation, since it depends on the overt relation of sequence, while not of course itself being an overt relation. It is mentioned here simply because of the importance this cri terion plays in determining word-boundaries2• However the stipul­ation that the intercalated unit must be relatively simple in order to break close adhesion is usually left unmentioned, though evidently, provided enough units may be inserted , any two units would be susceptible of having a segment «intercalated between them» .

(iv) Attachment

It is generally agreed that there is something in common between the relations of red and house in the groups «the red house» , «the house is red» , «he painted the house red» . Since the relation has never given a distributional defini tion, it might be (and has been) suspec­ted that this relation is purely «semantic» 3 • I ndeed, only in the first group are the morphemes members of the same constituent ; in the second this is obviously not so, while in the third the analysis paint

2 ) For the importance of this criterion for the word, cf. A. Martinet, Actes

du sixieme congres international.

3 ) Cf. de Groot, Structurele Syntaxis p. 255.

37

red / the house should impose itself. Nor is the case similar to that of red and house in « the red Danish house» , in which red and house do not make a constituent, but where they would form a constituent by removal of a subordinate constituent on a lower stage of incapsu­lation. (This may be expressed by saying that, in red Danish house r-ed is « indirectly subordinate)) to house).

In traditional grammer, red «qualifies» house in each example. The relation of agreement in the classical languages served to stress the notion of a common relation here, but certainly did not create it . The «semantic relation» , as always, has its distributional basis.

Firstly, morphemes of the class red are normally subordinate to morphemes of the class house when they are partners in the same constituent. Secondly, when morphemes of these two classes occur (but not as partners) in a constituent containing no other members of either class, they will frequently be morphemes which are frequently partners in a constituent, rarely be morphemes which are rarely part­ners in a constituent, and never morphemes which are never partners in a constituent. In other words the frequency of house red will be to the frequency of red house as the frequency of house good is to the frequency of good house.

Once certain pattern - analogies have led to some extension of this nuclear type, the relation should answer to the intuitive «attach­ment4 . ))

D. Relations between the aspects of a theme.

Aspect-theme relations arise from the superpositiOn of two or more domains, from which units are abstracted which may be treated quasi-independently of the separate domains.

For instance, having posited a one-one relation between acoustic and articulatory features (with the adaptations involved when there is no prima facie correspondence) , we can then disengage a unit, the phoneme, which may be treated either from the accoustic standpoint, or from the articulatory standpoint, or without ref�rence to either standpoint (e.g. in the recording of distributional range) .

4 ) The term is used for instance by D. L. Bolinger, while other American

structuralists have been little concerned with the relation.

In this example there is a natural, though not necessarily com­plete, correlation between two domains which in theory can be charted independently. Here one may speak of genuine aspect-theme relations. The acoustic and articulatory property-complexes are «genuine» aspects of the phonemes.

In other cases one at least of the domains cannot be charted at all as a domain in its own right, but can only be disengaged through correlations with the other domain . For instance no study of «meaning>> can be undertaken independently of symbols (arbitrary expressive complexes) . A meaning is the potential free behaviour of a sign. Expression (signans) and content (signatum) may be called pseudo-aspects of the sign.

Different aspects of a theme need not be isomorphous. Hence in turning from one aspect of the theme to another, one is liable to find that the theme i tself changes, in respect of its scope. The essential unity of the theme consists in an overall correspondence between the aspects ; to insist on complete correspondence would be to rob the notion of theme of its value. That it has a value is presupposed by all discussions on linguistic definitions ; so far as two definitions are not equivalent (differentiated merely by their verbal expression) they need not have the same range ; but these definitions are always sought for a given theme (phoneme, morpheme, word etc .) which has no precise range before the definition is given. If a difference of range were by definition a sufficient criterion of a different theme, such researches would have no object.

Take for instance the «feature-analysis» of the phoneme. The phoneme is to be split into its component parts. Is it more profitable to undertake an acoustic analysis, or an articulatory analysis?

The question would have been answered in advance, if the phoneme were already recongnised either as an acoustic unit or as an articulatory unit. But in fact it was a theme with these two aspects (and others) . It could not be assumed that the two aspects coincided; for the logical necessity of coincidence is clearly no more valid at one stage than another.

But let it be supposed that the two aspects coincided (were isomorphous) in fact. It remains that one of these aspects has to be chosen for subsequent analysis. If then the acoustic aspect is chosen,

39

this does not imply that one is analysing an acoustic unit . Of course the linguist, having decided that only acoustic feature-analysis is prof­itable, may then go back on his traces and define the phoneme without recourse to articulatory criteria. But this is not the phoneme that he was analysing. He was analysing a unit with several (perhaps contradictory) aspects, and has now chosen one of them.

Any aspect may be split off from its theme and be regarded as an independent though correlated level. The splitting off of the aspects «grapheme» and «phoneme» from the single theme littera is an early example.

IV. THE PHONEME

Most presentations of phonemic principles still tend to give the impression that there are two dominant criteria : (i) the criterion of communicative relevance with its correlate of non-redundancy (non­complementary distribution), and (ii) sequence. The former criterion decides whether a feature is phonemic at all, while the latter decides (if the first ans·wer is positive) whether the featme is a part of this or that phoneme, or perhaps a phoneme by itself. The other criteria appear as important accessories, but do not «make part of the defini­tion» . This impression is often left even when there is no primary definition, but simply a set of operations to be performed on texts.

The actual practice' of phonemicists however hardly confirms that these criteria have any special status. It is rather a question of finding a set of units having a certain interior unity (non-discreteness) and a certain exterior discreteness, of approximately the same degree for each such unit . There is no objection to taking two not relevantly opposed complexes as different phonemes when they fulfill the cri­terion of discreteness in several other respects, nor any objection to taking simultaneous complexes as separate phonemes in similar condi­tions. After this has been clone, the units are described as relevant or non-simultaneous respectively, simply because this is part of the de­finition. There are however likely to be hesitations . One would scarcely say that a phoneme A was in distinctive opposition to all other phonemes if no example could be cited of this opposition in some cases, though «distinctive» is really an empty term if it only means «opposed to some other units» (this being true even of alloph­ones) ; while one would probably say without any qualms that two phonemes were successive even if the phones in question were perfectly simultaneous. The difference is simply that the contradiction would appear within the system in the first case, while it remains outside it in the second. This however is accidental ; it is due merely

1) Hence mainly practical accounts, such as K.L. Pil{e's Phonemics, may be better

guides than theoretically orientated treatments.

to the fact that linguists would be averse to postulating imaginary words to cover up a missing opposition, though they are not averse to postulating imaginary sequences .

Apart from the all-pervasive criterion of pattern, the chief criteria may be classified as follows :

(i) Communicative relevance.

I t is taken as a primary criterion that the phoneme must be functionally discrete, i .e . that i t must be opposed to other phonemes by virtue of making a part of «messages» which would be different if any other phoneme were substituted. Any residue of «phonemes» which do not conform to this criterion is liable to be suspect ; the units in question may be identi fied as mere variants of of a. single phoneme. However this criterion is not allowed to outweigh others. In most languages many vowels are incommutable with many con­sonants. In some languages few consonants can occur in syllabic-final position, whereas most vowels can only occur in this position (e.g. Japanese, Chinese, Old Slavonic) . An identification of at least some «consonants» with at least some «vowels» as variants of one phoneme would hence be feasible. But here discreteness of function is out­weighed by other criteria, especially that of «discreteness of category» (d. below) . As always when two or more criteria contradict each other, marginality must be recorded; hence the oppositions of vowel and consonant are marginal in relation to oppositions which fulfill also the criterion of functional discreteness.

Within the phoneme, features are never regarded as relevant except when they answer to the criterion of d iscreteness of function . Furthermore they are not normally regarded as relevant if they do not answer to this criterion in the particular combination in question. For instance, a voiced (or voiceless) character of l is not regarded as relevant even in languages in which voice is functionally discrete, on the grounds that it is not of functional relevance in combination with laterality. Whereas the presence of l rather then r in English slot is regarded as relevant (« l not n>) although English sr is excluded. The justification of this difference must be sought in other criteria.

(ii) Convention

Discreteness of convention means that two or more sets of speech­habits require the postulation of distinct historical bases ; that is, that

they cannot be linked to each other by synchronic explanations start­ing from a single basis .

If all initial occlusives are explosive and all final occlusives are implosive, it is obvious that two distinct conventions, (explosiveness of ini tials and implosiveness of finals) need not be postulated. A syn­chronic reason for the difference is is immediately possible.

The same is true, if all initial ante-vocalic occlusives are aspirated, and all final occlusives are unaspirated. Here the conventional element is in so far stronger, that we are unable to state why the particular language should show the peculiari ty in question (aspiration of initial occlusives) while another language does not. However, granted the peculiar articulation occurs in one position rather than in another, we can explain (without recourse to historical explanation) why the distribution should be what it is rather than i ts opposite.

This is also true of the distribution of h and n (ng) in English, since in the languages of the world h is most frequent in initial position, and n least frequent in this position . However, here a further element of conventionality is added. Just as a diachronic change of initial n to h, or of final h to n, is (to say the least) unusual, the synchronic equi­valents of such a change are also implausible. I t is at this point that the criterion of «discreteness of convention>> enters i nto force and no phonemic identification is made. (The criterion is normally supported by others, such as the criterion of discreteness of categories) .

The criterion of phonetic resemblance, which has often been given an independent role, is merely a special case (though also a spe­cially clear case) of the criterion of discreteness of convention. Re­semblance is non-conventional since self-explanatory ·. only differences require motivation. The few exceptions show the primarity of the cri terion of discrete convention; e.g. Danish medial d is identified with initial t despite a phonetically more similar initial d, owing to the fact that the relations «initial t/ intervocalic d)) and « initial d/ intervocalic d-> > are phonetically motivated. (However the identifica­tion is marginaP) .

Japanese h may be (and usually is) replaced by f before u . The identification f = h is phonetically plausible because (i) a fricativisation of h to f before u is more probable than before other vowels (a priori), and (ii) because a parallel allophonic variant of h (in frontal position) occurs before i in Japanese.

z ) Cf. also A. Martinet, L a phonologie du mot e n danois p. 43.

43

The correspondence of sentence-stress with semantic stress makes ir marginal from this standpoint.

(iii) Freedom of accompaniment or substitutiOn

Distributional freedom is usually rather restricted for phones which on other criteria also would tend to be regarded as features rather than phonemes . Nasality may occur only when accompanied by maximal closure in most languages; voice (d. e.g. Latin, Spanish, and Old English) may be similarly restricted so far as functionally relevant. Distributional freedom can be restored in such cases only by completely discounting many other criteria (e.g. by identification of voiced in consonants with lax in vowels) .

(iv) Phonic character.

(a) Paradigmatic discreteness of phonic character.

Here two forms of discreteness are to be distinguished : (a) the di screteness of phonic character as such, (b) discoiJ tinuity between phones . The two are usually associated. Phones not in free variation usually show relatively sharp distinctions whereas those in free varia­tion usually allow for intermediate stages ; the former are usually wide apart while the latter are usually close. But exceptions are found; a vowel-contrast in Igbo (apparently allowing no intermediate stages) remained unnoticed by phoneticians until morphological facts put them on its track ; on the other hand distinct ions of sentence­stress may be very sharp, but allow for all intermediate stages.

A special instance of paradigmatic indiscreteness of phonic cha­racter is afforded by English re. It is common in British English that this vowel should be longer in certain words (e .g. bad sad) than is gene­rally permissible for others, and although the distinction is rarely exploited functionally it is possible to devise instances in which it could be. However the distinction of length is far less sharply marked than in the case of most length-oppositions, and it would frequently be impossible to say with which quantity one has to do. Such instances merge gradually into those in which an opposition is marginal in virtue of i ts small functional exploitation alone (e.g the opposition of quantity for English u.)

(b) Syntagmatic discreteness of phonic character .

Here two forms of discreteness are to be distinguished: (a) the

44

d iscreteness of phonic character as such, (b) discontinuity between phones. The two are usually associated. For instance «diphthongs» ( in the widest sense) usually show either (a) a relatively abrupt transi­tion between two relatively widely distinct timbres, or (b) a relatively slow transition between relatively similar timbres . Only the latter (diphthongs of direction) have some prima facie daim to (at least marginal) phonemic status . However this criterion only has full val­idity in a language in which the two types are opposed.

In respect of discreteness (a) the English diphthongs show a gradual series ranging from the minimal ij = i : to the maximal oi) through intermediate ei ai . The first is often, the second seldom, taken as a unit-phoneme. Since no other criteria afford grounds for a de­marcation, it remains only to record a gradual increase of marginality throughout the series.

Simultaneous phones also show all degrees of discreteness. The maximum is attained with the phones commonly transcribed gb kp in many African dialects. The discreteness of the Russian «soft feature» is confirmed by morphemic criteria.

(v) Sequence.

Discreteness of sequence (i .e . non-simultaneity) of phonemes is usually made a part of the definition (with reservations for the pro­sodeme if this is regarded as a sub-category of phonemes) .

Non-simultaneity has different degrees of validity.

It is unconditionally valid when the sequence itself has functional relevance . For instance in English pat apt the reversal of p and a serves to prove the relevance of the sequence in the same way as the substi­tution of i for a (pal pit) proves the relevance of the distinction of vowel-timbre. In either case the messages confronted are different.

More often sequence is not of functional relevance. For instance in English strap no reversal of units is possible within the groups str and ap .

Here the fact that the units concerned may occur as units in a functionally discrete sequence is one criterion for treating the units a� non-simultaneous . That i t is not a sufficient criterion is shown by the fact that affricates are often regarded as unit--phonemes even when the component parts are identifiable with units occurring in

45

sequence (e.g. German ts pf); that it is not a necessary criterion is shown by the fact that the sequence of some recognised phonemes with respect to the other phonemes in their immediate environment is always non-functional (e.g. English h).

A phoneme cannot by defini tion contain successive elements. Hence phones capable of such an analysis (affricates, geminates, long vowels) are marginal phonemes.

(vi) Category

Most important are (a) Discreteness of distributional category. (b) » >> phonic > >

(a) Community of d istribution with an already determined pho­neme (with absence of community of distribution with any already determined group), provided that a large part of the system is already determined, is a fundamental criterion of mono-phonematicity in ac­cordance with the principle of pattern.

(b) To form part of a well-defined phonic class is likewise a cri­terion for interpretation in accordance with the determined status of some units in this class.

However of all cri teria these are the two most frequently in con­tradiction. For instance in English n differs markedly in distribution from the other nasals. The distribution of voiced and voiceless inter­dentals in English is quite different from that of other voiced/voiceless pairs. The distribution of s) in almost all European languages, is markedly different from that of other fricatives : not only that the distribution of s is wider in many respects (which may be accounted for by the <<Unmarked» character of the dental series) , but also that it is relatively restricted in other respects, or that it combines with other fricatives in a fixed sequence.

Well-defined distributional classes are generally smaller than well-defined phonic classes ; that is to say that the former have greater interior continuity and the latter greater exterior continuity.

A d hoc indications of marginality do not suffice here. Hence in the chapters on acoustic or articulatory rendering the term phoneme will be understood to refer to phonemes determined by criterion (b) , in the chapters on distribution, morphemics etc. it will be understood to refer only to those determined by criterion (a) , central phonemes

being included in both. In cases of doubt the distributional criteria are decisive.

It should be clear that the two criteria are not to be used quite independently. The limit to the application of distributional criteria is that some plausible articulatory-acoustic interpretation can be given of the distributional phoneme. Similarly the limit to the application of acoustic criteria is that some plausible account can be given of the distribution of the acoustic phoneme ; a totally different distribution (amounting almost to complementarity) of units similarly analysed is impermissible.

It follows that the two units, «distributional>> and «phoniC>> pho­nemes, are not merely different ; they are contradictory . The distri­butional phoneme has also a phonic interpretation, which is bound, outside the class of central phonemes, to contradict the interpretation given in the chapter on the phonic phoneme.

Potential contradictions of this sort may often be resolved by the application of morphemic cri teria (d. below) . If these criteria favour one solution or another, then the distributional phoneme will be adapted to the phonic phoneme or vice-versa, with resulting simpli­fi cation of the system through the increase in number of central phonemes.

Contradictions are normally far easier to resolve at the level of the phoneme than at the level of the phonemic feature. The frequen­cy of contradictions on the latter level are often so numerous as to render analysis impossible; this is one further aspect of the interior indiscreteness of the phoneme.

