Post on 07-Jul-2018
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
1/174
F.H.H.
KORTLANDT
»•**M>«>>tUfo&ia*Kmtomrtn̂ ^
MODELLING
THE
PHONEM E
>IOUTON
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
2/174
UNIVERSITEITSBIBLIOTHEEK LEIDEN
563267
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
3/174
MODELLING THE PHONEME
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
4/174
MODELLING THE PHONEME
New
trends
in
Fast European phonemic theory
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT
TER VERKRÜGING VAN DE GRAAD VAN DOCTOR IN DE LETTEREN AAN DE UNIVERSITEIT
VA N AMSTERDAM OP GEZAG VAN DE RECTOR MAGNIFICUS, DR. A. DE FROE, HOOGLERAAR
IN DE FACULTEIT DE R GENEESKUNDE, IN
HEX
OPENBAAR TE VERDEDIGEN IN DE AULA
DER
UNIVERSITEIT (TUDELIJK
IN DE
LUTHERSE
K E RK ,
INGANG SINGEL 411,
HOEK SPUl)
OP
DINSDAG
30 MEI 1972, DES
NAM IDDAGS
TE
2.30
UUR
DOOR
FREDERIK
H E R M A N
HENRI KORTLANDT
geboren
te Utrecht
1972
MOUTON
THE HAGUE
·
PARIS
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
5/174
P R O M O T O R : P R O F.
DR.
C.L. EBELING
CORE FE RE NT : P ROF.
DR.
S.C.
DIK
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
6/174
SAMENVATTING
Het
doel
van deze Studie is tweeledig. In de eerste
plaats
tracht ik een overzicht te
geven van de recente ontwikkelingen van de fonologie in Oost-Europa. De nadruk
ligt
hierbij op mathematische en
semi-mathematische modellen
van het foneem. In
de tweede
plaats
geef ik aan wat
naar
mijn
mening de fundamentele
problemen
zijn
in een sluitende fonologische theorie. Bijzondere aandacht wordt geschonken aan
het feit dat een definitie van h et foneem als een klasse spraakklanken niet in overeen-
stemming is met het distinctiviteitsbeginsel.
In het
eerste hoofdstuk geef
ik een
kort overzicht
van de
Russische fonologie
voor 1962.
Het
tweede hoofdstuk
is een
kritische uiteenzetting
van de
fonologische
theorie
van S.K.
Saumjan.
In het
derde hoofdstuk behandel
ik
verzamelingentheo-
retische modellen
zoals
die van
I.I.
Revzin en S. Marcus. Het vierde hoofdstuk is
gewijd aan identificatiemodellen. In het
vijfde hoofdstuk geef
ik een
uiteenzetting
van het model van de
logicus
T. Batog. Het
zesde
en
zevende hoofdstuk hebben
betrekking op algemene problemen van linguistische methodologie, en het achtste
betreft
de linguistische aspekten van het foneembegrip. Het negende hoofdstuk gaat
over optionele distincties en het tiende over configuratieve eigenschappen.
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
7/174
Dedicated to the memory of N.S. Trubetzkoy
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
8/174
PREFACE
This stud y, which
is
subm itted
äs a
doctoral
thesis at the University of
Amsterdam,
has been
accomplished
under
the
inspiring
guidance of
Professor C.L. Ebeling.
The
opportunity
to
work with
him has
enabled
me
to draw
heavily
upon
bis
valuable
insights
and ample experience.
I am
most
grateful to
Professor
A. H.
Kuipers
for his
penetrating
criticism of the
manuscript. The stimulating discussions
which
we had
together have greatly added
to the
value
of this publication.
I am
also
indebted to
Professor S.C.
Dik and
Professor E.M. Uhlenbeck,
and to
my colleagues A.A. Barentsen, M.P.R. van den Broecke, N.S.H. Smith, H. Stein-
hauer
and
W.A.L. Stokhof
fo r
reading
th e
manuscript
and
commenting
upon
it.
I
thank Mrs. C.G. Blomhert
for the
copy editing
and
Miss
A. Pols for the
proof
reading.
Finally,
I
wish
to
express
m y
gratitude
to Mr. P. de
Ridder
for the
quick
publi-
cation of the book.
F.H.H.K.
February 8th, 1972
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
9/174
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 9
Abbreviat ions 14
Introduction
15
PART I
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS
1. Russian
phonemic theory before 1962
1.1. Baudouin de Courtenay 19
1.2.
Scerba
20
1.3. Jakovlev 21
1.4. Trubetzkoy 21
1.5.
The
Moscow
school
of phonology 23
1.6. Thefifties 25
2.
Saumjan 's
two-level mo del
2.1. Introduction 28
2.2. Th e antinomy of transposition 29
2.3.
The identification
antinomies
31
2.4. Saumjan 's
definition
of the phoneme 33
2.5. The operator method of the paradigmatic identification of phonemes 35
2.6.
Criticism
37
2.7. Social and individual variants 39
2.8.
The
operator method
of the syntagmatic
identification
of
phonemes
40
2.9. Criticism 41
2.10. Distinctive features 43
2.11. Prosodic features 44
3. Set-theoretical models
3.1. Introduction 46
3.2. The initial objects of Revzin's model 47
3.3. Revzin's definition of the phoneme 48
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
10/174
12
TABLB
OF
CONTENTS
3.4.
A
paradigmatic
model . 51
3.5. Syntagmatic mo dels 53
3.6. Phonetic
an d phonemic Systems 56
3.7.
A
fundamental hypothesis
59
3.8.
Marcus'
definition of the phoneme 61
3.9. Criticism 63
3.10.
Nebesky's
conception of relevant
features
66
3.11. Graphic models 70
3.12.
Kanger's model
of the
phoneme
7 1
3.13.
Relations
between
models 7 2
4. Identification models
4.1. Introduction
7 6
4.2.
Th e
initial objects
ofUspenskij 's
model
7 7
4.3. Identification
rules 78
4.4. Uspenskij's definition of the phoneme 82
4.5. Beloozerov's model of the phoneme 83
4.6. Peterson an d Harary 87
5. Batog's logical model
5.1. Introduction
91
5.2. Logical prelim inaries 92
5.3.
Th e initial objects of B atog 's model 9 5
5.4. From phonetic chain to phonetic system 9 5
5.5. Th e
distribution
of
sounds
99
5.6. Batog's definition of the phoneme 100
5.7. Criticism 103
5.8. The role of features 108
PART II
FUNDAMENTALS OF
PHONEMIC
MODELLING
6. The use of m athematical methods in linguistics
6.1. The dehumanization of the study of language 113
6.2.
Criticism
116
6.3. Conclusion
118
7 . Models
and
modelling
7.1. Revz in's conception of m odelling 120
7.2.
Saumjan's
conception of mod elling 122
7.3. Apresjan 's conception of m odelling 12 4
7.4. Stoff's conception of modelling 126
7.5. Conclusion 129
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
11/174
TABLE OF CONTENTS
13
8. The phoneme
8.1. The motivation fo r taxonomic phonemics 131
8.2. Descriptive adequacy
133
8.3. Distinctiveness
135
8.4. Relevant features
137
8.5. Segmentation 140
8.6.
