History of the Language Sciences / Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften / Histoire des sciences du langage: 3. Teilband 9783110199826, 9783110167368

Citation preview

History of the Language Sciences Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften Histoire des sciences du langage HSK 18.3

≥

Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer (†) Mitherausgegeben 1985⫺2001 von Hugo Steger

Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edite´s par Herbert Ernst Wiegand Band 18.3

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

History of the Language Sciences Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften Histoire des sciences du langage An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present Ein internationales Handbuch zur Entwicklung der Sprachforschung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart Manuel international sur l’e´volution de l’e´tude du langage des origines a` nos jours

Edited by / Herausgegeben von / Edite´ par Sylvain Auroux · E. F. K. Koerner Hans-Josef Niederehe · Kees Versteegh Indexes compiled by / Register zusammengestellt von / Indexes organise´es par Sören Philipps

Volume 3 / 3. Teilband / Tome 3

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data History of the language sciences : an international handbook on the evolution of the study of language from the beginnings to the present ⫽ Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften : ein Internationales Handbuch zur Entwicklung der Sprachforschung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart / edited by Sylvain Auroux … [et al.]. p. cm. ⫺ (Handbooks of linguistics and communication sciences ⫽ Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft ; 18) English, French, and German. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN-13: 978-3-11-016736-8 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 3-11-016736-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Linguistics ⫺ History. 2. Historical linguistics. I. Auroux, Sylvain. II. Title: Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften. III. Series: Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft ; Bd. 18. P61.H583 2006 410.9⫺dc22 2005026277

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at ⬍http://dnb.ddb.de⬎.

ISBN-13: 978-3-11-016736-8 ISBN-10: 3-11-016736-0 ISSN 1861-5090 쑔 Copyright 2006 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Coverdesign: Rudolf Hübler, Berlin. Typesetting: Meta Systems GmbH, Wustermark. Printing: Tutte Druckerei GmbH, Salzweg. Binding: Druckhaus “Thomas Müntzer” GmbH, Bad Langensalza. Printed in Germany.

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res Volume 3 / 3. Teilband / Tome 3

XXXIII.

Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century Linguistics, Generative Grammar, and Alternative Approaches Formalisierungstendenzen und Mathematisierung in der Sprachwissenschaft des 20. Jahrhunderts, die Generative Grammatik und ihre Alternativen Les tendances vers la formalisation et la mathe´matisation des the´ories linguistiques au XXe sie`cle, la grammaire ge´ne´rative et ses alternatives

216.

Jerzy Ban´czerowski, The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pieter Seuren, Early formalization tendencies in 20th-century American linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Bundy, On the origins and early developments of Chomskyan linguistics: The rise and fall of the standard model Be´atrice Godart-Wendling, Les de´veloppements de la grammaire cate´gorielle et de la grammaire applicative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David C. Bennett, The development of stratificational grammar Martin Stokhof, The development of Montague grammar . . . . . Jean Le´o Le´onard, Le de´veloppement des grammaires casuelles au XXe sie`cle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Georges Rebuschi, La grammaire ge´ne´rative du milieu des anne´es 70 au milieu des anne´es 90: du mode`le standard e´tendu aux de´buts du programme minimaliste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anne Abeille´ / Marianne Desmets, Le de´veloppement des alternatives a` la grammaire ge´ne´rative transformationnelle . . . . Maurice Gross †, E´tat du lexique-grammaire du franc¸ais et perspectives d’extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223.

224. 225.

2007 2026 2034 2039 2048 2058 2073

2084 2110 2122

VI

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

XXXIV.

The Development of Theories of Semantics, of the Lexicon, and Semantic-Based Theories in the 20th Century Die Entwicklung von Theorien zur Semantik, zum Lexikon und von semantisch orientierten Grammatiken Le de´veloppement des the´ories de la se´mantique, du lexique et des grammaires se´mantiques

226.