(vii) Morphology. Application of the previous criteria does not involve any circu­

larity, except of a kind which is quite inevitable - e.g. that in decid­ing whether two messages are distinct some role must be played by the prima facie distinction of expressions, while this distinction in turn is not independent of observation that the two messages are distinct . The application of morphemic criteria, on the other hand, involves a circularity which is not inevitable, in that it would be posible to construct a complete phonemic system (as is sometimes, at least ostensively, done) without recourse to morphemic data, them­selves largely determined on the basis of previous phonemic analysis.

(a) Exterior discreteness The possibility of occurring on a morph-boundary is a criterion

47

of discrete phonematicity, having maximal validity when (as with English ts) each unit is necessarily on a morph-boundary in the com­bination concerned.

The criterion has minimal validity when the morphemes in question are not productive.

Simultaneous units seldom answer positively to this criterion (except in its minimally valid form) . An exception is afforded by the Russian «soft feature» . The form rv' os may be split into a stem rv and a termination 'os and the living character of this division is proved by the analogical creation of the form tk' as (for tkos) on the model of rvuj rv'os (etc . ) .

It i s to be noted that the proof would not have been given if a variation k-k' had already existed as model in some other verb. In this case only the living nature of the variation k-k' (v-v', p-p' etc . ) would be demonstrated, but not that of the variation zero-' as such.

Hence the English alternations s-z (house / to house) f-v (loaf/ loaves) do not speak strongly in favour of the morphemic discreteness of voice in English, even if they can be regarded as productive.

Note : The marginality of the Russian soft feature qua feature rather than phoneme was indicated above (phonic di screteness) and is thus confirmed morphologically . The «phoneme» k' is marginal in a third respect, namely i t is only found when analogically motivated. The opposi tion in French between «close e» and «open e» in non­final syllables is similarly marginal , i .e . the rule «open e in closed syllables, close e in open syllables>> is valid whenever there is no ana­logical pressure (and often even here) .

(b) Interior non-discreteness. The absence of possibility of being on a morph-boundary, or at

least the failure to be left as residue when all units on the boundary have been deducted, may be a criterion of monophonematicity. How­ever in many systems no morph-boundaries are found within syllables, or they may be so rare as to render the criterion inapplicable .

Note: Formal definitions of phonen1- ic classes" . The repertory of vowels may be defined as the minimum reper­

tory of phonemes such that at least one of these phonemes must occur in every word.

In the most characteristic case, found e.g. in French, each one

a) For the most recent discussion cf. the paper of E. Fischer - Jorgensen cited

above p. 15.

of these phonemes may constitute an independent word, at least in principle. In other languages, such as English, this is not so.

This minimal repertory may con lain phonemes whose distri­bution is markedly different from that of all other members of the repertory, and more similar in many respects to the distribution of phonemes outside the repertory (e.g. r in Czech) . Such phonemes will be excluded from the category of vowels.

Other segmental phonemes are consonants. The definitions naturally only apply when a dichotomy is feasible .

In some systems a trichotomy may be preferable . (Early IE is an example.)

The distinction of vowel and consonant might be used to define the distinction of initial and final position, which, unlike the relation between, is not until such defini tion a formal distinction. One could for example define initial posi tion as the rim-position with maximal consonantal differentiation. However any definition of this sort would be likely to contradict the substantial facts in some languages, i .e . one would have to take the ostensibly initial phonemes as final and vice­versa. There would be some interest in working out a set of criteria which would give the completest possible correspondence between the ostensible and the formal order . But in general one is free in comparing any two systems, to choose whichever formal order will give the maximum of equivalences in distributional statements.

Other formal defini tions could be based on the closeness of phon­emes to a vocalic nucleus, in the case of clusters. It is difficult to see that such definitions would have much interest . Interesting is simply the fact that in many systems there is more importance to be attached to order relative (in either direction) to the nucleus, than to order in clusters regarded independently of whether they are initial or final . (In other words the relation between plays a greater role in the distribution of consonants than the relation after.)

In the vowel-classification the relation of prominence may play an important role, as in English or Russian, whereas other systems in which the relation is relevant (e .g. Greek of all periods, Serbo­Croat) do not show important distinctions of distribution on this basis .

When init ial and final consonant-clusters show more limitations in common than either with medial clusters, the relation of juncture may be described as dominant.

V. OVERT AND FUNCTIONAL TERMS

Overt units are those which can be directly identified in speech­segments. Functional units are those which are set up for the purpose of distributional formulations (and possibly semantic correlations) , but which cannot be directly identified in the flow of speech .

The expression «directly identified» is not to be taken in too grossly literal a way. The identification of the most frankly «overtn units, the phonemes, is only possible with stylised or ideal segments. The morph may be identifiable as a (perhaps discontinuous) series of phonemes, but often a linking-unit, the morphoneme, must be set up, a process which removes the unit a stage further from overt status. I t is also true of the morph, as of the word, that there is nor­mally no overt relation (e.g. juri:cture) characterising i ts frontiers, in the way that sequence characterises the frontiers of the phoneme. But nll these units may fittingly be described as overt in opposi tion to such units as the morpheme.

The distinction of overt and functional must not be equated with the distinction of expression and content. Overt units are units of expression, but the content-units can only be approached by a gradual process of divorcing the functional categories from the overt catego­ries which are their ultimate basis. The morpheme represents one stage in this process, which concludes with the sememe.

Functional units are set up for purposes of distributional formu­lations only when such formulations would otherwise be very unwieldy. There is no unit that stands in the same relation to the phoneme as the morpheme stands to the morph; since distributional relations of phonemes may be formulated without such a unit. But circumstances may be imagined in which thi s would not be so. Suppose for instance that there were no sets of phonemes with identical distrib-

F. 4

so

ution, and that general rules could not be established for the oc­currence of any phoneme relative to others in sequences. And suppose at the same time that it were found that a phoneme a was sometimes commutable with the phoneme b, and sometimes with the phoneme c, but never with both, without of course its being possible to state in what circumstances, short of complete enumeration, the commu­tations could take place. One might choose to adopt the convention whereby the phoneme a would be said to occur in «b-functionn or in «c-functionn according to the possibility of commutation . I t might then be found that the phoneme a in «b-functionn did not ever appear in the same morph as the phoneme x in «y-functionn . If such rPlations were frequent enough, one would choose to call a in «b-functionn the «representative» of a different unit from that «represented byn a in «b-functionn . Labelling the <<represented units» as A,B,Y etc . , one would make such statements as : «B and Y are incompatible in the same morphn .

It is easy to see that B and Y are <mnitsn only in a transferred sense. But there is no objection to the transference. since it is fully implied by the expression < <functional unitn . Statements about func­tiOnal units can always, by definition, be unpacked into more complex statements about overt units.

I t is of course no accident that the phonemic domain is unfa­vourable to the dichotomy of overt and functional, represented in the morphological domain by the distinction between morph and morpheme. However the traces of such a dichotomy may be found even in phonemics, as when it is said that a single phoneme (e.g. Latin i) may occur either in syllabic or in asyllabic function. So far as this is a phonemic (not a purely phonetic) statement, it may be translated by the statement that i is sometimes commutable with vowels alone (e.g. in i t), sometimes with consonants alone (e.g. in iam ) . I t is only one step more towards saying that i <<represents a different unit in these different functions» . But these different units would not be «different phonemes» except in a marginal sense.

As applied to terms in contrast to relations, distributional and functional are synonymous. The formative (base resp . formation) is neither overt nor functional .

A. 1\lorpheme, morph and formative.

Three things about a form may be of concern :

(i) I ts relations to other forms, considered purely qua forms : from this standpoint, the relation of sank to sink is on a par with the relation of mnk to 1·ink.

(ii) The relations of its distribution to the distributions of other forms : fTom this standpoint, the relation of sank to sink 1s on a par with the relation of went to go.

(iii) Its relations to forms related by distribution : from this standpoint the relation of sank to sink is on a par with the relation of swam to swim but not with the relations under the first two headings.

Under heading (i) the concern is with composition, under (ii) with distribution, and under (iii) with formation.

Often formation is directly relevant to composition ; for instance the final consonant-cluster of wished is found in English only when there is a formational relation between the form and other forms lacking the second consonant of the cluster. In this case we use the formational relation as basis for a statement of composition : wished contains two morphs. By analogy, we also decompose hissed into two morphs, although phonemically the form is on a par with the for­mationally underivable fist etc.

On the other hand the formation of sank throws no light either on the composition of this form or on the composition of any ana­logous form. Hence the form is not to be split up (except simply into its component phonemes) . It is not the form as such, but merely its relation to other forms, which is subject to analysis .

In contrast to the mm·ph as unit of composition the term for­mative will be used as the unit of formation. The morpheme is the unit of distribution.

The morpheme may be described as a distributional factor.

Just as there are no more morphs in sank than in rank, since com­positionally they are on a par, there are no more morphemes to wished than to went, since they are distributionally on a par. But also, s : nce it is as easy to disengage factors from the distributional

52

proportion of Latin silvam : silva.e = silvas : silvantm, as from the distributional proportion of Turkish orma.nz : ormanzn = ormanlan : ormanlann, the «accusative» , «genitive» , and «plural» factors will be regarded as morphemes in the one language as i n the other. (A difference lies in the fact that we have here to deduct from the dist­ribution of silvae that part of i ts distribution attributable to a different factor. Inclarity may arise from the multiplicity of such potential deductions, and then i t will be improfitable to operate with an inde­pendent morpheme. But for such more vaguely designed morpheme­like factors the term morphen1- ic component is inappropriate. )

When feasible, the morpheme is named after a correlated morph, placed in inverted commas. The morpheme «in» is named after the morph in.

The distributional proportions are proportions between the distributions of words} not of units smaller or larger than the word.

If proportions between distributions of units smaller than the word were also taken as basis, factors would be disengaged from e.g. the proportional relation of Latin -a : -am = -s : -em. Such factors are regarded as non-morphemic.

If proportions between distributions of units larger than the word were taken as basis, factors would be disengaged from e.g. the proportional relation of b igger : b iggest = more serious : most serious. Such factors are not regarded as morphemic. (Cf. below on sememic factors. )

By definition the morpheme represents the ultimate product of the factorial analysis. Non-ultimate products are factorial constituents.

As a result of the terminology here adopted, the so-called allo­morphs will be designated complementary formations. (The traditional term is anyway misleading, cf. p. 1 8) .

Each formation presupposes a base . The chief criteria for the selection of the base are three :

(i) Maximal predictability of formations, on basis of composition.

(ii) Predictability of the greatest number of formations from the fewest possible bases .

(iii) Maximal parity of morphemic correlation.

53

Any one of these criteria might be carried to an absurd «logical conclusion>> .

(i) If absolute certainty of prediction on the ba<;is of composition were demanded, an enormous number of forms would have to be regarded as bases ( i .e . as predictable only from themselves) .

(i) The predictability of the greatest number of formations from the fewest possible bases, if taken as sole cri terion, might involve choice of a morphemically different base for each paradigm (e.g. a 2nd sing. pres. for one, a 3rd. plural past for another and so on), even when some of the paradigms were feebly represented.

(ii) Maximal parity of morphemic correlation would involve plumping for a morpheme-complex widely correlated with a suitable base, and then taking the morphemically correspondent formation even in paradigms, nearly as widely represented, in which this for­mation was of poor value for predictions. (This is a common fault of traditional grammar. )

Very often a formation may be deducible, not from any one base, but only from two bases in conjunction.

Less often a formation consists of two processes, to be carried out in a prescribed order (and one or both of which entail morpho­phonemic adjustments) .

In absence of other decisive cri teria, the selection of base depends particularly on the length of the segments. The preference for a shorter base accounts for the relative rarity of subtractive formations.

The distinction of morph and formative is already required by the necessity of a unit smaller than the word within which limita­tions of phoneme-distribution may be formulated. The criteria for the morph are those which tend to converge on a unit suitable for such formulations. In some languages syllabic structure is an impor­tant criterion. But a far more general criterion is that of relatively free substitutional relations (including substitution of zero) with a restriction (in most systems) to unbroken segments. (Were there no need for such a restriction, there would often be a wide correspon­dence between the morph and the segments serving as constants or variables in the formations.)

54

Furthermore this terminology renders .mperfluous the family of subtractive morphs, zero-morphs, and portmanteau-morphs1 • Such terms give the impression that the constituents designated by them are in themselves peculiar, whereas what is peculiar is merely a correlation with another level. The plural b o (breufs) is formed from bof by subtraction, and the plural sheep is formed from the singular by leaving this as it is (or, if one prefers, by a zero-process) . But the forms as such contain no element other than what, on the face of things, they may be seen to contain.

To use the morph-terminology in describing formatives may not necessarily be misleadi ng, since the terminology does not in theory imply any more than the principles according to which i t is app�ied. But in practice its use tends to call forth undesirable images. The same is true of the metaphor by which morphemes are said to occur in different shapes. It is to be suspected that this has been responsible for a certain unlevelness of treatment in some cases. For instance the term portmanteau-morph was invented to descri be the fact that two morphemes are represented by a single shape (in our terminology, correlated with a single formation) . (The corresponding European term is cumul ) . But no term was devised for the case that two morphs represent one morpheme. Such a term does not absolutely impose itself since it is always possible to regard discontinous segments as part of a «single shape» .

But the same sort of argument could evidently have been used in either direction. If French au (I o I ) is said to represent two morphemes at least, on the grounds that it fills a gap in the distribution of it. and le, then the first and last morphs of German ge-mach-t may be said to represent one morpheme on the grounds that they together fill a gap in the distribution of -t (as in ver-Teis-t etc. ) . Actually there are only two interpretations given here : two morphs and two morphemes, or (more commonly) one discontinuous morph and one morpheme.

This sort of unevenness is avoided if one operates with two inde­pendent levels (morph and morpheme) with formations linking the composi tion of the form (in terms of morphs or in any other terms) to the· morphemes. There are morphemes which are not individually relevant to formation, such as · the cases and numbers of Latin, and morphs which are not individually relevant to formation. Of the latter there are many different types, e.g.

1 ) Cf. C. F. Hockett, Problems of Morphemic Analysis, Language 23, par. 17.

55

(i ) morphs which are individually irrelevant, but relevant in com­bination : e.g. Gennan ge- and -en in ge-riss-en, as opposed to the same morphs in ge-noss-en .

(ii) mm·phs which do not either individually or in combination play a part in the formation, e .g.

(a) morphs within whose boundaries the formation has proceeded :

e .g . English sang.

(b) reduplicative morphs : e .g. Turkish bem-bcyaz, · bam-ba�ka, sim-siyah .

(The formation is here «reduplication of initial consonant and first vowel, with add ition of m in this sequence, before the base . » )

Totally reduplicative morphs (type Japanese iro-iro) are a bor­derline case. Firstly the reduplicative morph cannot usually be loc­ated (is it the first or the second?) ; or when it can (on the analogy of imperfectly reduplicative morphs) must still be regarded as the same morph. But the rule of formation from which the morph results, does not itself contain a reference to this morph qua reduplicative morph, but only a reference to the (however identical) morph which is reduplicated .

Observation 1 : There is a notable contradiction between the use of the morpheme as basic minimal unit in the functional analysis of sentences , and the restriction of the morpheme to a unit which does not cut across the fTontiers of a word. A functional analysis fully designed to cope with units larger than the word should clearly depend on distributional criteria which are allowed full play, as they cannot be with such a restriction, since the word itself is not determined through purely distributional criteria. However, the restriction is justi­fied by the following considerations :

(i) If the restriction were removed, the quotability" of the opera­tive units would be greatly reduced. It is already considerably re­duced by the frequency of cumulation, i .e. of morphemes which are not associated with any morph. By allowing proportional relations between larger constructions, when not accompanied by distributional relations between their component words, to form a basis for mor­pheme-analysis , the number of unquotable units would grow im-

2) On the importance of quotability cf. W. Haas, Trans. Phil. Soc, 1954 ( article

consulted in MS ) .

mensely. For instance we should have to distinguish between one mor­phemic analysis of «more useful» where its distribution answered to that of «bigger» , and another morphemic analysis where its distribution answered to that of «more big» (than beautiful) » . Apart from the quotable units much and -er other, unquotable, units would be in­volved. Now the unquotable is frequently also the unidentifiable.

(ii) Very often the morphemic analysis demanded by word-restric­tion is needed for the functional analysis of a minor syntagm, though this analysis contradicts that required by the major syntagm. For instance Latin amatus est is analogous in interior constructional pattern to bonus est, though i ts total distribution (when it is regarded as rep­resentative of the complementary -a est, -um est) is parallel to that of amavit on the one hand and amatur on the other. Morphemic ana­lysis satisfies the minor pattern, while sememic analysis will satisfy the rna jor pattern.