Phonemic
units
143
8.7. Identification 14 4
8.8. Un iqueness 147
8.9. Joint features 148
8.10. Conclusion.
A
characterization
150
9. Optional features
and
heavy phonemes
9.1. Phonemic overlapping
152
9.2. Phonemic interchange 154
9.3. Optional features
and
heavy phonemes
157
9.4. Theproof 161
9.5. Optional phonemes
162
9.6. Junctures 163
10. A
note
on configurational features
10.1. Inherent
and
configurational features
165
10.2. Relations between features 166
List
of
references
16 7
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
12/174
ABBREVIATIONS
Am.
Bu.
Ch.
Cz.
Dan.
Du.
Eng.
Fr.
Ge.
Gr.
It.
Jap.
Li.
Po.
Ru.
R u m .
SCr.
Skt.
Sp.
Sw .
Tu .
American
Bulgarian
Chinese
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
French
German
Greek
Italian
Japanese
Lithuanian
Polish
Russian
Rumanian
Serbo-Croatian
Sanskrit
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
13/174
INTRODUCTION
The
purpose
of
the present
study is twofold. Firstly, I
will
try to give a su rvey of th e
recent
developments in phonemic
theory
that
took
place in
Eastern Europe during
the sixties. Emphasis is laid upon mathematical and semi-mathematical models of
the phoneme.
Since
I am
only
concerned
with
theoretical phonemics
in the
present
study,
phonetic
investigations remain
out of the
picture. Secondly,
I
will give
an
account of the
problems
which I
regard äs
fundamental in any
consistent theory
of
phonemics. Special attention will be paid to the important but often neglected fact
that
a d efinition of the phoneme äs a class of speech so un ds is incom patible with th e
principle of distinctiveness.
Mathematical methods in linguistics
fall
into two classes, quantitative and non-
quantitative. Quantitative methods are not discussed in the present theory-oriented
study. This is a consequence of the fact that no linguistically relevant features are
of
the
continuous-scale type (cf. Hockett
1955:
17).
Th e
mathematical disciplines
that
are relevant fo r
T H E O R E T I C A L
linguistics are, above all, algebra, se t theory, and
logic. However, only th e most elementary notions from these disciplines play a part
at the present stage in the development of linguistics. Mathematical concepts are
introduced gradually
in the
course
of
this book
in
order
to
make
th e
topics under
discussion accessible
to
scholars without
any
previous training
in
mathematics.
Formal definitions of basic mathematical concepts
have
been deferred to section 5.2.
The only parts of the book where more mathematical sophistication than ordinary
common
sense
is
required
are
sections 3.10
an d
5.4-5.6.
I
have purposely m inimized
the number of
formulas
in the
second part
of the
book.
In the first
chapter
I give a
brief survey
of
Russian phonemic theory before 1962.
Th e only aim of this chapter is to outline the background of the new developments
in
Soviet linguistics during
th e
sixties.
It is
shown
how all of the
three main trends
in
phonemic thought, represented
in
Russian linguistics
by Scerba,
Jakovlev,
and
Trubetskoy, essentially
go
back
to
Baudouin
de
Courtenay,
and how
they
finally
stood with regard to each other.
The second chapter is an exposition and discussion of S.K. Saumjan's two-level
theory, which
has
hitherto found hardly
any
response outside
th e
Soviet Union.
Attention
is
focused
on the
paradigmatic
and
syntagm atic
identification of
phonemes,
which I regard äs the main problem in phonemic theory.
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
14/174
16 INTRODUCTION
In the third chapter I give an account of th e set-theoretical
models
that
have
been
proposed for various aspects of phonemic analysis. The main part of the chapter is
devoted
to the
theories that have been
pu t
forward
by I.I.
Revzin
and S.
Marcus,
w ho
are the
leading
theoreticians on
language
models
in
Eastern Europe. Among
the other models that a re discussed in this chapter are some im portant contributions
by L. Nebesky and S. Kanger. Here, äs well äs in the subsequent chapters, consi-
derable attention is paid to the initial objects of the models
under
discussion and to
the
formal definitions
of the
phoneme.
The models discussed in the third chapter are characterized by a lack of interest
in and explicitness about the identification problem. This is wh y I have devoted the
fourth
chapter to models
that
are primarily concerned with the identification of
phonemic units. This
chapter
contains
an
explicit Statement
of
identification rules
and
their logical implications. It
is shown
that different relative priorities
of the
identific-
ation rules lead to different phonemic Solutions.
In the fifth chapter I
give
an exposition of the
formally most elaborate model
of
phonemic analysis, which is the one that has been presented by T. Batog. The expo-
sition is preceded by a short account of basic mathematical notions. The last two
sections of this chapter are a review of my objections to the model put forward by
Batog äs well
äs,
more generally, to any
predilection
for criteria
other
than the
principle
of
distinctiveness.
Chapter 6 deals with the possibilities and limitations of the application of mathe-
matical methods in linguistic investigations, an d Chapter 7 with the definition of the
concept of 'model'. These chapters are not concerned with phonemic theory but
only
with general issues
of
linguistic methodology. Various Standpoints
are set up
against each other, and a tentative conclusion is drawn.
In Chapter 8 I defend the
thesis that
a grammar lacking a taxonomic phonem ic
level cannot achieve descriptive adequacy because it cannot account fo r lexical
innovations that
do not
conform
to existing
phonemic patterns.
The
existence
of
linguistically relevant units on the phonemic level derives from th e fact
that
not
only the presence vs. absence of features but also
their
relative ordering plays a part
in the distinguishability of linguistic forms. As a criterion for both the paradigmatic
and the syntagmatic delimitation of phonemic units I adhere to the principle of
distinctiveness. The impossibility of assigning certain features to a single phonemic
unit
leads to the postulation of
'joint features'.
In Chapter 9 the optional character of certain distinctive oppositions^is discussed.
This phenomenon, which
in
theoretical linguistics
has not yet
received
th e
attention
which
it
deserves,
is illustrated
with
a considerable
number
of
examples from different
languages. C hapter 10 is a
small
excursus on configurational features.
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
15/174
PART ONE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
16/174
l
RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962
1.1. BAUDOUIN
DE
COURTENAY
Russian phonem ic theory goes back to pre-revolutionary days. The first phon ologist
on
the Russian scene was the
famous
Polish
linguist
J . Baudouin de C our tenay, who
can be viewed äs th e
predecessor
of
both
th e
Moscow
and
Leningrad schools
of
phonology.
1
As early
äs
1881 he wrote (1963: 122):
Th e concept 'phoneme' is decomposed into tw o
essentially different
notions:
1)
the
mere
generalization of
anthropophonic
[i.e.,
phonetic]
properties,
2)
the mobile
[i.e.,
variable] component of a morpheme and the mark of a certain morphological
category.
This
coincides with two categories of
correlates.
In the
course
of the
further
development o f these ideas it will b e necessary to make a strict distinc-
tion between the two aspects of the concept of a phoneme and at the same time to set up separate
terms
f or them.
It took Russian linguistics 7 5 years before th e necessary distinction was finally
established (Avanesov 1956). Particularly du ring the last twenty years of this period
a
great amoun t
of
unproductive discussion
w as
wasted
on the
question
of
whether
a phonem e should be regarded äs a
fam ily
of
phonetically
related sounds, which was
essentially th e view
held
by the Leningrad school, or
äs
a family of automatically
alternating sounds, äs th e Moscow school maintained. It is remarkable
that
not only
the first opinion goes back directly to Baudouin de Courtenay, bu t that th e second
opinion does
äs well, for it
corresponds ra the r closely
to the
same au tho r's earlierview s.