Rudolf Engler †, Die Zeichentheorie F. de Saussures und die Semantik im 20. Jahrhundert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2130 Peter Rolf Lutzeier, Die Wortfeldtheorie unter dem Einfluß des Strukturalismus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2152 Barbara Kaltz, Die Entwicklung der inhaltbezogenen Grammatik in Deutschland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2166 Hartmut Kubczak, Die europäische Onomasiologie in der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts und ihr Verhältnis zur Semasiologie . . 2179 Klaus-Peter Konerding, Die sinnrelationale Semantik als Alternative zur Merkmalssemantik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2188 Brigitte Nerlich, Research on semantic change after Hermann Paul 2195 Pieter Seuren, Sentence-oriented semantic approaches in generative grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2201 Terrence Gordon, Semantic theories in 20th-century America: An overview of the different approaches outside of generative grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2213 Willy van Langendonck, Semantic considerations in recent onomastic research: A survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2229 Werner Wolski, Semantik und Lexikographie im 20. Jahrhundert . . 2234 Isabelle Simatos, The´orie du lexique et grammaires ge´ne´ratives: le tournant lexicaliste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2253

227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233.

234. 235. 236.

XXXV.

Phonology and Morphology in the Later 20th century Jüngere Forschungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie La phonologie et la morphologie au XXe sie`cle tardif

237. 238.

Jacques Durand, La phonologie ge´ne´rative jusqu’en 1975 . . . . Bernard Laks, La phonologie ge´ne´rative et la phonologie naturelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Goldsmith / Manuela Noske, Autosegmental phonology and underspecification theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John T. Jensen, The development of lexical phonology . . . . . . Jean Lowenstamm, De´veloppement de la phonologie me´trique . Franc¸oise Kerleroux, Les the´ories morphologiques a` la fin du XXe sie`cle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

239. 240. 241. 242.

.

2265

.

2271

. 2280 . 2292 . 2303 . 2313

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

243. 244. 245.

Dieter Kastovsky, Morphology as word-formation in 20th-century linguistics: A survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2324 Hans Christian Luschützky, Ältere Entwicklungen in der natürlichen Morphologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2340 Daniel Berrendonner, Homogenität und Heterogenität der Sprache: Die Entwicklung der Diskussion im 20. Jahrhundert (entfallen)

XXXVI.

The Study of Language Differenciation in the 20th Century Die Erforschung der sprachlichen Variation im 20. Jahrhundert L’e´tude de la diffe´rentiation linguistique au XXe sie`cle

246.

Hans Goebl / Guillaume Schiltz, Neuere Entwicklungen in der europäischen Dialektologie (1950⫺2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allan A. Metcalf, Recent developments in North American dialectology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulrich Ammon, Die Erforschung der sozialen Variation von Sprachen: Die Entwicklung in Europa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bruce Southard, The analysis of social differentiation of languages: An overview of the development in North America . . Paul T. Roberge, The development of creolistics and the study of pidgin languages: An overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter Nelde, La linguistique de contact, la recherche sur le conflict linguistique et l’ame´nagement linguistique au XXe sie`cle

247. 248. 249. 250. 251.

VII

2352 2366 2379 2393 2398 2413

XXXVII. Historical Linguistics in the Second Half of the 20th Century Die historische Sprachwissenschaft in der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts La linguistique historique dans la deuxie`me moitie´ du XXe sie`cle 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257.

Robert W. Murray, The place of historical linguistics in the age of structuralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stefan Sonderegger, Konzepte von der Historizität von Sprachen und von Sprachgeschichte (entfallen) Matthew J. Gordon, The investigation of diachronic variety in languages: Traditions and recent developments . . . . . . . . . . . . Michel Glatigny, Les tendances et les traditions de la lexicographie dans la seconde moitie´ du XXe sie`cle . . . . . . . . . Ladislav Zgusta, The laryngeal and the glottalic theories . . . . . . Robert W. Murray, Modern theories of linguistic change: An overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2430

2445 2453 2462 2479

VIII

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

XXXVIII. Critique of Traditional Linguistics and the Development of New Approaches to Language Analysis Kritik an der traditionellen Sprachwissenschaft und Neuansätze in der Sprachforschung Critiques et de´passement de la linguistique traditionelle et le de´veloppement d’approches neuves au langage 258. 259.

260. 261. 262. 263.