(iii) Another objection to freeing morphemic analysis from the word-restriction carries less weight. This is the objection that allo­morphs (in the usual terminology) could not be identified with com­plementary formations (in our terminology) since then complemen­tary bases would also have to be reckoned with. In the latter termi­nology this is otherwise not necessary, since the bases are selected precisely to account for the alternations of formation, and not to be accounted for by these. But as soon as the word-restriction is lifted, words as a whole are found to comply with the criteria of complemen­tary distribution, so that the bases are also complementary. For instance in spoken English3 the series me I him etc. are in complementary distri­bution with I I he etc . .

I t will be noticed that the word-limitation wh1ch prohibits the treatment of the bases here as being in complementary distribution, is a limitation which includes, though it is not included by, the limi­tation which confines morphemes to the limits of words. I t is the limitation described on p. 5 2 , whereby only proportions of word-distri­bution can be taken as basic in determining morphemes. The comple­mentari ty of whole words can naturally not appear as a consequence of examining word-proportions alone.

(iv) The analyses which cannot be undertaken at the morphemic level are undertaken at the sememic level .

a ) Cf. C. F. Hockett, loc. cit. p. 42.

57

One of the consequences of word-limitation is that sequence, being seldom relevant within the word, can seldom be taken to rep­rtsent a morpheme. Without the l imitation, distinctive position would be taken as formative of a morpheme.

Since the role of sequence has to be allowed for somewhere on the morphemic level another term is necessary. For want of better, the term ta.xeme, which was originally applied to the sequence-feature i tself, may well serve . The correlated feature will then be called a taxemic formation.

Ostensive taxemic formations are often in complementary dist­ribution with ostensive morphemic formations . For instance English do (you go) is in complementary distribution with the sequence of type may you, once distributionally non-parallel uses of both have been discounted . Hence a borderline case between morpheme and taxeme.

The rare cases of inner-verbal sequence-relevance may be dealt with analogously. (English cart-horse and hone-cart may be said to have sequence-prominence taxemic formations. The sememe answer­ing to the taxeme is also one of prominence, but the relations are reversed, prominence of morph being associated wi th improminence of sememe.)

The phenomena of sentence-intonation, on the other hand, are far too remote in many respects to deserve consideration on this level . (It has been suggested that highest pitch is a morpheme with the sememe «surprise» . This is to take the criterion of relevance very seriously indeed! )

Other sentence-features are still more marginal ; for instance the distinction of fast and slow speech is entirely lacking in the character of arbitrariness necessary to qualify a unit for full linguistic status4 • Not being phonemic, i t cannot make a basis for morphemic (resp. taxemic) analysis.

Taxemic distinctions are frequently correlated with distinctions of constituent-analysis. This characteristic they have in common with certain classes of morphemes (notably the cases) .

By definition such taxemes are permutable rather than com­mutable.

Observation 2 : Two utterances having identical morphs may nevertheless differ on the morphemic level in one or more of the following ways :

4 ) Cf. C. F. Hockett, Peiping Morphophonemics, Language 26, p. 77.

(i) Difference of bracketing : «Big sons and daughters» may have either the constituents «big» I «sons and daughters>) , or the consti­tuents «big sons» I < <and» I «daughters» I . The patterns, as opposed to the patterned units, are the same.

(ii) Difference of patterning : «Inside Europe» may have the same pattern as « throughout Europe» or the same pattern as <<northern Europe» . No question of bracketing can arise.

(iii) Difference of orientation : <<cart-horse» and «horse-cart» have the same pattern and the same morphs, but both the orientation of the taxemic relation and the orientation of the morphic relations (sequence, stress) are different.

(iv) In these three cases the morphemes are identical. Difference of morphemes with identity of morphs may be either

(a) trivial, since unsystematic. Common homonymy.

(b) systematic, i .e . subsumable under a general principle. Syncre­tism .

Borderline cases arise when there is no principle of noteworthy generali ty and yet where there is a close morphemic relation between the homonymous chains. For instance the identity of genitive and dative (singular) in Latin is confined to a very few declensional types, and can be regarded as trivial compared with the syncretism of dative and ablative (plural, and in several singular types) . But it is not trivial in the same degree as <<he came to» = «he came too» , which reflects no close morphemic correlation.

Where there is otherwise doubt over the imme.diacy of a mor­phemic opposition systematic identity serves as a positive criterion, just as the absence of a morph on one side of a morph-paradigm serves as a criterion for the treatment of a member of the opposition as N or Z (cf. p. 30) . In ei ther case the criterion is subsidiary to d istributional cri teria.

Observation 3 : There is also a certain contradiction in speaking of morphemes as distributional factors and nevertheless reckoning units with virtually identical distribution (e.g. «black>> , «white» ) to be morphemically different. Three different attitudes are possible here.

(i) Many linguists exclude semantic considerations (apart from

59

their heuristic value) from the morphemic domain. However, since such considerations not only cease to have positive value in distinguish­ing functions, but also cease to have negative value in leading extra-linguistically determined frequencies to be regarded as irrelevant, all those distributions which are relatively trivial from the standpoint of semantics (e.g. the non-occurrence of white i'nk or b lack flower) become important qua di stributions in their own right, so that the term dish·ibutional factor is for such linguists appropriate.

(ii) For linguists who regard semantics as an essential, the term may be understood as an abbreviation of < <distributional or semantic £acton> ,

(iii) Since however the factors are fundamentally distinct, i t would be preferable not to introduce semantics on the morphemic level as a positive factor, but simply to exclude from the distributional criteria those which are rendered trivial by semantic considerations. This would make whole morpheme-classes in the usual sense consist of only one morpheme (though not the majority of morpheme-classes, since these generally contain many sub-classes according to minor distributional distinctions) . The semantic oppositions within such a class would then be left for treatment at another level .

This level would not be the level of the sememe. For the sememe like the morpheme is a distributional unit, and the reason for purging the one level of posi tive semantic criteria of differentiation would apply in the same way to the other . However the sememe would still represent the unit within which semantic analysis could be under­taken. For such an analysis the morpheme (in whatever sense it is taken) does not afford an adequate basis.

It is to be noted that i t is very doubtful if the distinction of se­lJarate morphemes «black» and «white» really depends on the fact that the morphs b lack and whi te are not freely commutable, even for those l inguists who hold distribution in the narrower sense as alone decisive. For even the distributional consequences of complete syno­nymity are hardly held to justify morphemic identification when there are neither formational relations nor distributional parallelism with forms so related. It has been proposed to regard all proper names of the same type (e.g. morphologically unanalysable male Christian

6o

names in French) as morphemically identicaP, but the proposition has not been seriously heeded. Linguists who exclude semantics are liable t'J be guided as much by composition as by distribution in setting up morphemes.

There is therefore a second respect (in addition to word-limita­tion) in which the morpheme is a compromise-unit, rather than a

purely distributional unit. And again, this compromise appears to be justified, but is to be abandoned at the level of th� sememe. (There is no sememic distinction between proper names such as that above)

However the tradition whereby either semantic distinctions, or their equivalents in distributional frequencies, are thrown together with genuine distributional distinction, is not so readily to be aban­doned, and has not been abandoned here. For this is almost the only tradition which has survived in all schools of structural linguistics .

Observation 4 : I t m�ght also be regarded as an inconsistency to treat Latin silva-rum, at the morphemic level, on a par with Turkish orman-laT-zn) and yet not to treat German Handschuh on a par with English glove (cf. pp. g and 1 1 ) , since if the bound distributions are equally clear in the first two cases, the proportionality of the (entirely unbound) distributions is equally impeTfect in the latter two cases. However the inconsistency is merely apparent . To say that the mor­pheme is (within certain limits) a purely distributional unit, is not to say that no other cri teria enter into play, but merely to say that no other criteria enter into play whenever the distributional criteria give a decisive answer. For the first pair above they do, for the second pair they do not. When they do not, clarity of formation is an im­portant subsidiary criterion. Handschuh therefore allows a basis for morphemic analysis, whereas glove does not.

No unit whatsoever is purely this or that in the sense that no criteria of another sort have any bearing on its determination. I t belongs to a given level in virtue of the fact that, when the data on this level allow of only one interpretation, this interpretation is final.

5 ) K. Togeby, Structm·e immanente de Ia langue fran�aise, p. 214.

Note I : Morph-patterns

The following types may be distinguished :

Overtly symmetrical

(i) Differentiated (a) Functionally symmetrical, e.g. BAB (b) Functionally asymmetrical, e.g. BA(B)

(ii) Undifferentiated, e.g. BB Overtly asymmetrical (i) Reduplicative, (a) Functionally symmetrical, e.g. BABA

(b) Functionally asymmetrical , e .g. (B)ABA (ii) Non-reduplicative (a) Functionally symmetrical, e .g. BA

(b) Functionally asymmetrical, e.g. (B)A

A pattern is said to be functionally asymmetrical when there is an otherwise similar pattern in which zero replaces a unit, but no other pattern in which zero replaces a different unit equidistant from the terminus of the first pattern. (In English, the pattern «consonant, short vowel, consonant» is overtly symmetrical, yet functionally asymmet­rical since there is a pattern «short vowel, consonant» but no pattern «consonant, short vowel» . Whereas the pattern «cons. , long vowel, cons. » is also functionally symmetrical, since excision of either ter­minus yields a new pattern.)

By far the commonest pattern of two terms is the functionally and overtly asymmetrical scheme of consonant plus vowel (this is the favourite pattern for instance in most languages of eastern Asia) .

Languages differ more widely in preferences for three-term patterns. The doubly symmetr ical pattern common in English is rare for instance in Italian; the undifferentiated pattern which is the type par excellence in Semitic dialects is relatively rare in the modern languages of Europe.

The reduplicative pattern is no doubt the commonest four-term pattern in most languages favouring dissyllabic morphs.

I t is perhaps uncommon that the favouri te pattern should be of more than four terms. (In Javanese, the favourite pattern is five-term and doubly symmetrical6) .

s ) Cf. E. M. Uhlenbeck, De Structuur van het Javaansche Morpheem (Bandung

1949 ) .

Morph-patterns may be entirely linked to syllabic pattern, as in Chinese ; strongly linked to syllabic pattern, as in the Bantu dialects ; feebly linked to syllabic pattern, as i n Turkish or English ; or inde­pendent of syllabic pattern, as in the Semitic dialects .

Note 2 : Syllabic Patte1·n

The syllable has a peculiar borderline status as a linguistic unit . Firstly, its functional distinctiveness is usually low. Wi th in the l imits of the "\vord i t seldom plays a distinctive role.

Even ·where it has a distinctive function (as often for word-divi­sion) the cri terion of the arbitrary is not fulfilled: i .e . the syllabic division could have been anticipated on other criteria of division. (Exception : the syllabic division 1ni'steik is a criterion for non-analysis of the English word mistake into separate mm·phs. But such criteria are usually superfluous) .

On the other hand the criterion of phonetic discrereness is usually 'Nell fulfilled , and confirmed in many languages by metrical relevance. ( I t is true that metri cal laws could always be formulated without spe­cific reference to the syllable, but they would often be less enlighten­

ing when so formulated) . Nor can the evidence of graphic divi sion in non-traditional writ ing-systems ( cf. e .g . the perfectly consistent rules of division at line-termini in the b ible of Ulfila) be discarded as ir­relevant.

Finally the fact that the syllable, as determined by criteria other than those of phoneme-distribution, often shows a well-defined pho­nemic structure , is a criterion for its being accepted as a not very marginal linguistic unit .

However the patterns of syllable have less interest than those of the morph , since they are strongly dependent on the phonetic sub­stance . The greater variety, and hence interest, of morph-patterns lies in their potential independence.

Observation : Purely formal criteria of syllabic division are not easy to find. Stress has usually (and rightly) been laid on the pos­sibility of a cluster occurring initially in the word\ for i ts interpre­tation as initial cluster of a syllable. But since initial is not formally defined (cf. p. 48), this cannot be regarded as a formal criterion.

1) Cf. J. Kurylowicz, Contrjbution a Ia theorie de Ia syllabe, Polish Ling. Soc.

Trans. 8, pp. 80-114.

Moreover the syllable is seldom a suitable unit to serve as covermg term for statements of phonemic distribution.

However the numheT of syllables may often be defined in terms of the relation of prominence, much as the number of phonemes may be defined in terms of the relation of sequence and the number of words in terms of the relation of juncture .

It may seem banal to insist that metrical cri teria are important on both counts (and equally in determining whether structure or merely number is of importance to the language concerned) . A met­rical text is a perfectly good text, and the fact that such texts may ei ther not be available, or may simply not exist, for many languages is no argument for not rqarding metrical criteria as essential where they are available. Universality of application is only one meta-criterion for the choice of criteria.

Some languages have a h ierarchy of syllable-like units. If their number is two, the containing unit is termed syllab le and the con­tained unit mora.

The so-called < <opposition of syllabicity» (e.g. iw I ju, where i I j and w I u represent one phoneme) answers to the definition of promi­nence (p . 3 1 ). But opposi tions of prominence are rare for the phoneme, and unknown for the phonemic feature, according to the usual des­criptions . (That such an opposi tion does not folluw from any defini­tion, even in the case of the phonemic features, may be seen by an example that does not conflict with any stated postulates. The dis­t inction between < <vowel plus nasal consonant» and <masal vowel» in French might be formulated as a distinction between <<non-prominent vocalic features, prominent nasal feature» and <<prominent vowel features, non-prominent nasal feature» . There is very little to be said for this interpretation, but the reasons which could be given for its rejection ·would probably apply with equal force to many of the in­g·enious interpretations enjoying some currency in modern linguis­tics.)

Note 3 : Fonnative Patterns.

The commonest formations are (i) the addition of a morph, (ii) simple substitution8 • Substitution may or may not be the substitution

B) For formations cf. R. S . Wells, Automatic Alternations Language 25, 99-116.

of a morph. Most often it is not : that is to say that when a formation is best formulated in terms of substitution, the substituted features or complexes do not fall into patterns in terms of which the distri­bution of phonemes can appropriately be described. One may con­trast the substitutional type of Latin, in which the phoneme-clusters seldom give a clue as to which parts of the word represent substitu­table units; and the additional type of Turkish, in which the phoneme­clusters after give a clue as to which parts of the word are additively related (e .g. git-se, kar;-t z reveal a morph-boundary by their phonemic form alone) . The two types contrast in the same way within a single system : English men gives no clue to the substituted unit, whereas set-s provides in its phonemic cluster an indication of the morph­boundary.

An addition which is not the addition of a morph is still rarer than a substitutution which is the substitution of a morph. For the

'additive process normally starts from free forms, which (by definition) cannot be smaller than a morph. (An addition which is not the ad­dition of a morph to another morph or morph-complex can of course also be formulated as a substitution of feature or feature-complex for zero. Against such a formula the objections are mainly of a prac­tical nature, whereas the objections against the formula «substitution of a morph for zero» are also theoretical . It is to be remarked that on the terminology adopted here, there are no «zero-morphsn , but only zero-formatives.)

The distinction between addition and substitution answers rough­ly to the traditional distinction of agglutinative and inflectional lan­guages, whereas the absence of formations (which by definition apply only within the limits of the word) answers to the «isolating» type. The traditional polysynthetic type belongs to another level of distinc­tiOns.

B. Immediate constituents

The constituents of an utterance on the morph ic and the mor­phemic levels are completely unparallel. On the morphic level, the consti tuents tend to be in a linear sequence, and there is one single fundamental higher-grade unit, the word. Still higher-grade units,

6s

such as groups defined by (other) types of juncture, have not the same fundamental status.

On the morphemic level the units form a continuous hierarchy without break at any fundamental unit . E .g. the utterance : (John) opened the front door.

I «open the front door» I «-ed» I . I «open» I « the front door» I I « the» I «front door» I I «front» I «door» I .

While the main criteria for morphic d ivisions include juncture, the sole primary criterion for morphemic constituents is distribution : the free substi tutability of (the same) simple morphemes for one morpheme-group in all occurrences, the impossibility of substituting any single morpheme for any other group in the utterance, being the optimal condition for treat ing the former group as immediate cons­ti tuent.

It should be stressed that it is only in a very indirect and quasi-metaphorical way that it is possible to speak of morphemes «substituting morpheme-groups» , or even «occurring in a given en­vironment» . This is true even for the traditional system which makes a more direct leap from the morph to the morpheme. (In such a system, «A occurs with B» is an indirect rendering of «A morph of A occurs wi th a morph of B» . In the system advocated here (but not applied for the purposes of chapter VI) it is true in an even more obvious sense ; for the morpheme is no longer a direct abstraction from a family of morphs which individually «represent» the morpheme according to the environment, but merely a peg on which to hang statements of indirect correlation between the morphic system on the one hand and the sememic on the other.