On the one
hand
th e
principal object
of
Bau douin
de
C ourtenay's
studies
was the
determination
of
strictly synchronic laws.
On the
other,
his
phonological theory
required the comparison of morphemes for the investigation of synchronic relations
in the
sound system
of a
language.
Bu t
relations between morphemes
had not yet
been touched upon
by
synchronic analysis. Baudouin
de
Courtenay regarded
th e
establishment of morphemic correspondences äs being justified only historically,
etymologically. There were tw o
ways
out of this profound contradiction. One
could
either give
up
morphological criteria
in
phonology
or
rebuild
th e
description
of
1
Cf. Jakobson I960, Leont'ev 1959, 1961, Schogt 1966, Häusler 1968.
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
17/174
20 THE DEVELOPMENT
ÖF
MODELS IN PHONEMlCS
morphemic structure on a synchronic base. Baudouin de
Courtenay went
both
ways.
Bu t if the com parison of morpheme alternants in phonemic
iden tification
is rejected
and
morphemic
units
cannot be
identified
on
etymological grou nds,
a
ne w
criterion
is
needed
fo r
each problem.
The
criterion chosen
by
Baudouin
de
Courtenay, under
th e
influence
of psychologism in the linguistics of his day, was the feeling of the native
Speakers.
2
This notion, which is not present in his 1881 publication,
became
th e
cornerstone
of his
later
work. His new
ideas
are most fully
expounded
in Proba
teorji alternacyj fönetycznych (l 894), wh ich appeared in a revised German translation
th e
ne xt year.
His
de finitions
of the
phoneme
and the
morpheme
now ran
äs follows
(1895:9f.):
Das Phonem =
eine
einheitliche, der phonetischen
Welt
angehörende Vorstellung, welche mittelst
psychischer Verschmelzung der
durch
die Aussprache eines und desselben Lautes
erhaltenen
Ein-
drücke in der Seele entsteht = psychischer Aequivalent des Sprachlautes. Mit der einheitlichen
Vorstellung des Phonems
verknüpft
sich (associiert sich) eine
gewisse Summe
einzelner
anthropo-
phonischer Vorstellungen,
welche
einerseits Articulations-Vorstellungen, d.h.
Vorstellungen
voll-
gezogener
oder in
Vollziehung
begriffener
physiologischer
Articulationsarbeiten, anderererseits
[ s i e ] aber akustische Vorstellungen, d.h.
Vorstellungen
gehörter
oder
im
Gehörtwerden
begriffener
Resultate jener physiologischer
Arbeiten,
sind. [...]
Morphem =
jeder, mit dem
selbstständigen psychischen
Leben versehene und von
diesem
Stand-
punkte (d.h. von dem
Standpunkte
eines selbstständigen
psychischen Lebens)
aus weiter
unteilbare
Wortteil.
Dieser Beg riff
umfasst
also: Wurzel (radix),
alle
möglichen Affixe, wie Suffixe,
Praefixe,
als
Exponenten syntaktischer
Beziehungen
dienende Endungen,
u.s.w.
1.2. SiERBA
These were
th e
foundations
of the
Petersburg/Leningrad school
in
linguistics.
During
th e
twenties
and thirties of the
present
Century
Baudouin
de
Courtenay's
most prominent pupil, L.V. Scerba, dominated the linguistic scene in the Soviel
Union. The inherited phonological theory remained basically unchanged in these
years though
th e
stress
laid on the
psychological Interpretation
of the
phoneme
varied considerably. In 1912 Scerba emphasized the word-differentiating
function
of
the phoneme, which Baudouin de Courtenay had stated äs early äs 1869 (Ivic 1965:
133). This criterion
is a
sufflcient
one for
establishing
the
number
of
phonemes
in a
given position but not for the assignment of variants in different positions to the
respective phonemes. Following Scerba, sounds in complementary distribution
should be
identified according
to
their resemblance. This
can mean two
different
things. Firstly, the feeling of the Speakers can be resorted
to:
this was Baudouin de
Courtenay's solution, which came
to be
known
in
Soviet linguistics äs
th e
'sub-
jective method'. It m et
with
sharp criticism in the
young Soviet state because
it was
regarded äs a man ifestation of
subjective
idealism. Besides, it did not
yield
a solution
in many instances. Some of Scerba's disciples considered the first
vowel
of Ru.
a
Cf.
Panov
1967: 371ff. and Ivic 1965:133f.
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
18/174
RUSSIAN
PHONEMIC
THEORY BEFORE
1962
21
golova
[gslavä] 'head' a variant of /a/, others identified it
with
/i /
(which
has an
unrounded back variant after hard consonants
in
both stressed
and
unstressed
positions). And, äs Panov
puts it
(1967: 376),
"if the first
solution
of the
problem
turns
out to be more widespread,
then
it is only because it is supported by Scerba
himself,
th e very
au thority
on
'linguistic feeling' ".
The
charge
of
idealism made Scerba stop referring
to the
feeling
of the
Speakers,
but it did not
basically affect
his
ideas (1958:
HOff.). The
only criterion left
for the
identification of phonemes in different environments was phonetic resemblance.
This criterion, characteristic of the
so-called
Objective method', did not solve th e
Problem just mentioned either, because [a] resembles an y unrounded füll vowel
equally
well. So there was simply a change of labels. However, it made linguistic
theory
less
vulnerable from th e Marxist methodological point of view. At the same
time
it
opened
a way
back
to
traditional
phoneticism, and
this largely explains
th e
popularity of
Scerba's
ideas among phoneticians
after
the elimination of psycho-
logical formulations.
1.3. JAKOVLEV
There were tw o ways of avoiding the Scylla of psychologism and the Charybdis of
phoneticism. The first possibility w as to re turn to
Baudouin
de Courtenay's earlier
views
and to
take
into
account
the alternations that morphemes show in juxtaposition
with other morphemes. This
was the
standpoint
of the
eminent Caucasist N.F.
Jakovlev,
w ho
äs
a
result became
the
forerunner
of the
M oscow school
of
phonology.
As early äs the
beginning
of the twenties he remarked
that
the individual feeling of the Speaker can
hardly
serve äs a
particularly reliable
basis for
phonemo-
logical
[ s i e ] investigations, and in fact it is no such basis in the works of the followers of phoneme
theory
[...]
one should regard
[the
phoneme] äs wholly conditioned by a
definite
correlation of
phonetic and
semantic
elements with the
lexicon
and
morphology
of a given
language (1923:66f.)
and a
fewyear s later
he
actually defined
th e
phoneme äs asetof alternating sounds
in
different positions (1928).
3
Thus,
the first
vowel
of Ru. voda [vadä]
'water'
is to
be identified with /o/ because of the plural vody [vodi], not with /a/ äs in
Scerba's
theory. He clearly realized the consequences of this approach: "physically absolutely
identical sounds are sometimes
different
grammatical sounds,
diiferent
phonemes"
(Jakovlev
and
Asxamaf 1941:
407). One cannot bu t w onder why the M oscow school
of phonology
did not
come into existence
ten
years earlier than
it
actually did.
1.4. TRUBETZKOY
The other way was
found
by the outstanding
Russian linguist, N.
S.