Christiane Chauvire´, La philosophie du langage de Wittgenstein et la linguistique de la seconde moitie´ du XXe sie`cle . . . . . . . . . . . Frank Brisard / Bert Bultinck, The interface of linguistics and pragmatics: Its development during the second half of the 20th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eckard Rolf, Die Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Sprechakttheorie in der Sprachwissenschaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Klaus Brinker, Ursprung und Entwicklung der Textlinguistik . . . . Jacqueline Le´on, La re´ception de l’analyse de conversation: de la sociologie a` la linguistique interactionelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michel Liddle, Le de´veloppement des the´ories e´nonciatives: Antoine Culioli et son e´cole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XXXIX.

20th-Century Linguistics and Adjacent Fields of Study: Perspectives and Developments Die Sprachwissenschaft und ihre Nachbarwissenschaften: Ausschnitte aus der Entwicklung ihrer Beziehungen im 20. Jahrhundert La linguistique et les disciplines voisines au XXe sie`cle: Perspectives et de´veloppements

264. 265.

Philip Carr, The ontology and epistemology of linguistics . . . . . W. Terrence Gordon, Linguistics and semiotics I: The impact of Ogden & Richards’ The Meaning of Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . James Jako´b Liszka / Edwin Battistella / Michael Haley, Linguistics and semiotics II: C. S. Peirce’s influence on 20th-century linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eva Picardi, Linguistics and logic I: The influence of Frege and Russell on semantic theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Klaus Mudersbach, Sprachwissenschaft und Logik II: Der Einfluß der Quantorenlogik und ihrer Semantik auf die sprachwissenschaftliche Theoriebildung (entfallen) Klaus-Peter Konerding, Sprachwissenschaft und Philosophie I: Der Einfluß der Stereotypentheorie von Hilary Putnam und ihre Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung in der Semantik . . . . . . . . . Eckard Rolf, Sprachwissenschaft und Philosophie II: Der Einfluß von H. P. Grice auf die Theoriebildung zur sprachlichen Kommunikation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean Caron, La linguistique et la psychologie I: Le rapport entre le langage et la pense´e au XXe sie`cle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

266.

267. 268.

269.

270.

271.

2501

2510 2520 2540 2551 2560

2571 2579

2589 2600

2612

2626 2637

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

272.

273.

274.

275. 276. 277.

278.

279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284.

Franc¸ois Rastier, Linguistique et psychologie II: La the´orie des prototypes d’Eleanor Rosch, sa re´ception critique en psychologie et sa re´ception en se´mantique linguistique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Michel Fortis, Le langage et les processus ce´re´braux I: La neurolinguistique du XXe sie`cle, de l’aphasiologie localiste aux sciences cognitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Luc Nespoulous, Le langage et les processus ce´re´braux II: Apport de la linguistique et de la psycholinguistique a` l’aphasiologie et a` la neuropsycholinguistique cognitive du XXe sie`cle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gisela Klann-Delius, Spracherwerb I: Die Entwicklung der Auffassung vom Erwerb der Muttersprache im 20. Jahrhundert Rainer Dietrich, Language acquisition II: Second Language Acquisition in the 20th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis-Jean Boe¨, Tendances majeures du de´veloppement des sciences phone´tiques au XXe sie`cle: filiations, e´mergences et re´articulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Istva´n S. Ba´tori, Language and technology. The Emergence of new application fields of linguistic research in the 20th century: Computational linguistics, language engineering and electronic textuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isabel Desmet, La recherche sur les langages spe´cialise´s et les langages scientifiques au XXe sie`cle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacqueline Le´on, La traduction automatique I: les premie`res tentatives jusqu’au rapport ALPAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacqueline Le´on, La traduction automatique II: de´veloppements re´cents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gilles Bernard, La linguistique et l’intelligence artificielle . . . . . William Orr Dingwall, Language and biology: A survey of problems and principles of biolinguistics (not supplied) Integrational tendencies in linguistic theory (not supplied)

IX

2649

2657

2671 2683 2705

2729

2752 2760 2767 2774 2781

XL.

History of Linguistics ⫺ The Field Die Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften: Umrisse der Disziplin Le domaine de l’histoire de la linguistique

285. 286.

Kees Versteegh, The study of non-Western linguistic traditions . . 2791 E. F. K. Koerner, The development of linguistic historiography ⫺ history, methodology, and present state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2802

XLI.