Observation : The term immediate constituent is applied to func­tional units par excellence, less often to overt units. So far as func­tional units are concerned, it is evident that the criterion of distri­bution will play the decisive role.

The cri terion of «distribution similar to that of indivisible units» may serve as an example of the way a criterion, perfectly clear in i tself, spli ts up into several cri teria upon application. For instance the follm.ving sub-cri teria are frequently in contrad iction :

F. 5

66

(i) The frequency of substitutability by a single unit, and the frequency of substitutable units.

In large beast-s, large beast is generally substitutable by many simple units, but the substitution cannot always be made : e.g. in very large beast is a simple unit cannot be substituted. (This is the reason for the analysis very large / beast, for the substitution of a simple unit for very large i s almost always possible.) On the other hand beast-s is substitutable by very few simple units (e.g. cattle), but these few units are more generally substitutable.

(ii) The frequency of substitutability by a single unit, and the frequency of substitutability for a single unit.

The relation of the composite unit AB and the simple unit C may be one of inclusive distribution. One constituent-analysis might be favoured by the fact that the composite unit may be invariably re­placeable by a simple unit, the other by the fact that the composite unit may invariably replace the simple unit, without the reverse in either case being true.

(iii) Frequency of substitutability by a single unit which is the same in each case, and frequency of substitutability by single units which differ according to the context.

AB may commonly, though not invariably, be replaceable by C ; or i t may b e invariably replaceable b y either D OT E. Conflict of cri­teria arises if AB stands in the former case for one potential constitu­ent, and in the other case for another, in the same group.

(iv) It is also possible to hesitate over what may be described as substitution.

In you paint the wall gTeen, wall green may obviously be replaced by picture. However the substitution cannot elsewhere usually be made. Far freer is the substitution of wash for paint . . . green, if this can be described as a substitution. It is clear that the instruction «substitute wash for paint green», in the sentence in question, is one which cannot be carried out with certainty of producing another possible utterance; the instruction is indeterminate at best. Further instructions must be given on the way in which such operations are to be carried out, and the fact that such instructions may be of a general kind (i .e . not applied as hoc to the units in question) does not disguise the fact that the sense of substitution here is rather a marginal one.

(v) Finally hesitation may arise over whether the case is an appro­priate one for the application of the criterion. For instance, instead of debating whether the relations of substitution favour one or the other division of hot and cold, when obviously none is favoured very strongly by this criterion, we may either choose quite a different criterion, or say that constituent analysis of the group as such is inappropriate. For example, and may be described as a «marker» , after which no question of consti tuents arises . )

All these cri teria naturally split up in their turn into as many more as one wishes. They cannot all be explicitly weighed against each other by the linguist; nor can the method of weighing against each other two incommensurable cri teria be make explicit . Implicitly they all play their role.

This may be the place to list the chief types of marginality : (i) A cri terion susceptible of being satisfied in various degrees

is only half-satisfied. (ii) Two criteria are in contradiction. (i-iii above) . (i i i ) The cri terion is satified in some marginal sense. (iv above) (iv) The applicability of the criterion is dubious. (v above) .

Note: The word.

The word has been defined as a minimal free form. As with all such definitions, i t is understood that the unit must be «chain-ex­hausting» , i . e . that an utterance should allow no residue of terms (on the same level) which are not parts of such a unit.

Like all definitions, this serves as a nucleus from which criteria may be derived. If a criterion can be found which, while covering very roughly the same uni ts as the definition, allows for fewer border­line cases, this criterion ·will occupy a superior place in the hierarchy of cri teria than the defini tional criterion itself. For instance in many languages an utterance can normally be divided into potentially in­dependent units with a particular accentual structure, no further division yield ing units of the same sort. This structure then becomes a primary criterion of the word, and the criterion of potential inde­pendence i tself will no longer be consulted except in borderline-cases.

Similar criteria may be found which are either necessary, or sufficient, but not both. For instance the vowel-congruence of alter­nating morphs is a sufficient but not necessary criterion of word-unity in Turkish ; the presence of at least one vowel is a necessary but not a sufficient cri terion of word-status in English . The possibility of

68

pause is a sufficient cri terion, in most languages, of word-division. In many languages such criteria may be difficult to find (apart

from trivially necessary or sufficient conditions, e.g. (( the word is not smallar than a phoneme>> ) . In this case the definition may be widened. For instance, instead of insisting that the unit must occur in isolation, it may be insisted merely that it occur both initially and finally. This definition would serve better in a system like that of French, where it will be found to correlate sufficiently well with the criterion of adhesion (d. p. 36) .

Any extension of definition or criteria implies a rather different unit. An extreme case is that of so-called «polysynthetic» languages, in which the «word >> is based in most descriptions on a «pattern-chain>> : A is not an independent word, B answers to the same pattern and hence is not an independent word, C answers to the same pattern as B . . . ; it is not unlikely that in some Amerindian systems more than one «word-liken unit should be set up.

Observation : The definition of the word in distributional terms (minimal free form, i .e . occurrence in zero-environment) must not be supposed to imply that it is a genuine distributional unit .

Firstly the definition picks out a particular distributional cri­terion, without any particular reason. The choice of this criterion among many other possible distributional criteria implies a non-distri­butional meta-criterion. (However it would be unfair to say that zero i tself is not a distributional term : it is defined, as against a unit proper, by wideness of distribution .)

Secondly, zero-environment depends very closely on the overt relation of juncture. A morph ol henuise in close juncture with neigh­bouring morphs is unlikely to occur in zero-environment. (Close junc­ture is a marginal feature of the morph itself.)

Indeed, i t would be usually more appropriate to regard the close juncture as primary and absence of independent occurrence as second­ary. However, since juncture is often posed precisely on account of the possibility of independent occurrence, the criteria go together . (Juncture is marginally overt . )

The defini tion of the word is due rather to a conventional pre­ference for distributional formulation than to any fundamental prior­ity of this formulation here. Nevertheless, if the definition is applied with common sense, in full realisation of its status (which does not entail the word as a distributional rather than a compositional unit) i t may be retained without harm.

VI. THE TRADITIONAL MORPHEME - CLASSES

A. Inflection

The traditional criteria for an inflection are (or were) these :

(i) A high rate of commutability with other members of the class, within the word; but a low rate of real commutability (i .e . commu­tability in sentence-types) .

Since real commutability is a criterion of the morpheme, the inflection is marginal among morpheme-types ; and at the same time the morphemes most marginal in this respect are central in the cate­gory of inflections.

For this reason the category of cases (with a low rate of real mu­tual commutability) is a central inflectional category. However, the limit to low commutability is reached with complementary distri­bution, and when this limit is approached, as in the pronominal cases of some west-European languages, the units are on the border between inflection and morpheme-alternant.

Other instances of marginality under this heading are :

(a) A low rate of commutability within the word. Substantival gender is the most obvious example. And the reverse -

(b) A high rate of commutability in the sentence (and a fortiori in the word) , e .g. tense.

It is to be noticed that inflectiona] morphemes marginal in these respects are normally also marginal in respect of sequence; i .e . they are further removed from the typically inflectional position at the rim (beginning or end) of the word. Hence, if all inflectional morphemes are suffixal, gender will precede number and case, tense will precede mood and person. It is typical that the marginality of inflections in sequence (rim-position) is a criterion of their centrality

qua inflections. (ii) Rim-posi tion (as above) . Exceptions are rare in languages of the «agglutinative» (e.g. Turkish) type. They are also rare in all languages for the inflections of case and mood (e.g. Arabic, a language notable for «interior inflection>> : case and mood are here too expressed by rim-suffixation) . They are common in IE languages (and normal in Semitic) for tense or aspect. An intermediate place is held by number.

At the same time, a morpheme showing marginality (ia) is likely to be further removed from the rim-position than a morpheme show­ing marginality (ib) . (Cf. table p. 63 and note the exceptional rim­position of voice in many IE languages, as compared with the more normal «interior>> posi tions of Turkish and Arabic.)

(iii) Non-commutability of morpheme plus stem-morpheme with stem-morphemes alone. This is the classical criterion. I t renders mar­ginal such a morpheme as the passive (-il-) in Turkish (a combination like gonder-il- is freely commutable with such simple stems as gel-), which however, like its nearest equivalents in IE languages, answers in a higher degree than most morphemes to cri terion (i) .

(iv) Commutability with zero; as opposed to stem-morphemes; and

Non-commutability with zero, as opposed to derivative mor­phemes.

Since the distinction of stem-morpheme and inflection usually presents no questions, only the latter criterion need be considered. This criterion, in view of its pendant, can only be positively applied. In Turkish i t very seldom serves to characterise inflections, and this is true of the majority of languages. In IE on the other hand, non­commutability with zero is frequent as a characteristic of inflections, where it takes various forms :

(a) Total absence of zero-expression, even as alternant.

This extreme is seldom reached; however, zero-alternants are virtually lacking for several inflectional types in earlier IE languages (e.g. gender, person in Latin) .

(b) Absence of any morpheme with consistent zero-expression in the class.

This in normal for the generally recognised inflectional types of Latin. The positive degree of comparison, apart from suppletives, is

in this respect exceptional . But by generalisation a morpheme is pos­i ted even in this case, i . e. the zero-expression is not taken as mere absence of morpheme.

By a further generalisation the commutability with zero can be dismissed even in Turkish, by posi ting a morpheme for the <<nomi­native» , «singular» etc. Here one is clearly at the utmost margin of morpheme-status as opposed to zero-status.

(c) Absence of morpheme with zero-content.

The primary test of zero-content is an extremely wide distribution relative to that of other members of the class. For instance the distri­bution of «nominative» and «singular>> in Turkish is far wider than that of the similarly termed morphemes in Latin. One can therefore attribute a relatively positive content to the Latin as opposed to the Turkish morphemes, answering to the frequency in Latin, and ab­sence, in Turkish, of a positive expression.

To the zero-content of a single morpheme, which answers to a wide distribution, is opposed the zero-content of a paradigm answer­ing to a complementary distribution of members. The typical example is quasi-complementary distribution depending on a parallel morph­eme-class; for instance adjectival number, gender and case, and, in a reduced form� verbal number, person and gender. Such morpheme­classes may be called congruential.

An (incomplete) classification of inflectional classes may be given on the basis of these criteria. Here the fourth criterion must be left aside ; since this serves less to distinguish one class from another than to distinguish types of language. Only the commonest inflectional types are classified; and the congruential morpheme-classes (verbal number and person, substantival person) are excluded. Only substan­tival and verbal inflections are included.

(i) Central Marginal (a)

(b)

(ii) Central Intermediary

Substantive Case Gender Number Determination (inflectional article)

Case Number Determination

Verb Mood Voice Tense Aspect

Mood Tense Aspect

72

Marginal Gender Voice

(iii) Central Case Mood Number Tense

Marginal Gender Voice Determination Aspect

In this scheme, substantival and verbal classes which belong together in virtue of one criterion, always belong together by virtue of the others. But no stress should be laid on this, since by other criteria they will often be separated .

The marginality of inflectional types so shown above is very re­lative ; all types passing under these names in the more familiar lan­guages were rightly recognised as inflections. But in the light of the criteria concerned, a more borderline case may be considered. Does the English «adverbial ending» (main variant -ly) represent an inflection or a derivational morpheme?

(i) The morpheme is freely commutable with zero, within the word, and rarely commutable with zero in the sentence (e.g. play fairly, play faiT) . Hence the first criterion is positively answered.

(ii) The second criterion yields no positive result, since the only successive morpheme (comparison, as in slow-li-eT) is recognised on other criteria as inflectional.

(iii) This cri terion yields mainly negative results, since the whole <<adverb» is often commutable with single stem-morphemes (type seldom). However this commutability is not universal, and if the order of units be regarded as relevant is very far from universal. (As opposed to the classical languages, where a wide commutability of ((Simple» and «derivative» adverbs led to the recognition of this «part of speech» , as covering both types.

(iv) Indecisive.

Hence the question cannot be answered in one sense or the other : the unit is marginal . In the classical languages however the criteria weigh rather in favour of the tradi tional interpretation. The reverse is true of the nearest Turkish equivalent of an «adverbial ending» , namely -ce; here derivative criteria arc decisive in favour of regarding the morpheme as a case of the adjective.

73

Besides marginality in regard to inflection and derivational mor­pheme, there is the marginality in regard to inflection and «indepen­dent word» (cf. above p. 1 3) . One more example may be given here.

The English «genitive» , if part of the word, answers positively to the first three criteria. However this fact is trivial, since the charac­teristics in question are also characteristics of monomorphemic words. The fourth criterion, in view of the general structure of English, is indecisive. But derivative criteria here decide : no other English word (on main criteria) is invariably monophonemic and invariably non­initial at the same time. Hence the unit was taken as an inflection.

The unit with which « 'sn forms the smallest IC may be larger than a word. In this respect the inflection differs from no other (cf. p. 65) . What is peculiar, however, is that the inflection may not be attached to the superordinate part of the other member of the IC (type queen of France}s son). This abnormality led to the whole group (e.g. queen of France) being taken as a word, albeit of a spe­cial kind («group-wordn ) in this construction. This interpretation merely replaced one abnormality by another, and one which had graver consequences, since the otherwise perfect parallel between the groups in the construction with the groups outside the construction should logically lead to any nominal group being regarded as a «group-word» in English. Moreover the interpretation whereby the whole nominal group is to be regarded as a word in this construct ion only, has no superiority over an interpretation whereby « 'sn would be regarded as a separate ·word in th is construction onl)l .

Such difficulties tend to disappear when the traditional superpo­sition of morph and morpheme is abandoned (d. p. 5 1 -54) . It has been mai ntained here simply to illustrate the usual criteria, some of which are seldom made explicit. These cri teria all play their role within the more differentiated system adumbrated above.

The criteria for the traditional categories belong indeed to very different levels, and the levels stressed are not the same for each distinction. The distinction between particle and inflection belongs properly to the compositional level (morph, word) , that between stem and derivational affix to the formational level, and that between de­rivational affix and inflection to the distributional (morphemic) level .

74

B. Stem

The stem-morpheme is that 'ivhich fulfils the criterion of simi­larity of part to whole, in most respects :

(i) distribution.

Similarity of the d i stribution of part to the distribution of whole is most readily apparent with stem as opposed to derivational affixes not affecting the class of base. In the majority of cases, and with in­flections by definition, no part of the word has a distribution virtually identical with the whole.

The most important case of partial similarity is the possibility of one morpheme only being isolable, i .e . of occurring, like the total word, in a zero-environment. This criterion is generally decisive in Turkish and English, but seldom applicable in languages of other structure-types.

(ii) frequency.

Since the whole is less frequent than the parts, the less frequent morpheme will ceteris paibus be regarded as stem.

(iii) number of units with similar or parallel distribution.

The number of units in similar distribution to a word is obtained by multiplying together the numbers of morphemes in parallel distri­bution to the morphemes in the word, including these morphemes themselves ; though the result is usually to be discounted through defective distribution. Hence the larger the number of similarly distributed morphemes the more pronounced the stem-character of the morpheme in question. (The most pronounced stem-character belongs to such open categories as the substantival stem) .

(iv) length.

The unit with most phonemes will ceteris paribus be taken as stem. (As a limiting case the other unit may have zero- or subtractive formative. )

(v) prominence.

A unit is as prominent as its most prominent part. A unit bearing the accent will ceteris paribus be taken as stem. (This criterion

75

frequently fails to coincide ·with others, and hence in some sytems may be totally inapplicable, both in the case of lexically distinctive accent (e.g. Russian) and in the case of word-delimitative accent (e.g. Polish) .

In most systems there is some more specific cri terion which nor­mally coincides with the others, and which assumes the role of primary criterion in this language : ini tial position in Turkish, tri-consonantal morph in Arabic, etc . , a role which may be assumed by a particular one of the less specific criteria : stress i n German etc . .

It may be asked why there is no typical position for the stem. Answering to the rim-position characteristic of inflections in the lan­guages of the world, it might be expected that the typical position of the stem would be the central position. Actually (though frequent in IE languages) this position is probably less frequent generally than the initial position (and a fortiori than rim-position in general), in any case i t is impossible to generalise. The reason is doubtless that, while the central position is the expected one from the standpoint of sequence as such, from the standpoint of juncture a rim-position is expected (since the word has normally two open junctures, a central position, normally entailing absence of open juncture, is a maximal departure from the similarity of part to whole) .