Trubetzkoy
(Trubeckoj), a member of the Prague Circle, who in Western
Europe
is generally
5 Reformatskij 197Q;
129f,,
cf, Zinder 196$; J 9 < 5 ,
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
19/174
22 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS
regarded
äs the
founder
of
phonology.
In bis
opinion,
the final
consonant
of Ru. prud
'prut]
should neither be identified
with
/t/ on the basis of phonetic resemblance nor
with /d/ on account of its alternation with [d] before case endings, because neither
phonetic nor morphological criteria should be decisive in the identification of pho-
nemic u nits.
W ord-final
[t]
is in fac t not identical with pre vocalic [t] becau se it is not
opposed
to
[d],
so from th e functional
point
of
view
it
lacks
a
featu re which
is
inherent
in /t/. On the
other
hand, prud is
homophonous w i th
prut, so
these w ords cannot
be
phonologically distinct: the O pposition between /t/ and /d/ is 'neutralized' in word-
final position. This insight, which was fundamentally inspired by de Saussure,
necessarily leads to the postulation of a new unit, th e
'archiphoneme'
(Trubetzkoy
1939:70f.).
4
The notions of 'neutralization' and 'archiphoneme' have given rise to a lot of
confusion and
misunderstanding which eventually prevented them
from
gaining
general acceptance. A t least three interpretations have to be distinguished. The most
widespread
misconception is
stated
by
Panov
in the
following words
(1967: 397 ):
"N.
S. Trubetzkoy and his fellow-Praguists were the foun ders of syntagmatic phono-
logy". This was NOT what Trubetzkoy w as primarily interested in , however. The
cornerstone of his
whole
theory is the concept of distinctiveness, which is a para-
digmatic relationship (in the sense of Hjelmslev 1943: 36) and has no thing to do with
tactics. If Ru .
word-final
[t] can not be identified with
/t/,
this is not becau se fd] does
not
occur
in the
same position (which
is a
tactical characteristic)
bu t
because
th e
Substitution of the latter sound for the former cannot yield a change of meaning.
Consonants are always
hard
be fore unstressed [a] in R ussian, but it does not
follow
that th e Opposition hard ~ soft is neutralized in this position, äs Panov suggests
(1967:
400).
The
non-occurrence
of soft
consonants be fore unstressed
[a] is a
necessary
but
insufficient
condition for the phonemic identification of the sequence C + [a].
In the present instance, the vowel is an archiphoneme, not the consonant, äs is clear
from the fact that [ν'αζύ] is interpreted äs
vjazu
'(I) knit', not
vozu
'(I) carry,
conduct',
and
[nan'asu] äs nanesu '(I)
shall
inflict',
not
na
nosu
On th e nose'.
The
second
common
misconception regards
th e
notion
of
neutralization. Strictly
speaking, it is incorrect to say that the Opposition between the final consonants of
the words prud and prut is neutralized. These words are homonyms ending in [t].
The fact
that
this sound alternates with [d] and [t] respectively before case endings
is
irrelevant äs
to its
phonemic identification. Neutralization
is
non-distinctiveness
of
phonemes in a
certain environment
and
cannot
be
established merely
on the
basis
of morphemic alternations. Trubetzkoy's Interpretation of tense o in Ru. [sonca]
'sun'
äs
/öl/ is not based on morphemic alternation, äs Panov suggests, but on the
non-distinctiveness between [o] and [öl].
5
4
"Tout
le mecanisme du
langage [...]
repose sur des oppositions de ce
genre
et sur
les differences
phoniques
et
conceptuelles qu'elles
impliquent"
(Saussure 1916: 167).
&
Cf. Trubetzkoy 1939: 56 and Panov 1967:400. The identification holds no longer for contemporary
Standard Russian, which has
ordinary
[o], cf. Avanesov and Ozegov
1960:553.
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
20/174
RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962
23
Finally,
a
sharp distinction
should be
made between
neutralization and defective
distribution.
The initial clusters [vzt] and [fxt] do not
occur
in Russian, but not for
the same reason: whereas a native
Speaker easily identifies
the formet
cluster
with [fst],
th e latter cann ot on the basis of
phonetic
cues be
identified
with any cluster
actually
occurring in the langu age.
Though
[on
vztal]
is
easily und erstood
äs on vstal 'he got
up', the string [on fxtal] is
uninterpretable
but for the presence of extralinguistic
indications in the Situation. Obviously, the Opposition between voiced and
voiceless
fricatives is neutralized,
while
the Opposition between dental and velar fricatives is
not:
the phonem e /x/ simply does not occur in the position und er consideration.
1.5. TH E MOSCOW SCHOOL OF PHONOLOGY
Political
circumstances
often
have an important impact on the development of
linguistic science. The
very fact
that Trubetzkoy had left his native country made it
possible
for his ideas to
spread
all
over Western
Europe but
isolated them from
Russian
linguistic thou ght.
The
Russian translation
of
Trubetzkoy's
Grundzüge
der
Phänologie (1939), a book filled with subtle observations on his mother tongue,
appeared only in 1960. On the other band, the Moscow school of phonology, to
which belonged such important linguists äs R.I. Avanesov, V.N. Sidorov, A.A.
Reformatskij, and P.S. Kuznecov, remained almost unnoticed in Western countries
until the present time. The fundamental theses of this school are summarized by
Zinder
äs follows
(1968: 197).
6
1. It is
necessary
for the
characterization
of phonological
oppositions
to distinguish a strong
Position (in which th e maximum number of distinctions is operative)
from
a weak position (where
neutralization
is
possible).
2. Distinction is made between the
basic
shape of a phoneme (appearing in strong
position),
variations, which
ar e
tactically conditioned
modifications of a
phoneme
in
positions where
the
oppositions to other phonemes are not neutralized, and variants, i.e. tactically cond itioned modifica-
tions in the case of n eutralization. A Variation is alw ays related to one phoneme, a variant to two
phonemes.
3. The make-up of a phoneme is revealed only in strong positions.
4. Th e fact that a sound occurring in a morpheme belongs to a given phoneme is also revealed
only in strong position.
5. If
a
m orpheme contains
a
sound that cannot
be
placed
in
strong p osition (e.g.,
the flrst
vowel
of
the
word
korova
[i.e. [karovs]
'cow']),
this sound cannot
be
assigned
to any
particular
phonem e; it is
a
member
of a
'hyperphoneme',
i.e. a group o f phonemes wh ich are connected by positional or com-
binatory alternations.
Thus, alternating sounds in
different
positions are to be regarded äs variants of
th e
same phoneme.
As a
consequence
of
this Ide ntification principle,
different
sounds
6
In
1970
an
interesting book
by
Reformatskij
appeared: it
contains
no t
only
an
excellent exposi-
tion of the ideas and d evelopment of the M oscow school of phonology but a lso a reader in which all
'classical' papers of the school have been reprinted, e.g., Jakovlev 1928, Avanesov
1947,1948,
1955,
Ku znecov 1941, 1948, 1958, 1959, Refo rm atskij 1941, 1955, 1957,
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
21/174
24 THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS
m ay represent
th e
same phoneme
and different
phonemes
th e
same sound.
The
identification is based on the comparison of morphemes.
There
are
several difficulties connected with this approach. First
of
all,
a
position
which is
'strong'
with respect to one pair of phonemes is not necessarily so with
respect
to
another pair
of
phonemes.