The similarity of part to whole in respect both of sequence and of juncture can only be attained at the cost of discontinuity : the initial and final phonemes belong to the stem-morph whereas other morphs are intermediate. (As with central position, the average place of the stem-phonemes equals the average place of the word-phonemes.) Though approximations to this type (e .g . English strong verb) are not uncommon, they hardly anywhere represent the favouri te class : the simultaneous sacrifice of continuity and the inflectional rim-position is, as expected, an anomaly.

The base. The term base is used for any stem-like unit, i .e . for the stem itself or for any combination of stem with other morphemes which has similar distribution to a stem.

The term is used with a systematic ambiguity which does not belong to either stem or word. As applied to a unit of language the base is expandable : i .e . one says that pk- is the base from which pkar- is formed, r;zkar- the base from which pkart- is formed, pkart- the base from which pkartz l- is formed, and pkartz l- the base from which pkar­tz ldz is formed. As applied however to a unit in the sentence, no part

of a base is itself a base : in phart z ldz there is one base pkartz l-} not various layers each to be regarded as bases . In sentence-analysis, the various layers wh ich, from the standpoint of the system, are regarded as bases, are treated as constituent-layers of the base, which by defini­tion is i tself an immediate consti tuent.

C. Derivational affix

All morphemes which may make part of a base but which may not be stems are derivational affixes, more briefly derivationals. (A morpheme once regarded as stem-morpheme continues to be so re­garded when not the principal morpheme answering to the criteria, e .g. when the subordinate morpheme of a compound) .

Observation : «Parts of speechn .

The so-called parts of speech (still more inappropriately «word­classes» ) are classes of stem-morpheme, the latter designation being the one most fi t to render the hybrid status of the unit. (Stem belongs to formation, morpheme to distribution . ) (By extension «part of speechn refers also to a base-complex.)

In many languages there are two large classes of stem-morphemes which occur in interordinational relation in utterances not containing any other stem-morphemes. The members of one of these classes are factorially marginal, i . e . the distribution of the units in contrast to each other does not depend on syntactic conventions. This is the class of nouns. The other class is the class of verbs.

There is a small sub-class of nouns which are seldom superordinate to any single member of another class . This is the class of pronouns. There may be a similar class of verbs (roughly = auxiliaries) .

There is a class of stems commonly having a relation of «attach­ment» (cf. p. 36) to verb or noun. This is the class of adjectives, from which may be separated a class of adverbs commonly having this rela­tion to verb but not to noun. Either of these classes may have mem­bers analogous to the pronouns (pronominal adjectives resp. adverbs) .

There are classes of particles (treated by traditional grammar as stems with zero-inflection) .

(i) Particles generally selecting a noun : prepositions.

77

(ii) Particles generally selecting a verb : subordinating conJunc­tions.

(iii) Particles indifferently selecting : co-ordinating conjunctions .

(iv) Zero-selecting particles : interjections.

For the occasional distinction of participles as a special «part of speech >> intermediate between noun and verb there was no ground in the criteria generally applied by traditional grammar . For the distinc­tion of numeral as intermediate between adjective proper and prono· minal adjective the traditional criteria sufficed. - This subject, despite a recent linguistic congress, should be considered outmoded; but the traditional criteria all have analytic relevance, and deserve to be made more explicit in modern structural treatments.

Note I : The re-classification of mor·phemes.

The old classification into stem, derivational (affix) , inflection and particle must be abandoned, but all the cri teria may be used as before, with an appropriate hierarchisation which places non-distribu­tional criteria (such as the number of members to a class, junctura! division, derivational d irection etc . ) at the periphery.

The particle has no place on this level . (Its characteristic is initial and final open juncture of the morph with which it is correlated.)

The inflection may be defined as a unit whose relations with other units in the same immediate constituent are predominantly in­terordinational . (This includes many of the so-called particles: prepo­si tions and cases, on the morphemic level, do not differ in this res­pect. )

The stem may be defined as a unit which freely enters into co­ordinational relations. (Note that co-ordinational reb tions of particles (type and/ or) tend to be restri cted to formal or scientific language. )

The derivational morpheme may retain i ts old definition, which was purely in terms of distribution (relative to stem) .

Subord ination may be used to define sub-categories of stem- and derivational morpheme. So far as the former are concerned, these categories will resemble those of traditional grammar. But the deri­vational morphemes will fall into different groups on the same basis.

The old distinction beween inflection and particle belongs to the chapter on the morph.

The old distinction between stem and non-stem belongs to the chapter on the formative.

But the distinction between inflection and derivational morpheme belongs (as before) to the chapter on the morpheme.

None of these distinctions belong to the chapter of the sememe.

Note 2 : Reservations.

The definition of a category can serve only to characterise this category in opposi tion to others. Until one knows what these other categories are, no complete definition is possible. The categories of any one linguistic system may be completely defined, since all may be known . But so long as one category remains unknown, the defi­nition of the others cannot be complete.

Hence definitions intended for application to all languages, can never be complete. The supposition that they might be, gave rise to that most ridiculous of pseudo-problems, the question 'whether there are categories common to all languages' . Do all languages have a ca­tegory of nouns? It is possible to define the noun in opposition to the verb, to the pronoun, or to any other part of speech. But it is not possible to define it in opposition to all possible parts of speech, for there is no limit to the possibilities. Hence the question cannot be answered.

The impossibility of giving definitions which are both complete and universal has nothing to do with the possibility of marginal cases ; a question may have a perfectly good meaning, and yet not be an­swerable by Yes or No. It is quite reasonable to ask how many genders there are in Rumanian ; it merely happens that no definite answer can be given. The legitimacy of the question derives here from the fact that there is a stable point of reference, for it has already been agreed to call certain units genders. But the question whether Ruma­nian has any genders would be a senseless one. For there is no gene­rally applicable definition of gender.

This is not to say that i t is purely arbitrary that there should be categories in different languages which are called by the same

79

name. There are perfectly good reasons for identifying gender in Rumanian with gender in French, Greek or Arabic, rather than with other categories in these languages. One very good reason would be that the defini tions do happen to be identical . But this is not a necessary condition. If one language has two categories where another has five, it is most unlikely that any of the dBfinitions should cor­respond; for the larger the number of categories, the more detailed the definitions must be.

Now suppose two languages A and B, of which the first has two categories of substantival inflection, whereas the second has five. · How are the categories of the two systems to be compared? Perhaps there is no comparison possible. But in favourable instances it will be found that the categories of the poorer system answer to some of the more narrowly defined categories of the richer system. In other words the definitions of categories in B apply sometimes to categories in A, though they are not the definitions of categories in A, for these categories (being only two in number) have far simpler definitions.

But then why not take the more explicit though less simple de­finitions derived from language B as the proper definitions for the categories in language A? Two advantages are thereby gained. Firstly the definition for language A is more explicit (albeit less simple) . Secondly the definition applies to both languages. Who would worry at the mere loss in simplici ty when it is compensated by greater clarity and greater universality at the same time?

The fallacy here should be all to obvious. For when we compare the system A with a new system C, precisely the same solution may be feasible. The definitions of units in C may also be applicable to some units in A, and the same advantages may be gained by identify­in� units which answer to definitions provided by the richer system (C) . But the system C need not be identical with the system B. Hence there will be two different sets of definitions for the categories in language A, according to whether it is sought to reconcile the defi­nitions with those in language B, or with those in language C .

If adequacy at any point i s to be achieved, i t is necessary to ask what other categories may be given the same definitions in other systems. It is then possible to see in how far other systems are really comparable. But the fact that a system A is comparable to a system B, and that a system B is comparable to a system C, does not entail

8o

that systems A and C are comparable. For the units in system B may have to be defined in different ways according to whether they are being compared with those in system A or with those in system C.

There will therefore be different typologies of language according to the system which is taken as starting-point. By a comparison of these different typologies a more general typology may be reached. However this more general typology is still not be describable in the same sort of terms as the more special ones : it will not be possible to say that two languages belong to the same group in virtue of possess­ing precisely this or that category. Such statements only make sense from the standpoint of an arbitrarily selected initial system.

VII. THE SEMEME

At the level of the morpheme there could be no question of seek­ing uni ts which would be invariably commutable with even one other unit, except in the most favourable cases. In most instances the word­limitation effectually precluded such a possibility.

At the level of the sentence, all units are potentially commutable with the others. (The sentence might be defined as the smallest unit such that every uni t of the kind is commutable with every other unit.)

At the level of the sememe, every unit must be invariably com­mutable with at least one other unit.

The units in question can be defined in terms of morphemes, usually in terms of more than one morpheme.

In Latin, the morpheme t h i1·d pason1 cannot invariably be com­muted with any other morpheme, hence it cannot define a sememe. The sememic level is approached when several congruent morphemes of thi'l type are regarded as a single unit, for commutation is then nsuaUy possible . However the impersonal verbs present this morpheme in an incommutable form. Hence they must be separated out before even the congruent-morphemic unit may be regarded as correspond­ing to a sememe. Nor can this unit be regarded as sememic when automatically consequent upon a nominal morpheme.

The sememe is devised as a basis for semantics ; and meaning implies choice.

Hence on the sememic level there can be no neutralisations. Since there is no choice in Latin between the imperfect (infec­

tum) and perfect in the case of the passive morphemes, these morph­emes do not answer to sememes. But here it is not simply a matter of sorting out incommutable morphemes, but also a case of including commutable morpheme-combinations (cf. p. 56) .

1 ) Sememically the unit may normally b e taken a s zero ; cf. also E. Benveniste

BSLP XLII p. 1-12. But this is a different question.

F. li

However the principle of commutation, which has hitherto been neglected (despite all affirmations to the contrary) in this field, must not be too pedantically applied once i ts range is recognised. Trivial absences of commutational possibility may be disregarded. When a mor­pheme does not occur for material reasons in some position, this may be discounted. It should not be objected that there are no objective criteria for assuming material reasons : however slapdash and intuitive the grounds may seem in the first instance, they may always be supported, when challenged, by distributional criteria.

Both green wine and yellow wine are are combinations seldom or never found. But the reason is different for the former, where it is a question of lacking material motive, and for the latter, where it is a matter of syntactic convention. This would appear obvious, but if challenged a host of distributional facts could be brought to its support. It would be noted for instance that in certain texts emerald is likely to occur with substantives that in other texts only, and in these texts also, appear with green)· and that the same relation holds between golden and yellow . It would further be noted that golden wine occurs in such texts while emerald wine does not . And from these and a thousand other distributional facts it might be concluded, even by somebody ignorant of meanings, that the absence of yellow wine de­pends on a syntactic convention. (The convention being, that white replaces yellow in the context in question. )

That there is a close relation between distribution and semantic function is not to be denied. But the distributional criteria determin­ing the morpheme are of a kind which renders the unit an unsuitable one for semantics. Among the criteria which prevent even an approach to a correspondence between morpheme and semantic unit (whether divisible or not into smaller semantic units) is the restriction of the morpheme to an element contained within the boundary of the word. Now the word is not a semantic unit, even in the broadest sense. There is therefore no reason why the parts of the word should answer to semantic units.

It is instructive to notice the sole case in which it has been proposed to allow morphemes extending beyond the frame of a single word. This is the case of ' congruential morphemes' : e.g. it has been proposed to take the feminine plural adjective mo1phemes in the presence of superordinate substantive as forming part of a single

morpheme which includes the congruent elements of the substantive (and similarly for all cases of congruence) . The criteria are again distri­butional, not semantic; but this freeing of the distributional criteria from domination by word-boundaries naturally yields units in greater agreement with the properly semantic analysis. Five negative mor­r�hemes need not make five negations.

But th is is only an extreme case. The exception allowed (not too often) by conventionalists proves the rule advocated by others. The rule is this, that the principle of commutation (significant substi­tution of one unit by another) should be applied (for semantic pur­poses) not to units within a word but to units within an utterance. The substitution of one adjectival gender or number for another is possible (as a general rule) only from the standpoint of the word, not from the standpoint of larger syntagms. When the distribution of morphemes (in the strictly conventional sense) is regarded from the standpoint of a unit larger than the word, the units commutable cut across the word-boundaries. In the case of congruent morphemes, there is the simple relation that one morpheme-pair (or a member of any number of morphemically isomorphous groups) is commutable with others. But the commutable <�roups may also have quite different structures. The group is -ing is commutable with -s, and this commu­tation is irreducible . (The group neve-r -s is also commutable with -s, but the commutation is reducible s ince never is commutable with zero in other environments also) . The view of traditional grammar that he eats and he is eating stand in immediate opposition is fully con­firmed by distributional criteria2 •

I t is tempting to say that the relation between in front of and behind is a purely substantial one ; the morphemic structures are en­tirely different. One school of lingu ists would hold , most emphatically, that front represents the same «content-form» in in fmnt of as in at the front of, and only semantic prejudies could lead one to suppose that there was a close content-relation3 with the morphemically distinct behind. This is to neglect the purely conventional distribution-relation exemplified in the possibili ty of fro11t in front of (like from behind) and the impossibility of from at the front of. The fact that in front of

2 ) Cf. A. S. Hatcher on The Use of the Progressive Form in English, Language

27, 254 - 80.

3) For the crudest statement of this glossematic position cf. Jens Holt, Ra­tione! Semantik

is capable of morphemic analysis tells us nothing about relations of content, since the identification with front in at the front of is not supported by distributional criteria : those morphs which can com­monly substitute fmnt in the latter case (e.g. back) top etc.) not being substitutable in the former. The reason for morphemic identification here is simply that there is nowhere else to house back (i) , and the positing of a distinct morpheme is felt to be otiose. As soon however as the distribution of constructions larger than the word are taken into consideration, proportional distributions appear, and on this level in front of belon:ss decisively together with behind rather than with at the front (back) of.

The meaning of a unit is the way in which it is used, not (at least by definition) the product of the meanings of its parts. This is obvious for the simple morpheme, which has no parts ; but i t should be equally clear for larger units. But if the meaning of a unit is not, in any particular case, the product of the meanings of its constituent morphemes (and of their relevant relations) , it follows that some ele­ment(s) of meaning cannot be localised in any one morpheme (or in any relation between morphemes) . Hence it follows that semantic ana­lysis cannot be bound to morphemics.

Nothing is gained here by taking into consideration the distinc­tion of overall meaning (the conventional meaning in the system) and contextual meani ng. For the same argument applies equally to both. The overall meaning of a syntagm i s not the product of the overall meanings of its constituent morphemes, but the overall use of this syntagm; and the contextual meaning is not the product of the contex­tual meanings of the morphemes, but the contextual use of the syn­tagm. In either ca se we seek to derive the meaning of the whole from the meanings of the parts, when this is feasible ; but in any particular case (and the cases are frequent ) this may not be feasible.

There is indeed a borderline use of contextual which may pro­duce confusion. This is the use in which the contextual may be con­ventional at the same time. It is conventional that in a prescribed context a morpheme should have just this meaning. But then in this case the meaning of the morpheme cannot be derived, via the context, from the overall meaning; the meaning ensues, not from the overall meaning plus the context, but precisely from a convention exterior to either.

Now it is true that, in such a case, a meaning could be localised in a given morpheme, though it would be a meaning peculiar to the context. But even this is merely due to the fact that the convention was formulated this way : by attributing an unlimited number of con­textually prescribed meanings to morphemes, it would always be pos­sible to localise meanings in one or the other. Alternatively the osten­sive morphemes might be regarded as merely homophonous. This would be a trivial case of redefinition, leaving untouched the fact that, in the present sense of morpheme, this unit is not capable of af­fording a basis for semantic analysis .

I t is obvious that, having used such a term as passive to describe the distinction between laudat and laudatur on the morphemic level, one will not be able to use the same term to describe the distinction between laudavi t and laudatus est, which belongs to the sememic level. Similarly having used the term compamtive to describe the distinction between b ig and b igger, bad and worse on the morphemic level, one will not be able to use the same term to describe the sememic dis­tinction, which covers also the difference between useful and more useful (over a part of the latter ' s range) . However when, as in these cases, a morphemic term is already available, such terms as passive sememe, compamtive sememe, are readily acceptable. Without the explicit indication of sememe, the terms will be understood in the morphemic sense alone.

Similarly with the term formative. By definition a morphemic formative may be described in terms of operations undertaken on words or parts of words. It is equally licit to speak of a sememic for­mative, which will be a process operating on units which may, and often do, transcend the frontiers of the word. And while the mor­phemic formative is in the great majority of cases a process of substi­tution or addition, the sememic formative will often include transpo­sition.