In
Dutch,
th e
Opposition /a/
~
/a/, which
is
operative in stressed syllables, is neutralized pretonically in disyllabic words, so the
word
banaan
'banana' can be pronounced either [banän] or [banän], or something
half-way
between (Cohen etc. 1961: 49). On the other hand, th e Opposition
/ Λ / ~ / a /
is restricted to unstressed closed syllables and neutralized under stress and in open
unstressed
syllables
(Ebeling 1968:
141
f.). An oth er exam ple of an Opposition which
is neutralized
under
stress is found in Taj ik (Panov
1967:
195fn.). In Dutch an d
English the
phonemes
/ h / an d / n / are in
complementary
distribution, so there is no
'strong position' in which th e Opposition is operative.
Secondly, the choice of the
'basic shape'
of a
phoneme
is
rather arbitrary.
In
Russian,
there
is [i]
instead
of [i]
after hard consonants
and [e]
instead
of [ε] before
soft con sonants (cf. Kortlandt forthcoming
b, ms. p. 2).
T here
is n o
objective reason
for [i] or [ε] to be
mo re basic than
[i] or [e]
respectively, how ever.
It could be
argued
that
th e
ba sic shape
of a vowel is
found between pauses,
bu t
several langua ges (e.g.,
Arabic,
German, Kab ardian) have been described äs having no
word-initial
vowels.
Such
a
criterion does
not
yield
a
satisfactory solution
for
consonants either, since
word-initial and word-final neutralizations are especially common. Neither do
consonants display their 'basic shape' intervocalically
in
view
of the
fricativization
of
stops that many languages (e.g., Danish, Spanish, Tamil) show in this position.
The
distinction between 'variations'
and
'variants'
rests upon
th e
criterion
of
distinc-
tiveness, which is basically alien to a theory that advocates phonemic
identification
through th e comparison of
morpheme
alternants.
Thirdly, th e concept of the hyperphoneme requires some comment.
This
concept
is
a
hybrid result
of two
lines
of thought . The
positionally determined neutralization
of an Opposition leads to the impossibility of assigning at least some sounds (like [a]
in the example cited above) to a definite phoneme and therefore, if one does not want
to make an arbitrary choice, it also leads to the postulation of a new kind of units.
This is essentially the justification of Trubetzkoy's 'archiphonemes'. In the theory
under discussion, however, phonemic identification should be conformed to mor-
phemic alternation.
From
this point of view, the sound [a] in Ru .
[karovs]
is assigned
to a
'hyperphoneme'
because
it
does
not
A L T E R N A T E with either
[a] or [o].
This
is
quite different from what Trubetzkoy
did
when
he
assigned
it to an
'archi-
phoneme' /A/ because it is not
D I S T I N G U I S H E D
from these sounds,
that
is, it can be
replaced
by [a] or [o]
without impairing
the
intellegibility
of the
linguistic sign.
Whereas Trubetzkoy's identification is a direct consequence of the view of language
äs a code, th e Muscovite introduction of 'hyperphonemes' results from a choice
concerning
th e
things
to be
described. Now, there
are two
possibilities.
If one
distin-
guishes
a sound [a] that does not show
alternation
with [a] or [o] from another [a]
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
22/174
RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962 25
that does,
one
should also distinguish
an [o]
that alternates
with [a]
f r o m
one that
does not. C onsequ ently,
the
four sets
of
sound alternants
[ο, a, a], [o,
a],
[a, a],
[a],
which characterize the first vowel of the
words
voda 'water', doktor 'doctor', topor
'axe',
saraj
'barn',
respectively,
are
f o u r
diiferent
phonemic entities (cf. Gvozdev
1958:
84f.
and
Hal le 1963: 15). H ow ever,
if one
does
not
w a n t
to make
such
a
distinction
and combines [o,
s]
w i th [ο, a, 9] into one 'phoneme'
,
there is no reason
not to identify both
[a ,
s] and [a, a,
s]
w i th one and the same symbol . This is
j u s t a matter of simplicity since the m orphoph onem ic rules [...] will always select
th e appropriate phoneme [the author means sound] regardless of what other Symbols
are added to those already included in the brackets" (H alle 1963: 15). In that case,
the arbitrariness of the choice whether to include [a, s] in or in is whol ly
irrelevant because either solu tion yields the same results, and that is the only restraint
simplicityminded authors would
impose.
So the
'hyperphoneme'
does not originate
from
a single conception: on the one
band,
it does not
fully
take into account the
autom atic al ternations that exist
in the
language
and
therefore does
no t
give
complete
Information about them; on the other, the Information which it does convey is
redundant
within
th e
f r am e w o r k
o f a
System
o f
morphophonemic rules.
It is not
quite clear what Panov means when he writes
(1967:
404):
"When
speaking about
the l inks between the M o sc ow
phonological
school and
Jakovlev's
group it needs to
be emphasized that the 'M uscovites ' made a very big step forward: the doctrine of
th e
neutral ization
o f
phonemes emerged".
7
1.6. THE FIFTIES
The
1950's
are
marked
by two
important trends
in
Russ ian phonemic theory:
the
search
for a
synthesis between
th e
ideas advocated
by the
M o sc ow
and
Leningrad
phonological schools,
and the
penetration
o f
Western structuralism into Soviet
linguistics. The controversy about structuralism started in 1952, when an article by
S.K. Saumjan appeared under the title 'The problem of the phoneme'. In this article,
which was written under the influence of both Trubetzkoy ' s and H jelmslev's ideas,
S a u m ja n emphasized the "dual aspect of Speech soun ds, their physical and functional
aspects" (1952:
334, cf. M ilivo jevic 1970: 17). His
main
objection against T rubetzk oy's
phonemic theory concerned the absence of a consistent
differentiation
between the
phonemic and the phonetic level of language. This view led Saumjan to a
strict
distinction
between
the 'level of observation' and the
'level
of
constructs '
in his
later
work (1960, 1962, 1965). But at the time that the article appeared, Soviet lin
guistics
was not yet
ready
for a
favorable discussion
o f
structuralism
and
S au m j an ' s
paper
m et
w i th sharp
criticism
from
all
prominent Soviet
linguists.
8
T he
discussion
7
Thi s
remark
is all the more surprising in view of
Panov's judgment
o n
Trubetzkoy:
Trubetzkoy 's
theory
is not
free from contradictions;
th e
very core
o f
this theory,
th e
doctrine
of the archiphoneme,
is
vulnerable
(Panov 1967:401).
8
Avanesov 1952,
Reformatskij
1952, contributions by Bernätejn, Gvozdev, Panov, Zinder
and
pthers i r » the
following
issues of ftv
4
N SS§R ÖL Ja ,
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
23/174
26 THE
DEVELOPMENT
OF
MODELS
IN PHONEMICS
w as renewed in 1956,
when
the
Russians
suddenly feit th e necessity of 'catching up
and
overtaking
the
achievements
of
Western structuralism'.
Th e
synthesis
of the
view that
the phon eme is the
smallest
phonic
com ponent
of a
morpheme
and the
view
that it is the
smallest
phonic
constituent
of a
word form
could
b e
achieved
in three different ways. O ne
could
either restate th e Moscow defmi-
tion of the phoneme in terms of the Leningrad phonological school or vice versa,
or
devise
a
new,
'neutral'
terminology
in
which both kinds
of
phonemes would
find
their proper place. Avanesov chose the first possibility, Kuznecov the second,
Bernstejn
th e
third.
9
So the
'Moscow' phoneme, which remained
th e
only
true pho-
neme in Kuznecov's opinion, changed into a
'phoneme
series' (fonemnyj rjad) in
Avanesov's new terminology and into a 'phoneme of the second degree' according
to
Bernstejn's proposal.
The 'Leningrad'
phoneme
became
Avanesov's
'phoneme',
Bernstejn's
'phoneme of the first degree', and Kuznecov's 'language sound' (zvuk
jazyka),
wh ich of course is to be
carefully
distinguished
from
both the same
author's
'speech sound '
(zvuk
reci)
and
Bernstejn's 'language
sound'
(not
to
mention Bern-
stejn's 'speech sound'). Moreover, Kuznecov's
'speech
sound'
Stands
for at
least
tw o
essentially different things
(1959: 30f.): on the one
band,
"any
utterance
by any
Speaker in any language [...] consists of
some
sequence of speech
sounds"
in the
sense
of
tokens
of
sound types,
and on the
other
"w e can
recognize
and
identify [...]
one and the same
infinitely
repeated speech sound" in the sense of a type of 'speech
sounds' in the previous sense. The latter entity is commonly called a 'variant', bu t
this term is inappropriate fo r Ku znecov because it
signifies
something quite
different
in
Moscow phonological tradition (see above). Bernstejn, however, states that "the
positional
modifications
of one and the same phoneme of the first degree are called
the
'variants'
of the phoneme" and "a language sound is an articulatory-acoustic-
auditory formation used in a given language äs a variant of some phoneme of the
first
degree",
while
'speech sounds'
are in his
opinion elements
from a universal
phonetic classification of sounds (1962: 66f.). In addition to phonemes of the first
degree
an d
phonemes
of the
second degree, Bernstejn distinguishes phonemes
of the
third degree, i.e., series of phonemes that show non-automatic alternation such äs
[k]
~
[c] in Ru. [rukä] 'band',
[rucnoj]
'band (adj.)'. Thus, a phoneme of the first
degree, which
is also called a
'variational
series', is a set of positionally determined
variations in the 'Moscow' sense; a phoneme of the second degree, which is also
called
a
'substitutional
series', is a set of
automatically alternating variants
in the
'Moscow ' sense;
and a
phoneme
of the
third degree, which
is
also called
a
'trans-
formational series',
is a set of
grammatically alternating variants (Bernstejn 1962:
73).
10
If Bernstejn's exposition of phonemic theory had been published 25 years
earlier, äs
it was
originally intended
to be, it
would have saved Soviet linguistics
a
lot
of
vain
discussion.
9
Avanesov
1955, 1956, Kuznecov 1959, Bernstejn 1962. Cf. also
Klimov 1967:90.
10
Cf. Reformatskij 1955b: 99 and
Bloomfield
1926:160f.
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
24/174
RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962 27
At the
time when
th e
controversy around
th e
nature
of the
phoneme
w as dying
a
natural
death, th e
Isolation
of Ru ssian linguistic thou gh t
from W estern
structu ralism
was
finally
ended.
The
Ru ssian translations
of
Trubetzkoy's G rundzüge der
Phänologie
and Hjelmslev's Prolegomena
to a
theory
oflanguage
were published
in
1960
and the
translations
of
C homsky's Syntactic structures
and a
number
of
papers
by
Jakobson
and
Halle appeared
in
1962. Jakobson's binarism gave rise
to discussion on the
possibility of identifying distinctive features with their phonetic correlates.
11
This
was the background of Saumjan's two-level
theory,
which we shall
examine
in
Chapter 2.
11
Kuznecov
1958,
1959,
Piotrovskij 1960,
1963, Reformatskij
1961, Ivanov 1961, 1962,
Nork
etc.
1962, Kibrik 1962, Grigor'ev 1962, 1964, 1967.
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
25/174
2
SAUMJAN'S
TWO-LEVEL MODEL
2.1.
INTRODUCTION
The
year 1962 was,
in a sense, a
m ilestone
in Soviel
linguistics.
N ot
only Bernstejn's
article,
w hich finally put an e nd to
th e
discussion
b etween the
Moscow and
Leningrad
schools
of
phonology,
but also the first two books of the new,
mathematically
oriented trend: I.I. Revzin's Models of language
an d
S.K.
Saumjan 's
Problems of
theoretical
phonology, were published
in
1962. Since
both of
these important con-
tributions to modern linguistics have been translated into English (the former in
1966, the latter in 1968), quotations will be made from the translations. This chapter
is devoted to Saumjan's
two-level
theory. Revzin's ideas, äs far äs they directly
concern phonemic theory,
will be
dealt with
in the
subsequent chapter,
in
which
other set-theoretical m odels are also put un der exam ination.
An outline of
Saumjan's
theory had been published in 1960 in the fifth issue of
Voprosy
jazykoznanija,
so wh en two years
later
the
füll
exposition of the theory
appeared it did not entirely come äs a
surprise.
In fact, its main
tenet,
the
complete
Separation of the functional from the physical aspect of Speech sounds, is no more
than
th e
ultimate consequence
of the
view
pu t
forward
in
Sau m jan's 1952 paper
on
the phoneme and goes back directly to Hjelmslev's ideas. The theory is presented
äs a critique and, at the same time,
äs
a
fur ther
elaboration of Trubetzlcoy's phono-
logy, which Saumjan calls th e 'relational-physical theory of the phoneme' (relja-
cionno-fiziceskaja teorija fonemy).
This name
is
based
on
Trubetzkoy's definition
of
phonological
oppositions, which
is reformulated by
Saumjan
äs
follows: "phono-
logical oppositions
are
these
sound
oppositions
which
can
differentiate
between
the
signifiants
of two
words
of a
given language"
(19 68:23f.). So
phonological oppositions
are sound oppositions, i.e., oppositions between physical entities. However, the
property that makes sound oppositions phonological is their ability to differentiate
between the signifiants of two words, i.e.,
refers
to a relation within the System of
th e language. A member of a phonological Opposition is a 'phonological
unit'.
A phonological unit which from the standpoint of a given language cannot be
further
segmented into
smaller consecutive phonological units
is a
'phoneme'
(1968: 32). This System
of
definitions
"should be
regarded
äs a System of
hypotheses
whose function
is to
explain
th e
principle
of the
invarjanee
of
sounds
in any
lan-
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
26/174
S A U M J A N s T W O - L E V E L
M O D E L
2 9
guage"
(1968:
33). Such a System of definitions
which
can be regarded äs a
System
of
hypotheses
about
observable
phenomena
is
what
I will hen ceforth
call
a
MODEL.
1
2 . 2 . THE ANTI NOMY O F TRANSPOSITION
From
the model outlined here two Statements evolve
(Saumjan 1968: 35):
(1) Phonemes are elements whose function is to differentiate
between
signifiants.
(2)
Phonemes
are
acoustic elements.
The first Statement
leads
Saumjan to the following conclusion:
If it is true that the function of
phonemes
is to differentiate betwee n signifiants then it follows that
there exists an inherent po ssibility of transposing the acoustic
substance
into other fo rms of physical
substance
— graphic, chromatic, tactile. Any System of distinctive
features
and phonemes can be
presented
no t
only
äs
acou stic properties
but äs
graphic, chromatic
or
tactile Symbols
äs
well.