A term such as sememic taxeme would however be superfluous. This term was invented to cover facts analogous to the morphemic facts, but which could not be housed under the same roof owing to the principle of word-restriction. Without it, part of any sequence would have been left without description on the morphemic level. Where no such restriction applies, a separate term becomes super­fluous. The term 1·elational sememe may be used, but the methods of its determination do not differ from those for the determination of

other sememes as those of the determination of taxemes do from those for the determination of morphemes. (Some relational sememes may be closely correlated with morphs, while non-relational sememes may be closely correlated with taxemic formatives.)

Sememic analysis is not semantic analysis. I t is still a question of distribution, though on a less restricted scale than with the mor­pheme. But at this stage a certain correspondence beween the units and «meanings» may be expected. In other words we may expect to be able to find rough semcm ic equivalences between languages in the same cultural domain, whereas even rough morphemic equivalences can seldom be expected.

0 bservation :

Sememic bases and formatives are to be described, not in terms of morphemic bases and formatives, but in terms of morphemes (and taxemes) , though the ultimate (and logically direct) reference is to the former.

For instance the sememic formative involving a case in Latin will be in terms of congruential case.

Non-distinctive alternations which cannot find a place under the heading of complementary formations (allomorphs) find a place under the heading of sememic bases or formatives. For instance the alter­nation of accusative and dative is automatic with many German verbs under condition of a given taxemic relation (rette dich1 helfe dir ). Hence the recti on of accusative resp. dative is part of the bases of the sememes 'helf-' 'rett- ' . (It is naturally not possible to say that the base is 'helf' plus dative, etc. ; since the dative will only _be present in given taxemic conditions. It is the conditional necessity of dative, (which the term rection is apt to describe) as opposed to any other morpheme of the same class, which makes part of the base.)

A formation like that of the English genitive ceases to be proble­matic when the sememic and morphemic formatives on the one hand, and the composi tional and formative levels on the other, are dis­tinguished. In the king of Egypt's son, Egypt's is a word, although on the formational level the formula is the addition of the genitive mor­pheme to the nominal group. This formation cannot be given under the heading of morphemic formations, since by definition these are confined to operations on units not larger than a word. It comes, like

congruence, under the heading of sememic formations. But there are complementary sememic formatives of the genitive, namely the for­matives of the pronominal genitives, and these come in the first place under the heading of morphemic formatives.

On the level of the sememe i tself, all such facts as congruence, rection, extra-verbal as opposed to intra-verbal formation, are excluded. Congruence and rection are limitations on the free substitution of units, and sememics operates only with freely substi tutable (commu­table) units. The difference between intraverbal and extra-verbal for­mations, when these are in complementary distribution, has no more relevance to sememics than any other complementary differences.

The same applies to whole categories in complementary distri­butions, e.g. conjunction and preposition : the categories are not seme­mically different, though the rnernbers of one may not always or even often be sememically identifi able wi th the rnernbers of the other.

However, sememic relations are of course excepted from the prin­ciple of free substi tutability, in the same way as the overt relations (p. 3 1 ). To an asymmetric relation the notion of substitution is inappli­cable : its relevance consists in the permutability of the relata .

Note: Semantics

Surprise is often expressed at the exclusion of semantics from the linguist's domain. But the reasons for such an exclusion should become apparent when the definitions of meaning upon which the decision is based are examined.

'The meaning of any domain, whether morpheme or larger, may be defined as the common feature in the social, cultural, and inter­personal situations in which that interval occurs ' .

The citation is from a distinguished member of a linguistic school which regards questions of meaning as belonging to rnetalin­guistics4 . Now if the definition here given is a suitable one, there i'l no cause to wonder why semantics should remain outside the lin­guist' s field. There is, on the other hand, very strong cause to wonder into whose field the subject could possibly enter.

4) Z.S. Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics p. 347.

88

I t is evident that there cannot be any such field, unless there is some common feature in the situations in which the interval (e.g. morpheme or word) occurs. If there is not, the definition answers to noth ing. It might therefore be expected that some research would have been undertaken with the object of discovering features common to all si tuations in which a morpheme (or other unit� occurs.

It might be made a subject of reproach to linguists that they have never thought of undertaking such research; for if this is what mean­ing is thought to be, meanings can only be sought in this way. But the very thought of research of this kind should suffice to convince the linguist that there is no subject to investigate. vVhy should there be anything in common to all situations in which a morpheme oc­curs? When the morpheme was being defined, a number of criteria were considered : in the first place, criteria of distribution, in the second place criteria of juncture, phonemic constitution and so on. Nothing whatever was said of situations. And now suddenly, at the end of all this, we hear that there is something in common to all situations in which the unit occurs ; as though more could be squeezed out of a unit than was put into it through the operations by which it was originally defined.

It might be replied that we are sometimes m a position to m­

dicate some feature common to all occurrences of a uni t . But this «feature» is indicated by means of words (not e.g. by pointing) . I t does not, and could not, rely on a common si tuational feature for all uses of a word (resp. morpheme) .

Semantics is the study of syntactically unbound distribution. Such di stributional facts might be imperfectly formulated in terms of frequency ; but the formulation would not only be imperfect (since liable not to fit, even approximately, any new text in recognisably the same language), but also entirely unilluminating in itself. It is true that syntactically bound distribution is also in a sense unilluminat­ing, if formulated in i ts own terms ; but within synchronic grammar, there are no other terms in which it could be formulated . Within synchronic grammar, bound distribution is i ts own raison d' etre: nothing further can be asked. With unbound distribution, i t makes sense to ask for the reason of occurrence, in each special instance, and the frequency is accounted for by the (never complete) sum total of these reasons.

8g

But the word reason here should not mislead. When asked for the reason why the French word temps occurs, we do not look round for something in the social situation which must inevitably call up this word. Rather we say : French temps is apt to occur in utterances which might be rendered into English in a way such as to include time or weather; the former only in such cases where the English would not have been rendered into French by an utterance including fois. And in this particular case, the English utterance would have been apt to include time (or perhaps weatheT, as the case may be) .

The example is a crude one, but all semantic analysis turns back in the end to direct or indirect translation - to the use of other words. Often whole sentences will be necessary, and even then very incom­plete renderings . But by more and more renderings, successive ap­proximation is possible. If it were not possible, dictionaries would be useless.

Semantics is not part of linguistic farm, and for this reason has no place in this book . Nor is it a matter of substance : this dichotomy fails to apply here. But it is a perfectly respectable l inguistic activity, with objective criteria of its own.

I t is also naturally possible to study the applications of words as distinct from the translations based upon them. Though such a study is not purely linguistic, i t is presupposed whenever there is no more direct source of information (e.g. bilinguals) . Numerous such studies exist. However they are not based on the assumption that there must be some single feature which is picked out from a sitl l ­ation every time the speaker or writer uses the word. They are studies of ranges of usage. It suffices that each use is shown to be linked through imperceptible gradations to another use. And even in such studies, the covert role played by mere translation is larger than is often supposed.

But it would be absurd to suppose that one might undertake a study of the range of usage of French prepositions, i n the same way as one might undertake a study of the range of usage of French colour-adjectives or of the terms of medieval chivalry. The reason for this is not that the prepositions have some highly abstract, evanescent range of usage ; on the contrary, the range is often far better defined than that of more «concrete» units. But i t is defined in purely syntactical terms: there is often simply no choice between one member of the set and another. So far as this is so there is no <<range of application>> to look for, because the unit is not applied at

go

all ; i t is used, but not for any purpose. W"hat remains for study here, after such cases have been discounted, is the different ranges of usage in different substitution-sets : the preposition has a different range in each set, and i t belongs to many such sets. Just as it has no meaning, when there is no choice, it has a diffaent meaning, according to other possible different choices. Each of these meanings is to be studied as a range of application, not as a single feature picked out. But for the morpheme as a whole, there is not in any profitable sense even a range of application; it is not a question of imperceptible grada­tions, but rather a question of usages which are not either directly or indirectly linked at all . The most elementary knowledge of lin­guistic history suffices to show how this might come about. The Gesamtbedeutung, even conceived as a mnge of meanings, is here an offence to common sense, to information- theory, and to diachronic l inguistics.

It is important to notice that the theory of the Gesamtbedeutung5 is not unconditionally wrong like that of the «common feature in every situation>> . For all that is or need be pretended by the former theory, is the possibility of an illuminating translation into words. The theory is wrong only when this translation is a translation of the morpheme rather than of the semerne. The morpheme is not by definition a unit freely commutable with any one other, hence cannot form a basis for semanti cs.

Observation 1 : It should go without saying that permutation as well as commutation may serve as basis for sememic analysis. The fact that the case-morphemes are not commutable in many instances does not render them incapable of being endowed with a Gesamtbe­deutung; what does normally render such a Gesamtbedeutung infeas­ible, is the fact that the cases in question are not regularly permutable; just as what renders other morphemes unsuitable for the purpose, is the fact that they are not regu1arl;' commutable. In either instance it is necessary to sort off different areas of distribution until within any one area regularity of replacement dominates. Only at this point can one undertake a research into Gesamtbedeutungen.

Observation 2 : A great deal has been written against the old se­mantic definitions of «parts of speechn , but most of it is rather off the point. The criteria could have been made quite objective ; e.g. in a1lserting that a verb means a «process)) or «action>> , one could take as

s ) The standard article is that of R. Jakobson zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre

( TCLP, VI p. 240 ff. ) .

criterion that when a speaker uses a verb he is prepared to use the word action or process in the de�cription of its <<meaning>> , when asked, in the majority of examples. But this object1ve criterion was in fact never stated; and it is doubtful whether the speaker would have been prepared to condone the grammarian's word in most cases, or even (what alone is essential) whether there would be any other ·word with a range in the speaker' s vocabulary similar to the range of the technical word in the grammarian 's vocabulary. Just the same ob­jection applies, perhaps even more strongly, to the more sophisticated modern Gesamtbedeutung. But it is not this objection that is made. The common objection is rather that the criterion is incapable of being given any objective status whatsoever .

Often the possibility of any sort of semantic relevance of mor­pheme-classes i s «disproved» by arguments which might equally be used to discredit the old classes qua distributional classes. For instance it is said that no connection between preposition and relation can be established, on the grounds that the word relation is not a preposition6• In the same way one might demonstrate that the adjectives are not a distributional class, on the grounds that m ere and afraid have entirely different distributions. What is alone relevant is that there is a distri­butional nucleus to the class of adjectives, peripheral members sharing distributional characters with this nucleus though not necessarily with each other. Similarly a morpheme-class may well possess a se­mantic nucleus.

All that it is correct to urge against semantic interpretations (and today this is hardly any longer necessary) is that they can only be interpretations of classes fixed by distributional criteria; there are no semantic classes in their own right.

Observation 3 : What should have made the · so-called parallelism of <<form and substance of expression» and <<form and substance of content» seem very odd from the start, is that there may be borderline­cases only for the second opposition, which is one between distribution proper (bound distribution) and free occurrence. The distinction between the bound and the free is naturally a gradual one. On the other hand there can be no gradual transition between the form of the expression (depending on distributional relations) and the sub­stance (phonic or graphic) for the simple reason that the two concepts do not border on one another.

R) Often repeated by E. Buyssens, most recently at the seventh linguistic congress.

Observation 4 :

On the theory of the Gesamtbedeutung, the sememic irrelevance of incommutable morphemes could have been allowed for under the heading of neutralisation. But when neutralisation was spoken of by the authors of this theory, it meant syncretism7 ; e.g. the opposition of nominative and accusative was said to be neutralised in the Latin neuter. But if neutralisation is to be spoken of here, i t is a neutrali­sation of formative oppositions, not of sememic (let alone morphemic) oppositions.

But even so, semantic irrelevance could not have been compared to the phonemic irrelevance of a feature in the position of neutralisa­tion. There was never any question of a <mnit of meaning» being irrelevant; for relevance was defined precisely in relation to meaning. It was simply a question of formatives relevant to meaning in one position, being irrelevant in another posi tion. It mattered very little that syncretism, which by definition applies to word-forms, was wrongly regarded as a form of sememic neutralisation ; for it would have been equally v.rrong to have regarded any restriction in the choice of units as a neutralisation in this sense. One phoneme may occur in positions where a phoneme in immediate opposition may not occur ; or at least it makes phonetic sense to say that it does. But a

sememe can not occur where a sememe in opposition may not occur; and it does not make semantic sense to say that it · does. Meaning depends on choi ce, phones exist independently of choice.

It is still not uncommon, even in the v.rritings of serious linguists, to find bound distributions ci ted as evidence for differences in men­talitt. It should go without saying that this is invalid.

7) Cf. R. Jakobson, loc. cit. p. 283.

S) Cf. e.g. J. Lotz, The Semantic Analysis of the Nominal Bases in Hungarian,

Recherches Structurales p. 186 : «the use of the singular after numerals is regarded

as an exception. . . this view is clearly affected by an Indoeuropean-metaphysical

preconception . . . » .

VIU. SCOPE AND CRITERIA

Describing a language, like mapping a country\ is an affair of cutting and smoothing. The problem is where to cut, and where to smooth.

The designer of a map chooses with good reason to make a cut between land and sea. The distinction is both physically and po­litically important. Furthermore it is an easy distinction to draw. Difficulties may arise with territory which is under water for half the year, but they do not arise often. Here it may be said that the map­maker is reproducing a natural cut.

The distinction of high and low land is equally important. But here there is seldom a natural cut . The maps show a cut between less and more than five thousand metres ; it might as well have been yards. Experi enced users of maps are not deceived; any such cut, how­ever arbitrary, is better than none. The cuts might of course be made so fTequent as to give the impression of continuous shading. Such a map would be more «realistic» ; but the extra information given would preferably be sought on a larger-scale map on which the cuts were visible.

The cuts made by the descri ptive linguist may have any degree of arbitrariness, and the number depends on the scale of the des­cription. But even with the least arbitrary of cuts, the scale is never so great that still more cuts would not have been possible. A very large-scale map may show lines for the limits of high and low tide. There is nothing which is too trivial to be recorded, independently of a chosen scale, though it goes without saying that the value of increasing the scale of a map would be more than offset long before the scale became equal to that of the country mapped.

Occasionally it may be possible to choose cri teria such that no increase of scale could provide further information of the same sort.

1 ) For the comparison cf. M. Joos, Journal of the Acoustic Society of America

22, p. 702.

94

The political map of a world at peace may show all relevant frontiers ; a larger-scale map could show no more. But as soon as frontiers be­came disputed, other criteria than those originally resorted to would have to be taken into consideration : legal rights (themselves disputed) , effective occupation (for how long a period?) , the conven­tions of past map-makers and the probabilities of future territorial distribution. There would be differences of degree whose represen­tation demanded a generous scale; and a map could never be large enough to cover them all .

Alternatively, a series of maps might be presented, each answer­ing to the choice of a different cri terion . Thi s would be the obvious solution when the criteria did not tend to coincide. Separate maps for legal possession and effective occupation would in such circumstances be as desirable as separate maps for physical contours and for rainfall . Composite maps would at best be i lluminating superpositions of essentially independent designs.

Such independent maps would not of course have a lower degree of arbitrariness than maps based on a larger number of criteria ; they would simply be more special in aim . Hence the solution of splitting up criteria is not a solution to difficulties of cutting. Just as no map is on so large a scale that an increase in scale would not allow for further distinctions, so no cri terion is so narrow that a narrowing of scope would not be possible by the splitting of the criterion into several different criteria. Nor is there any abrupt line to be drawn between the larger-scale application of a single criterion, and the equal-scale fissure of one criterion into two. In a small-scale map the question of high tide and low tide does not arise. But when the question does arise, it may be thought of as a continuation of the question of where to make the cut between land and sea, to be resolved by degrees of ( (Sea-ness» and ((land-ness» , or as a new question, the question pre­cisely of tides.

Even when cri teria tend to coincide, they must of course sooner or later be separated. But their non-separation at the beginning implies no confusion. It only appears as a confusion, after the failure of the cri teria to correspond has forced a distinction . The failure to corres­pond may be due to an increase in scale or to an expansion of material . But in neither case is i t fair to say that two criteria were previously confused . Previously, there was one undifferentiated criterion, for >vhich the subsequently differentiated criteria served as inexplicit meta-crite.ria.

95

Once distinguished, the criteria do not automatically need to be served by different maps . Until a failure to yield even a gross corre­spondence can be shown, they are supplementary . When one fails to yield a determinate boundary, the other comes into play.

The different maps answer to the different chapters of a grammar, when it is a question of different kinds of feature. On the other hand the differences of scope between maps answer to the gTadual expan­sion, within each chapter, of nuclear systems through the addition of supplementary information on marginali ties, having different degrees of importance and hence appearing in hierarchical order as the scope is widened. To this scope there is no lower or upper limit.