However, "if it is t rue that phonemes are acoustic elements it follows that they
cannot be transposed into other forms of physical substance since in
that
case they
would
cease to be themselves, i.e. acoustic elements" (1968:36). According to
Saumjan,
the resulting contradiction, wh ich he
calls th e
'antinomy of transposition',
constitutes
an
inherent theoretical
difficulty in
Trubetzkoy's model
of the
phoneme.
The reasoning is clearly incorrect. If we substitute 'green table' fo r
'phonemes',
'thing'
for
'elements',
and 'colour' fo r
'function',
w e
obtain something
like this:
(1) A
green table
is a
thing whose colour
is
green.
(2 )
A
green table
is a
table.
If it is
t rue
that th e
colour
of a
green table
is
green then
it
follows
that
there exists
an inherent possibility of transposing its table-ness into other forms of thing-ness.
How ever, if it is true
that
a gre en table is a table it follows that it cannot be transposed
into other things since
in that
case
it
would cease
to be a
table.
Analogy is a bad argument and I am no su pporter of the kind of debating
exhib-
ited in the preceding paragraph, but it certainly shows that a bit of superficial logic
does
not make up for the
lack
of
explicitness with re gard
to the
u nderlying
assum p-
tions. Saumjan's reasoning would hold true if the first Statement were reversible,
but
that
is
clearly
not the
case
if the
second Statement holds.
In
principle, there
is
nothing
against
defining
phonemes
äs
acoustic elements whose function
is to
differ-
entiate between signifiants. It just does not
touch
upon th e real problem, which is
I D E N T I F I C A T I O N A L . And it is with respect to the identification of phonemic units that
different
'schools'
propose
different
Solutions.
Now, there are several questions to be answered. First of all, one
m ay
wonder
whether justice is done to Trubetzkoy in the model
that
Saumjan ascribes to him.
In
fact, Trubetzkoy
defines th e
phoneme
NOT äs an
entity possessing
both
physical
1
Saumjan does
not
mention
the
concept
of
'model'
in
this connection
but his use of the
term
elsewhere in his book (1968) does not seem to con tradict the paraphrase given here, cf. the discussion
on modellin g in Chapter 7 of this book.
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
27/174
30 TH E
DEVELOPMENT
OF
MODELS
IN
PHONEMICS
and
functional properties
bu t äs
"die
Gesam theit der phonologisch
relevanten
Eigen-
schaften
eines
Lautgebildes" (1939: 35), i.e., a purely
functional
entity. His identi-
fication rules,
however,
refer
to physical
rather
than
functional
phenom ena, and this
is where a confusion of levels arises. So even if Saumjan's argument against an
admittedly
fundamental inconsistency in a Statement concerning
th e
N A T U R E of a
defined concept — a Statement
which
is incorrectly attributed to Trubetzkoy — is
based on an elementary logical
error,
it does
point
to a possible contradiction between
the definition of the concept — which is an abstraction in the sense
that
it
requires
at
least some generalization
from
directly
observed data
— and the I D E N T I F I C A T I O N
rules
that
make
entities in reality correspond to the concept in a de finite way. Every-
thing is mixed up, bu t the spirit of Sau mjan's
criticism
is basically
right
with reference
to the spirit of
Trubetzkoy's
theory.
Secondly,
Saumjan
does not overlook the
objection
that
if
phonemes
are
elements
whose
function
is to
differentiate between signifiants and,
at the
same time, acoustic
elements, then
the property of the
differentiation
between signifiants and the property of being an acoustic element
are equally essential for the phoneme and the bond between these two properties must be considered
indispensable within the
limits
of natural languages.
Therefore,
we are not
justified
in
deducing
from
Statement
l
that
the
phoneme
can be
transposed from acoustic substance into other forms
of
physical
substance. (1968:36)
Since Saumjan's method of
refuting
this
view
is characteristic of the
nonchalance
that many contetnporary linguists show in referring to logic äs the sole
basis
of all
trustworthy
insight,
I cann ot resist the tem ptation of
quoting
h is observations in
füll.
It must be noted beforehand that "a mental experiment is a deductive
process
which
consists of the
deduction
of specific consequences from Statements
acknow-
ledged to be
t rue
which,
although
not
confirmedly empirical
facts, appear to be
fundamentally possible" (1968:31). This is Saumjan's
comment
on the
view
ex -
pounded above.
This objection can be answered äs follows. If we regard
definitions
äs convenient compressed descrip-
tions
of
directly observed data then, since
in
natural languages phonemes
are
always sound elements,
we are not justified in separating the functional properties of the phoneme
from
its acoustic properties.
But the
subject matter
of
science comprises
not only
empirical data,
not
only what is
but
also that
which
in principle
can
be;
hence,
if a mental experiment arrives at what can be, we disclose the essence
of the studied subject. We regard the definition of the phoneme not äs a convenient compressed
description
of an
empirical fact
but äs a hypothesis,
i.e. speaking
in the
words
of H.
Reichenbach, äs
a
nomological
Statement. "In a general nomological Statement the ränge of the all-operator is given
by
all possible argument-objects and is not restricted to all real
argument-objects."
(Reichenbach
1947:401) The antinomy of transposition develops specifically at the level of the Interpretation of the
relational-physical definition of the phoneme äs a nomological Statement. At this level there exists
the question whether the communicative function of natural language
would
be violated if its acoustic
substance were transposed
into
other forms
of
physical substance. Obviously,
no
such violation would
occur. We are, therefore, justified in transposing phonemes, by
means
of mental experiment, from
acoustic
substances into
other
forms
of
physical
substance. The results of the mental
experiment
contradict, however,
the
Interpretation
of the
acoustic properties äs
the
essential properties
of the
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
28/174
S A U M J A N S
T W O - L E V E L M O D E L 3 1
phoneme,
since
if the
acoustic
properties are
essential
properties of the phoneme the phoneme
cannot be
transposed from
an
acoustical
substance into any other
form
of physical substance.
So if the definition of the phoneme is a description of directly observed data, the
phoneme
has
both functional
and
acoustic properties. But
if
we take into account
not only empirical
facts bu t
everything which is fu ndamentally possible, äs science
should, the definition of the phoneme is a hypothesis or — even better — a nomo-
logical S tatem ent. This gives
us the
chance
to
drop
in at Reichenbach's,
quietly ab and-
oning
one of the two
essential properties
of the
phoneme.
The
only question
left
after we
have passed
the
heights
of logic is "whether the
communicative function
of
natural language would be violated if its acoustic substance [sc., of the phoneme]
were transposed into other forms of physical substance". This is exactly what we
have seen before, but the
tail
of the argument is nevertheless formulated with pain-
staking
care. Such a reasoning unduly discredits logic in the
eyes
of linguists and
linguistics
in the eyes of
logicians.
I
should
be
noticed that
all
this
is not a n
argument
against Saumjan's two-level
theory.
I m erely wa nt to stress that there is no L O G I C A L
justification fo r
this
model of the
phoneme.
2.3. THE IDENTIFICATION ANTINOMIES
Thirdly, one may wonder if the
identification
rules should
reflect
the physical and
th e
functional aspect
of
speech sounds
to the
same extent. This
is
where
the
real
difficulty is encountered. Sameness on the functional level need not coincide with
sameness
on the physical level.