No special issue is raised when the scope depends on the si ze of the grammar. Nor should the issue be raised, what may properly be­long to a grammar at all, since any facts connected with speech may deserve consideration in an appropriately large-scale treatment. The important issue is that of the hierarchisation of criteria.

Within a certain range, the grammarian has a choice of interests. However the facts of speech are too closely interlocked for there to be a choice comparable to that between a political and a physical atlas. Yet here too a parallel may be drawn. Justias a political atlas would not make any sense without a minimum of physical detail, whereas the reverse does not hold, so are there sets of linguistic facts which do not make sense by themselves, and others which may be treated as independent. For instance a description of spoken language will make sense without graphic basis, whereas a purely graphic description will barely make sense without a phonemic basis. (A good graphic system may convey the form of spoken language, but the form is unintelligible without the substance) .

Some facts may be excluded from a small-scale description because of their universal i ty ; being common to many languages, they do not characterise one. Such are for instance the facts of sentence-intonation; not that the intonations are everywhere similar (though they tend to an overall similarity) but that the distinctions are everywhere similar. (Ignorance of the intonation of earlier linguistic systems does not pro­judice their intelligibility) .

The cri teria of non-universali ty, arbi trariness, distinctiveness of a high degree (essential constituent of message) and discreteness in general, tend to coincide, yielding to;ether a nucleus over which little disagreement is possible.

g6

A lingui stic system may be based on data drawn from fields as wide or narrow (within reasonable limits) as is desired. Systems are u sually based on the speech of mutually intelligible speakers over a wide area throughout a longish period, small differences of dialect or style being neglected . It must not be supposed that such systems are necessarily less determinate than for i nstance that of a single idiolect as recorded over a short space of time, and to the exclusion of certain styles. On the contrary, the widening of scope may render evident an over-all pattern which the more l imited data concealed. No priority is therefore ini tially due, as is sometimes supposed, to the idiolect. Quite apart from the fact tha t differences between individuals are likely to be less important (within a fairly homogeneous community), than differences of style with the same individual, all such restrictions are l iable to yield systems which, so far from being more coherent, do not even make sense by themselves ; and this for much the same reason (though the case is an extreme one) as that for which a single utterance, considered in isolation, is not a subject for linguistic in­vestigation. There is no point at which the < <Ultimate concrete lin­guistic reality» is reached2 • What does exist (though i ts limits are un­likely to be very well-defined) is an optimal range of data yielding a system which may serve as starting-point for the mapping of more special systems on the one hand, and of more general systems on the other. Traditional grammarians often erred rather on the side of generosity in taking in data of widely different periods, a temporal error paralleled by the spacial error (not unknown among modern structurali sts") of seeking a common phonemic system applicable to all quasi-standard forms of English . Not of course that time and space are in themselves barriers ; but they may be accompanied by barriers that <t single system attempts at i ts cost to overleap . The relative absence of such barriers belongs to the defini tion of a «classical» language ; their presence defines the jJatois. Most «national» lan']."uages have in­termediate status.

Note I : Micro- and 11WCTO-citeria .

The «raw materiaL) on which the linguist bases his analysis is already interpreted material . The interpretations are of course subject

2 ) Despite R.A. Hall, tdiolect and Linguistic Super-Ego, Studia Linguistica V,

21-27. S ) Cf. e.g. G.L. Trager and H.L. Smith, Outline of English Structure.

97

to revlSlon, though in practice the range of disagreement between scholars at this stage is rather narrow, and such disagrements as may subsist are liable to prove trivial for the later analysis . For instance a difference between linguists over the virtual identity of sounds in different utterances is not likely to lead to a difference of phonemic analysis, since a disputable diflerence is unlikely to prove a functional difference. (When two differences compete, there remains of course the tendency to refer a recognised allophone to one phoneme rather than another ; moreover functional distinctions are also subject to dispute. But it remains true that disagreement over ccfacts)) is a very minor source of disa:;reement over analysis of the central linguistic system.)

The criteria for the initial interpretation, in other words for the ccraw material» . are in all ways but one similar to those for the sub­sequent analysis ; that is to say, they are based not on any single <me­cessary and sufficient>> set of criteria but on a continual shuffling of frequently conflicting though often convergent patterns weighed one <'gainst the other. They differ from the cri teria applied at a later stage by not being explicit ; the linguist cannot say how many criteria have been taken into consideration ; and though each one of the criteria is capable of being made explicit, and though many are in fact known, there is never any guarantee that all have been made explicit . For in­stance there is no doubt that c cvowel-length )) depends partly on the temporal relations between vocalic segments, and small doubt that it also depends on factors of pitch . Many other factors probably play a role . But these factors are discovered a posteriori, by the investiga­tion of differences already recognised as (ling-uistically) quantitative. The criteria of quanti ty cannot be stated beforehand; one passes (with all reservations as to feed-back) from the unit to the cri teria, not from the criteria to the unit.

Micro-criteria reach the macroscopic level in two ways, by accu­mulation and by amplification . The accumulation of micro-cri teria presents i tself immed iately as a single criterion to the linguist investi­gating a language from outside. Amplification he may seek in various ways. For instance the speaker may be asked to slow down the speed of his utterances, or even to ((divide them into words>> . The more explicit the instructions given, the more likely it is that amplification will be blended ·with ((prior accumulatiom> . For instance the speaker who is merely asked to < <go more slowly>> will possibly do no more than

F. 7

g8

accentuate otherwise imperceptible pauses ; if asked to maintain word­division he will almost certainly make pauses at points where there would have been none, and where moreover there would other­wise have been no phonetically delimitative features (such as half­open juncture) whatsoever. These pauses will occur at intervals sug­gested by a wide variety of partially non-phonetic micro-criteria. Such blending is automatic when the speaker and the investigator are one and the same person : which is the ideal case.

Instrumental amplification may be used as a check, but its inde­pendent value is dubious. It is essential for the discovery of micro­criteria, but can hardly affect the ultimate analysis . Its function is explanatory, and perhaps ultimately definitional : molecular theory explains and even serves to define the distinction between liquid and solid, but does not affect the molar distinction.

The study of micro-criteria, whether phonetic or semantic, be­longs to metalinguistics. The centrality of distributional cri teria, on the other side, comes from the fact that they cannot depend immediately upon micro-criteria. However in this respect thay do not differ from compositional cri teria. There is hence no a priori reason for classing units after their distribution rather than after their composition. The former classification is naturally the only possible one for minimal features ; but already for phonemes the two classifications are equally justified; indeed it is only the relative determinacy of, and hence agreement about, the phonemic inventory, which renders distributional statements profitable, since otherwise they would be a superfluous repetition of information appropriately given about the features.

Note 2 : Criteria of Centrality in the Linguistic System.

The primary cri terion of linguistic status is the arbitrary or un­motivated. Important subsidiary criteria are the functionally relevant and the substantially discrete.

A unit answering to all these criteria would be e.g. the unit k in English or other languages. The use of this unit is arbitrary; the occurrence of kat rather than pat or sil in given contexts is prescribed by pure convention, which it is not to be anticipated that other lan­guages will follow. The unit is functionally relevant, as is shown by the conventional prescription of units which differ from it in only one

99

respect, in other situational contexts, but in the same vocal environ­ment (hat, pat). The uni t is discrete, for there are no degrees of «k-ness» .

Take now the unit constituted by ccquestioning intonation» (a spe­cial tone-curve) in English . This unit is functionally relevant, since two otherwise identical sentences (communications) may be distin­guished by i t alone (he came. f he carne?). I t is also 8 discrete unit; a sentence either has, or has not, this intonation. However it is not purely arbi trary, as is already shown by the occurrence of a similar intonation in similar contexts in widely separated languages4 • Hence a synchronic explanation may be sought . In so far, the unit is mar­ginal .

The sequence c che came and went» as opposed to c che went and came» is functionally relevant. for these are different communications. The sequence is discrete, no overlapping being possible. However it is not arbitrary, since it is easy to explain why temporal sequence in events should be represented by temporal sequence of words. Since this distinction occurs in precisely the same form in all types of speech, i t may be regarded as outside the province of the grammarian.

On the other hand the sequence of stems in the type eat up, though arbi trary, and hence not anticipated in preferenct:> to the re­,rerse sequence in other forms of speech, is not functionally relevant, since the reverse sequence is not found . To this extent the fact is marginal. However, functional relevance being a subsidiary criterion this marginality is less than in the above examples. (Here derivative criteria also play a role in favour of non-marginality. The fixed sequence of a unit may perform the function of identifying this unit, e.g. tu: men / men tu: c c two men» / «men too» . Furthermore the rl i stribution of units, considered independently of �heir meanings, has a rle�ree of arbitrariness at least equal to that of the units them­selves ; this arbitrariness is reduced if meaning is considered, but th is reduction is partly balanced by the fact that distribution is primary in relation to meaning.)

As has been seen, such units as adjective or verb are not discrete, since there are degrees of acljectivality and verbalitv. To this extent

4) Cf. E. Hermann, Probleme der Frage ( Nachrichten der Akademie der Wiss.

il t Gottingen 1942 ) .

1 00

the «parts of speech» are marginal units. (A language without such units - the Chinese of some popular descriptions, not altogether un­founded in fact - is quite conceivable) . However the primary criterion of the arbitrary (confirmed by the vast differences between languages in this respect) , and to a smaller degree the subsidiary criterion of functional relevance, which is not valid for the central members of the categories, are responsible for the universal acceptance of the «parts of speech» as integral categories of language.

Some features only answer to one of the three criteria. Word­stress is not arbitrary (though syllabic stress often is) . Nor is it dis­crete; different degrees of stress answer to different degrees of se­mantic emphasis. Stress answers therefore only to the criterion of functionality (the sentences «He went» and «he went » convey differ­ent information ; the unstressed word in each sentence, if expected by the listener, may convey no information at all) . Word-stress is therefore highly marginal in language.

However it i s less marginal , for instance, than «natural pitch» (e.g. the high pitch of a child or woman) . The latter may be said to convey information in certain circumstances (e.g. in absence of visual contact between the speakers) ; it hence answers to a «widened» criterion of functionality. The criteria of arbitrariness and discreteness are unfulfilled. Here the limits of marginality are approached.

As a further criterion must be given universality within a com­munity . This cri terion is peculiar in that it stands between two ne­gative criteria ; both universality and individuality speak against lan­guage-status.

Such criteria may be regarded as derivative. It is unlikely that a universal feature should be arbitrary, since there is no community of tradi tion to account for it . I t is unlikely that a purely individual feature should be arbitrary, since its origin must lie within the life­time of the speaker, and whatever cause or motive there may have ul­timately been is probably still operative. However, there is of course nothing incompatible between the individual and the arbitrary. Indi­vidual speech-habits derived from the false interpretation of utterances by other members of the community are essentially of the same nature as the communal speech-habits derived from re-interpretations which are responsible for changes of system. Though marginal from the standpoint of a linguist concerned with the speech of a community, they are barely marginal qua language.

1 0 1

Features which answer positively to this cri terion may remam very marginal. For instance the different pronunciations of graphic l in the English word little are universal within a large community while being referable to a rule which is characteristically English . Yet not only the criterion of functional relevance, but also that of the arbitrary, is unfulfilled. For whatever be the source of the English sound-distribution here, there is no reason to believe that this source lies in the past rather than the present . The case is quite different with the similar distribution of the two consonants in hang. Here an historical explanation, even if unsupported by documentary evidence, would be surmised. The former distribution is conventional, but the latter is also arbitrary. Since the conventional is a widened criterion in relation to the arbitrary, the marginality of the former distribution is of course still far less great than that of such a distribution as «initial ex- / final im-plosive» .

A linguist may choose to include within his system as many mar­ginalities as he wishes, provided that he does not gratuitously sacrifice central facts in favour of marginal ones. In other words the boundary between language and non-language (or here more specifically between langue and parole) is indeterminate.

A special type of marginal unit is that which belongs to a separate system, but occurs in speech-acts side by side with normal units. If this other system is still an operative force, the unit may be said to be motivated from the standpoint of the first system. If it is not, the criterion of arbitrariness is fulfilled, and the units are regarded as part of a secondary system, of a fragmentary kind.

U nassimilated loans from languages still familiar to a large sec­tion of the community are the most obvious examples of the first case. Archaisms based on familiarity with earlier periods of a literary language also come under this heading. Under the second heading come not only loans (and principles of word-formation) derived from languages no longer extant in the same form, or with which contact has been lost ; and which in some way stand out against a central sys­tem characterised by the fact that its members are more frequent, more evenly distributed over the vocabulary, or less technical. All forms or principles which are no longer productive are marginal in this sense. However the high frequency of many such forms, the fact that they are as deeply embedded in the same system as the productive units, often render them an indispensable part of a minimal descrip­tion.

1 02

A grammatical description can proceed in different ways. Diffe­rent layers of language, beginning with the most central, could be described one after the other. Rules given as absolute at any one stage, would always be subject to exceptions at a more marginal stage. Alternatively, marginalities can be recorded in the same chapter as the central units and principles out from which they radiate. The first method is similar to that of the «progressive course» , the second method is similar to that of the advanced grammar. Neither enjoys in itself any scientific superiority, and various compromises are pos­sible.

Note 3 : Structural linguistics and linguistic description.

I t is commonly supposed that one of the chief aims of structural linguistics is that of providing new techniques of grammatical des­cription. It was not left to the twentieth century structuralists to discover the means of describing a language adequately enough for all practical purposes, including the practical purposes of the pro­fessional linguist : good grammars of the last century do not convey

]ess information, or even less relevant information, than their most modern counterparts. But it is held that there was something gravely amiss in the method of presentation. The method was not uniform.

indeed a good many methods were used. One was the analytic method, which was pursued with tolerable consistency down to the level of the word (an undefined unit) . Below this level some analysis (for instance the stem-suffix divisions in the chapter on word-forma­tion) was undertaken. More often however the student was presented with 'paradigms' , i . e . with tables of related words arranged after their semantic or syntactic function, on the model of whi ch other words could (within stated limits) be formed. For exceptional formations there was neither analysis nor paradigm, but simply an important example or two, with the indication that others might be expected. Finally one was warned that grammar did not replace the reading of texts, which were generously cited in the grammar itself.

This was all very useful, but it did not conform to the modern notion of a scientific grammar. Different levels were not carefully distinguished, and the same fact might turn up, in rather diverse guises, at distinct stages of the description. This was not found to be confusing at the time : it was left to a later age to discover that there

was any confusion at all . Is it not the task of structural linguists to dispel the confusion?

But surely it is more important to distinguish between the tasks of descriptive grammar and those of structural linguistics, lest there may be confusion here. An interest in linguistic structure implies an interest in the description of language-structures, though it is not quite the same thing. But the task of descriptive grammar is not that

of describing a language-structure ; it is quite simply that of des­cribing a language. A language is not necessarily to be regarded as a single structure, or even as a complex of structures similar enough to be all described in the same way.

There are descriptive grammars which fail to describe. But this is not because they use different methods of description at different stages. It may even be because they attempt to use the same method of description at all stages.

One man is interested in city-structure, and another is interested in the description of cities. One may learn from the other. Very often no such learning is necessary : if a city is built in the form of a square, this is not more likely to escape the eye of the descriptionist than that of the structuralist. If the squareness of the city is merely approximate, the structuralist may notice this sooner. This is the sort of thing he is looking for . But he is likely to be impatient of the inroads that the suburbs have made on the city. Either these do not belong to the plan (they are irrelevant) or they must be made to belong to the plan; or the plan must be revised so that they do belong to it . Cannot one see that the suburbs are not really a part of the city? Or cannot one see that they are merely a continuation of the city, or (more subtly) cannot one see that the plan of the original city was indeterminate, and that the suburbs were necessary in order to show what this plan really was?

But why not simply allow that one has to deal with different structures?

The ideal case is that in which the structures are as good as inde­pendent . The central city has one plan and the suburbs another. In Turkish the system of word-formation for units of Arabic origin makes an independent scheme. It is possible to describe this scheme on the same lines as that of the original Turkish units; and this would have the advantage, if it is one, that units in the ostensibly different schemes might be identified: units in the one would be allomorphs

of units in the other. But th is would not be the simplest way of con­veying the facts.

Indeed such a description would be hybrid in a sense far more pernicious than that in which the use of two different methods of description in the same grammar might be described as a hybrid method. It would be a cross between descriptive grammar and struc­tural linguistics with the advantages of neither. The subject of the description would be that of descriptive grammar, while the descrip­tion itself would have been undertaken with the aim of making the subject seem to be that of structural linguistics.