Saumjan
Signals
the existence of two identification
antinomies, of which the first regards th e 'paradigmatic' and the second th e 'syn-
tagmatic' identification of phonem es. These term s are explained äs
follows
(1968: 37):
Every language differentiates two basic
types
of relations: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Paradigmatic
relations are relations of linguistic units which undergo a mutual alternation within the same position.
Syntagmatic relations are linear relations
between
linguistic units within the
speech
flow.
This
is in
conformity with general usage
in
modern
linguistics.
2
Saumjan
points
ou t
correctly that the two kinds of relations do not, however, correspond to disjunction
and conjunction in logic,
äs
Hjelmslev suggested. If two linguistic units can occur
in the
same position,
a
choice between them (and, possibly, other admissible units)
is to be made in every occurrence of that position, so
that
th e units are necessarily
mutually exclusive:
"the specific
character
of the paradigmatic relations precludes
th e coexistence of the members of the relations [...] Therefore, the paradigmatic
relations
can be
analogous only
to the so-called
exclusive disjunction"
(1968:
39).
The
digression
o n Hjelm slev's views makes it all the more
striking tha t
th e
m eaning
of
th e word 'paradigmatic' in Sau mjan's 'antinomy of the paradigmatic identification
of
phonemes '
is qu ite
different
from the one outlined here: it corresponds instead to
2
Cf. Martinet
1960:27
and
Hjelmslev
1943:36.
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
29/174
32 THE
DEVELOPMENT
OF MODELS IN
PHONEMlCS
th e
traditional meaning
of the
word 'paradigm'
in the
sense
of a set of
word forms
representing
the
same lexical item
in its
various syntactic environments, such äs,
e.g., Skt.
{devas, devam, devena,
devä ya, devät,
devasya,
deve, deva}.
The
'antinomy'
runs äs follows (1968:
40):
If in the
speech
flow in
Position PI
we
encounter
a class of
phonemes KI, then
in
position T ? z there
exists a
class
öl phonemes K2,
which
corresponds to the class of phonemes KI in such a w ay
that
the
phonemes which
differ in
respect
to
their phonation
are in
identical correspondence while those
phonemes which are identical in respect to their phonation are in non-identical correspondence.
Thus,
if we
encounter [q], [k], [k'] before back vowels
and
[k], [k'],
[c]
before front
vowels, functional identity does not coincide with acoustic identity. There is, how-
ever, one possible Identification which Saumjan does not take
into
consideration,
thoug h it violates neither the fun ctional nor the physical properties of the phonem e.
He w rites:
if,
in
accordance
to Statement l [see above], phonemes possess a function of differentiation between
signifiants, then phonemes which occur in different
positions
can be
altered
in respect to their phona-
tion äs
sharply
äs desired äs long
äs
they do not get confused w ith one another. (1968:41)
According to this view, one could, strictly speaking, regard any pair of sounds
äs
variants of one and the same phonem e provided
only
that they are in complementary
distribution: thus [q] in position PI can be
identified
with [c] in position P2, and
subsequently [k] and
[k']
can be identified in accordance with their acoustic pro-
perties. It follows
that Saumjan 's
antinomy cannot be logically derived from his
Statements
l and 2 alone, but
that
it
rests upo n
an
additional assumption conc erning
the
mutual relations between phonemes äs well. This does
not
diminish
the
value
of his argument because such an assumption is explicitly present in Trubetzkoy's
work.
The identification of phonemic units in
different
positions
äs
discussed in the
preceding
paragraph
presupposes their paradigmatic and syntagm atic delimitation
in any one environment. Here 'paradigmatic' is again u sed in the Hjelm slev sense of
'referring to equally admissible but mutually exclusive alternatives'.
Within
th e
relational-physical theory
of the
phoneme,
two
antinomies concerning
the
paradigm-
atic
(in
this sense)
and
syntagmatic delimitation
of
phonemes
can be
inferred. Saumjan
mentions only the latter of these and calls it the
'antinomy
of the sy ntagm atic iden-
tification of phonemes'. The form er is wholly analogous to Sau m jan's
'antinomy
of
the paradigmatic
Identification
of phonemes' except for the positional
difFerence
between the sounds involved: even in one and the same position it holds true that
phonetically
different sounds may be functionally identical and phon etically identical
sounds may not be functionally equivalent. The first possibility is generally called
'free
Variation'.
Such
a
relationship holds between, e.g., apical
r and
uvular
r in
Dutch.
The
second possibility
is no
less common though rarely referred
to in
publi-
cations on
T H E O R E T I C A L
linguistics. This is the relationship between, e.g., e an d ζ
in Polish. T he [e] in Po . [bjore] Ί take' and many
other
w ords can be replaced by [e]
8/18/2019 7 Modelling the Phoneme [New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory] 1972
30/174
S A U M J A N S T W O - L E V E L
M O D E L 3 3
without affecting th e meaning
of
the word, while th e same Substitution
of the [e] in
[xore] 'sick (nom.pl., no male persons) ' and many
other
w ords yields a non-existing
form.
3
So these two phonetically and
positionally identical sounds
are nevertheless
functionally
different.
The
'antinomy
of the
syntagmatic identification
of
phonemes' consists
in the
fact
that on the one
band
phonetic sequences made up of e.g. stop + spirant or vowel
+ semivowel such äs [ts] or [ej] are in some languages interpreted m onophonemically,
cf. R u . /c/ and Du. /e/, while on the other fairly homogeneous sounds may in some
languages
be
identified with sequences
of
phonemes, like
Du. [s]
f- /sj/
or Sw. [d]
l- /rd/.
4
It is not clear whether
Saumjan
acknowledges th e latter
possibility
because
he
discusses
only th e
former. This antinomy again rests upoji
an
additional assump-
tion, namely that there exists
a
natural segmentation
of the
speech
flow
into sounds
which does
not
coincide with
th e
segm entation into phonemes. A ccording
to
Saumjan,
"physical
segmentation
of the
speech
flow
into separate sounds, i.e., into separate
acoustic Segments, is an objectively ascertained phonetic fact" (1968:42) .
5
In that
case a sequence of acoustic segments can, in principle, constitute a single phoneme.
2.4. SAUMJAN'S DEFINITION OF THE PHONEME
The 'three
fundamental theoretical difficulties' which Saumjan signalizes
in the
relational-physical theory
of the
phoneme
and
which
he
calls
th e
'antinomy
of
transposition', the 'antinomy of the paradigmatic identification of
phonem es ',
and
the 'antinomy of the
syntagmatic identification
of
phonemes'
lead him to a
strict
distinction between the
level
of observation and the
level
of constructs. The relation-
ship that holds between 'sounds', which are directly observable entities, and 'pho-
nemes', which
are
constructs,
is
termed
th e
relation
of
'embodiment'
(voploscenie),
denoted
by the
symbol
/. The
fact that
th e
soun d segment [ts] embodies
th e
phoneme
/c/
in Spanish is denoted
äs
follows (Saumjan 1968:
50):
I(tS,
"c") (2.1)
In German, however, th e sound segment [ts] embodies th e phonemic sequence
/ts/:
/
(i,
t }
(2.2)
Ι( ,
α
η
(2.3)
This
notation
is
equivalent
to the one
defined
in
footnote
4 of this chapter, an d
will
be
used
throughout the
present book:
Sp. [ts] H /c/ (2.4)
Ge.
[ts] µ /ts/ (2.5)