The ideal case is not the most usual one. Part of our city might show no well-defined structure at all . One might have to rest satisfied with indicating the positions of the individual buildings. The describer of a language, in similar cases, refers to the dictionary ; while the structuralist can have little to say.

But most often the case is intermediary : i t is possible to discern several interlocking structures . Parts of the city show well-defined plans, which can only be seen in one way. When one looks towards the north of one of these well-structured parts, the latter appears as a part of a larger well-defined structure. And similarly when one looks to the south. But these two larger structures cannoL be reconciled with one another through a common all-embracing pattern. They are distinct and yet overlapping.

French s' est tmuve can be seen as having the pattern of m' a trouve (i e . object / , auxiliary, participle) . It can also be seen as having the pattern of est Teste (i.e. auxiliary, participle : est / se trouve) . In the former case est will appear as an allomorph of a) in the latter se will appear as an allomorph of me te etc. , within the limits of the pattern. 1 he two patterns are contradictory.

This must not be confused with a mere difference of dimensions. (A house may belong to different rows if these intersect, but i t is something more, and quite different, if the same building is seen as one house when one looks down one row, and as two houses or half a house when one looks down the other . ) .

The descriptive grammarian may find i t here useful to adopt one analysis in one chapter, another in another. If this is the best method of getting the information over, so much the better for the structu­ralist. But if otherwise, it will be impertinent for the structuralist to interfere in the interest of a so-called scientific grammar.

1 05

But should there not be descriptive grammars prepared especially for the structuralist? In what way would such a grammar differ from one which had simply profi ted from structural investigations when­ever they were relevant to its aim?

By greater uniformity? But a departure from uniformity is made for reasons that cannot fail to interest the structuralist, who for the rest does not need his own work to be clone in advance.

But how is the structuralist to compare different linguistic sys­tems, unless a uniform method is established?

(i) So far as the different systems demand the same treatment they will receive the same treatment. When there are al ternative treatments, no method prescribed in advance is of any use. For one of the methods will set in relief a relation between languages A and B, while another will set in relief a relation between languages A and C.

(ii) I t is not languages as such, but linguistic structures, which are in the centre of interest . No descriptive grammar could do justice to all the conflicting structures to be found in the language in ques­tion. Supposing that it could, what would be gained? Something very useful no doubt, but something which would have better been gained by another route: by seeking similarities of structure between parts of different languages, rather than by seeking differences of structure between parts of the same language. The structuralist has no need of a set of catalogues of systems to be found in this and that language. He asks only for the best possible presentation of information which will allow him to see these systems.

The immediate relevance of structural linguistics to description can be exaggerated. On the other hand the importance of structural lin­guistics to historical grammar should not need to be stressed. Unfor­Lunately its influence has sometimes been negative . A linguist who has got it into his head that a morpheme is a meaningful unit, cannot possibly be supposed to understand semantic change; and one brought up to the notion of allophones becoming phonemes overnight, will be effectually hindered from properly describing the process whenever it is a gradual one. Bad structuralism is hardly preferable to none at all. But the dangers of complete ignorance may be illustrated by a citation from a distinguished linguistic historian who has remained a stranger to the movement :

1 06

«The standardisation of the inherited Latin forms (-amo, -emo, -zmo > -iamo) must be the result of a less individualised mode of thinking to which the lst plural with its collective implications must have lent itsel£ . . . »1

This is the sort of thing that an elementary knowledge of linguis­tic structure may help to prevent. But questions of historical linguis­tics have been left aside here .

1 ) The layman might be interested to know why this explanation is nonsense :

( i ) nothing about the meaning of a unit can be deduced from its expressions, in­

dependently of their distribution ; (ii) even if something could be deduced in prin­

ciple, this would not be feasible here ; since it is arbitrary to take -a- as a part

of the 1st. person plural termination, rather than as part of the base. If the fact

that -a- is not constant for all forms of the base, were a proof that it is not a

part of the base here ; then the fact that it is not constant for all forms of the

first plural, would be proof that it is not part of the termination ; ( iii ) a single

form is more individualised, rather than less individualised, than a set of variants ;

( iv) the explanation is not based on any facts known independently of the expli­

candum.

The citation is from L. Spitzer's review of G. Rohlfs' Historische Graromatik

der ltalienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten, Word 8, 278.

Appendix A : Phonemic Components.

Until relatively recently it was usual to deal with similarities between phonemes in terms of intersecting categories rather than in terms of decomposition. The difference need not be more tham a verbal one. But it is likely that, as soon as the part-whole rather than the member-class terminology is used, the ostensible criteria for pho­nemic analysis should be transferred to the analysi s of phonemic parts.

Now the ostensible criteria for phonemic analysis are not identical with the actual criteria ; they are a part only of such cri teria, and it is only their virtual coincidence with other criteria which leads to the impression that the latter are superflous. Hence when the osten­sible criteria are applied to the division of a phoneme into parts, they yield results which are only in appearance on a par with those reached when a phonic chain is split up into phonemes.

What happens when the ostensive criteria are taken in all se­riousness as «sole necessary and sufficient cri teria» may best be seen in R. Jakobson's P1·eliminaries to Speech A nalysis' : As expected, the principle of relevancy functions as main criterion in i ts own right. Most of the conclusions follow naturally enough, once this starting­point is granted.

There is however at least one surprising claim : «By successively eliminating all redundant data . . . the analysis of

language into distinctive features overcomes the <<non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions» : the present approach establishes a criterion of the simplicity of a given solution, for when two solutions differ, one of them is less concise than the other by retaining more redundancy>> (p. 7) ·

No reason is given why two solu.tions should not each have an

equal measure of redundancy, here as elsewhere. And experience shows that it is not the analysis into distinctive features, but the analysis into phonemes, which leaves less scope for different interpreta-

1 ) MIT, 1952, in collaboration with C.G.M. Fant and Morris Halle.

1 08

tions of equal simplicity . The disagreements between linguists with regard to phonemic analysis may be considerable, but they are few compared with disagreements in regard to the division of phonemes into minimal features.

I t is true that the wide differences between various componen­tial analyses of the same system are in great part clue to differences in the sets of postulates posed by their authors. But the postulates of such authors also differ for analysis on the higher level of the phoneme. Yet here the variety of postulates does not answer to an equally wide variety in the solutions. Indeed it is the fact that different postulates tend to lead to similar solutions which guarantees the re­lative determinacy of phonemic as opposed to componential analysis.

Jakobson considerably limits the plurality of solutions within his own system by the postulate of the binary opposition. Here however two remarks are called for :

(i) I t is always possible to reduce indeterminacy by the multipli­cation of postulates. But determinacy so gained is offset by a loss in adequacy . If all oppositions are binary by definition there can be no answer to the question whether all oppositions tend to be binary in fact . We are simply compelled to press the data of speech into a mould which may or may not be suitable.

(ii) The principle of binarity is not pursued to i ts logical con­clusion, since the possibility of complex (intermediate) features is allowed. For instance in English «one pair of optimal constrictive and

. optimal stop (e.g. f s / - / t / ) is supplemented by a mellow constrictive (/ (} / ) » ; such <<complex units could be designated by the same symboL» (p. 2 5) . I t is true that the authors add : <<insofar as i t is preferable to deal with simple two-choice si tuations and to exclude complexes, the two opposi tions might be treated separately in the case of ternary series as well» . But this is merely to say that one solution is not sim­pler than the other ; ei ther the number of series may be reduced by operating with ternary oppositions, or the number of features in a series may be reduced by operating with binary oppositions alone. The criterion of non-redundancy (which is merely one form t!J1 sim­plicity) is here of no value.

But even where it is applicable, the criterion of non-redundancy has not always been applied. One instance only need be cited. < <The

1 09

peculiar consonants with a double closure, which are widespread in languages of South Africa, are but special forms of consonant clusters. They are extreme cases of co-articulati on, which is widely used in language for building up phonemic sequences. In the production of such consonants, the two closures attain their release in immediate succession. Nevertheless they are perceived as clusters since the two releases are not simultaneous despite the considerable contraction of the sequence, and since other types of clusters do not occur in these languages (or at least not in the same positions)» . (pp. 2 2 -2 3) .

Now it is evident that, since the clusters in question (kp . gb etc.) can only occur in one sequence (pk bg being unknown in the same systems) , the sequence is strictly redundant; if the sounds had absolute simultanei ty, the posi tion would not, from this standpoint, be altered . The place of a consonant in these combinations, before, after, or si­multaneously with, the other, serves to convey no distinctions of message. In fact, as is pointed out below in the same paragraph, the order of consonants is induced by the direction of the air-stream. Since the African labiovelar stops «are produced by expiration, the velar closure is released before the labialn . It is a gross infringement of the principle of non-redundancy to attribute to the fact of succession an importance different from that of an allophone induced by a neigh­bouring phoneme. Sequence, l ike other phonetic facts, may be dis­tinctive or redundant . It is distinctive in English bets b est; it is non­distinctive in the African clusters .

That the consonants are «perceived as clusters» may be a psycho­logical fact . If so, i t is easy to explain. However, the perception of clusters is one thing and the perception of sequences is another. The consonants may well be perceived as a cluster of simultaneous phon­emes. It is of no avail to reply that simultaneous phonemes are ex­cluded by definition. For if they are, then the definition of redundancy demands that kp, for which the succession is irrelevant, be regarded as a single phoneme. And this is just the issue which Jakobson desires to avoid. At the same time the appeal to «perception» is rendered ludicrous, since forms of perception cannot be excluded by postulates of this sort.

In many languages (e.g. Japanese and Chinese) there are found such syllabic sequences as pi and tu but not such sequences as ip and ut. The order of phonemes may thus be regarded as redundant. Al­ternatively, with Jakobson, we may identify the acoustic features of

l l 0

p and u (gravity) , and of t and i (clarity) , with the result (not envis­aged by Jakobson) that p fu (resp. t f i) , which are in complementary distribution, are to be regarded as allophones of the same phoneme. The opposition of consonant and vowel, regarded as fundamental (p. 1 8) is in such systems irrelevant, since the vowel is always in syl­labic final, (and the consonant never in syllabic final) position. (Na­sals make an exception, which does not affect the present argument) .

There are thus several possible analyses. One may be simpler (less redundant) than another, or they may be equal .

If they are equal, on what grounds is a choice made? A frequent answer would run that the linguist has stated his postulates, and follows these; for instance, he may have a preference for terms over relations as units, and hence prefer to regard the order of phonemes as irrelevant, or the relation of sequence may be regarded as essential and the phonic features treated as consequent on these. Provided he translates these preferences into postulates, no reasonable person has a right to object .

However we chose this example (among a hundred others equally well illustrating the plurality of interpretations) for a special reason. For here the linguists have made no choice. Against all their pos· tulates (so far as these were framed) they have chosen to regard both features (the relation of order and the intrinsic feature of vocality resp . consonantality) as relevant.

It is evident here that linguists (including Jakobson) have been following some principles other than that of non-redundancy. So far as most linguists are concerned, the treatment of vowels and consonants as two distinct systems has seemed more profi table than their reduction to one. In fact many rules of combination, intelligible on the two-system account, become meaningless on a monosystemic inter­pretation. For instance, if t :p :k = i :u :a, it is mysterious that, in many systems, the distributions of p and k are similar as opposed to t, while the distributions of i and u are similar as opposed to a. The reduction in inventory, demanded by the principle of non-redundance, is rejected in response to the more imperious demands of pattern. These demands are more imperious because (i) the principle of parallel distribution is a criterion of simplicity in its own right, on a level with that of non-redundancy, (ii) there is here in addition a difference of degree of intelligibility between two systems, and the simpler pattern is at the same time the more intelligible one.

I l l

As for sequence, linguists are agreed to treat i t as a feature apart. This again is justified by the facts of language ; for instance the order of phonemes, even when strictly redundant, often has repercussions on the morphological level - as is unusual, though not unknown, for allophones . It nevertheless remains true that the principle of non-re­dundance is thereby violated.

The carrying through of one single principle to its «logical con­clusion>> is never profitable in an empirical science. Moreover, as was seen above, this principle does not yield a unique analysis. Nor is this accidental . For the non-uniqueness of all linguistic analyses follows di­rectly from the principle of discreteness. So long as the linguist is tied to a discrete analysis, he i s bound to come to a decision over borderline cases. This decision is arbitrary, and hence allows alter­natives. The search for a unique discrete analysis is a vain one. Inde­terminacy is the price paid for discreteness.

What applies to identifications within a single system applies also to general identifications, such as Jakobson attempts on the basis of complementary distribution of features in the languages of the world. The discovery of a single language showing both oppositions of tensity and oppositions of aspiration would not entail a serious change of view on their relationsh ip, at least it would not providing that this be formulated in a less dogmatic manner than is done by Jakobson . Near-complementary distributions (such as those of voice and tensity) , argue similarity, just as completely complementary distribution argues identity. These are differences of degree.

Complementary distribution is merely one cri terion for similarity Complementary distribution entails non-discreteness of function, but this has no initial priority over other forms of non-discreteness. For instance similarities of patterning (e.g. in the case of the oppositions of voice and of tenseness) in the languages of the world are not less important than the fact of complementary distribution for the de­monstration of a resemblance. The same principles apply here as in the identification of units in a single language. By using a single cri terion one thins down, not only the possibilities of analysis, but also the scope of the analysis .

An analysis based on very few criteria is not without value : it defines, negatively, a certain type of marginality. The more there are of such analyses, when they are carried out consistently, the better. But they do not replace an over-all analysis; they are subor-

l 1 2

dinate to such an analysis. Nor does one of the necessarily marginal systems reached by application of a minimal set of criteria, enjoy any absolute priority over any other such system. An analysis placing the criterion of non-redundancy in the forefront will be of special interest to students of communication-theory. But linguistics is not concerned with language in its communicative function alone; and so far as it is so concerned, its interests are not purely quantitative .

In particular, analysis based on the principle of binary opposi­tions i� not very informative. v\T e need an answer to the question whether linguistic form is based on the principle of the binary opposi­tiOn. This is a question to which there should be two possible an­swers. On Jakobson's principle there can only be one. The one-choice situation must be replaced by a two-choice situation in order that information may be possible.

Appendix B : Morphemic Components.

The term morphemic component was rejected above (p. g) on the grounds that the unit in question does not differ distributionally from the morpheme; if the morpheme is a minimal distributional unit no further analysis based on the same criteria should be possible. A parallel with the phonemic component cannot be upheld, since the phonemic component is reached by abandonment of a specific criterion (non-simultaneity) defining the phoneme, a specific criterion of the same kind (namely a phonetic criterion) as the others in virtue of which identification is made. Whereas the morphemic component (so-called) is reached, not by abandonment of one of the distributional criteria, but by abandonment of the principle that the unit should have a formative, though not necessarily or even usually an invariable correlate. To use the word component in both cases is to suggest a false analogy.

Now in a highly suggestive article for the Philological Society (Transactions 1 954) which the present writer was able to consult in manuscript form, Mr. W. Haas objects to the term for quite different reasons . He holds that it is wrong to speak of analysis when there are no overt elements to which such an analysis corresponds. He rejects not only the «analysis» into the components «genitive» , «plural» etc. in the instance of the Latin system, but also the analysis of «Went» into «go» plus «past» in English, where the units do elsewhere answer to overt forms. He does not of course reject the relevance of the cri­teria which have led to the analysis, but says that we should speak here of synthesis. The so-called analyses are «syntheses» masquerading as analyses.

As an example of synthesis masquerading as analysis he cites also Harris' < <Component Analysis of Swahili» (Methods p. 1 36- 1 43) . Here the present writer is entirely in agreement : Harris takes the distribu­tion of phonemes as sole necessary and sufficient criterion for their composition. Since phonemes have both a distribution and a compo­sition, this is misleading.

I I 6

(Excepted are contexts in which the units would, in graphic render­ing, merit «quotes» ; these are contexts in which units which are not part of the linguistic system in question might also appear.) There are also peculiarities of morph which are shared with only a few other morphemes. Such peculiarities encourage an analysis which, in the case of bull and cow, receives no support from connections with any other level.

This is not to say that there is nothing to study in the relations ot bull and cow, from the linguistic standpoint. There is simply noth­ing to study within the framework of structural linguistics. Every­thing which can profitably be said, can be expressed in terms of the old semantics. When the lexicographer, the student of «Worter und Sachem> , and other experts working on the fringe of linguistics, have had their say, there remains nothing that the structuralist could add. For this is not the domain of linguistic form.