Indexes / Register / Indexes Compiled by / Zusammengestellt von / Organise´es par Sören Philipps

287. 288. 289.

Index of biographical names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2821 Index of subjects and terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2853 Index of languages and language families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2888

X

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

Volume 1 / 1. Teilband / Tome 1 Editors’ Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vorwort der Herausgeber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre´face des e´diteurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I.

XXV XXXVII XLIX

The Establishment of Linguistic Traditions in the Near East Die Anfänge sprachwissenschaftlicher Traditionen im Nahen Osten La constitution des traditions linguistiques au Proche Orient 1. 2. 3.

II.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

III.

9.

IV.

10. 11. 12.

Erica Reiner, The Sumerian and Akkadian linguistic tradition . . Joris F. Borghouts, Indigenous Egyptian grammar . . . . . . . . . . Manfred Dietrich, Die Sprachforschung in Ugarit . . . . . . . . . .

1 5 14

The Establishment of the Chinese Linguistic Tradition Die Anfänge der Sprachwissenschaft in China La constitution de la tradition linguistique chinoise Chung-ying Cheng, Classical Chinese philosophies of language: Logic and ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Branner, The Suı´-Ta´ng tradition of Faˇnqie` phonology . . David Branner, The rime-table system of formal Chinese phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alain Peyraube, Le roˆle du savoir linguistique dans l’e´ducation et la socie´te´ chinoise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nonna V. Stankevicˇ, La tradition linguistique vietnamienne et ses contacts avec la tradition chinoise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

19 36

.

46

.

55

.

58

Werner Sasse, Die traditionelle Sprachforschung in Korea . . . . .

63

The Establishment of the Korean Linguistic Tradition Die Anfänge der koreanischen Sprachforschung La constitution de la tradition linguistique core´enne

The Establishment of the Japanese Linguistic Tradition Die Anfänge der Sprachforschung in Japan La constitution de la tradition linguistique japonaise Roy Andrew Miller, The Japanese linguistic tradition and the Chinese heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stefan Kaiser, The first Japanese attempts at describing Chinese and Korean bilingualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viktoria Eschbach-Szabo´, Sprache und Denken in der japanischen Sprachforschung während der Kokugaku . . . . . . . .

72 77 85

XI

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

13. 14. 15. 16.

V.

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

VI.

27. 28. 29.

VII.

30. 31.

Viktoria Eschbach-Szabo´, Die Frühzeit der neueren japanischen Sprachforschung: Vom Kokugaku zum Kokugogaku . . . . . . . . Frits Vos †, The influence of Dutch grammar on Japanese language research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roy Andrew Miller, The role of linguistics in Japanese society and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roy Andrew Miller, Traditional linguistics and Western linguistics in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

93

.

102

.

104

.

108

George Cardona, Pa¯nø ini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hartmut Scharfe, Die Entwicklung der Sprachwissenschaft in Indien nach Pa¯nø ini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madhav Deshpande, Indian theories on phonetics . . . . . . . . . . Jan Houben, Language and thought in the Sanskrit tradition . . . George Cardona, The organization of grammar in Sanskrit linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Johannes Bronkhorst, The relationship between linguistics and other sciences in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madhav Deshpande, The role of linguistics in Indian society and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael C. Shapiro, The Hindi grammatical tradition . . . . . . . Vadim B. Kasevic, Indian influence on the linguistic tradition of Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernard Arps, Indian influence on the Old Javanese linguistic tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113

The Establishment of Sanskrit Linguistics Die Anfänge der Sanskritforschung La constitution de l’e´tude du sanskrit

125 137 146 157 166 173 178 182 186

The Establishment of Dravidian Linguistics Die Anfänge der dravidischen Sprachforschung La constitution de la lingistique dravidienne Jean-Luc Chevillard, Les de´buts de la tradition linguistique tamoule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Luc Chevillard, Le Tolka¯ppiyam et le de´veloppement de la tradition linguistique tamoule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Luc Chevillard, Les successeurs du Tolka¯ppiyam: le Nanß nß u¯l, le Vı¯raco¯ßliyam et les autres e´coles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

191 194 200

The Establishment of Tibetan Linguistics Die Anfänge der Sprachforschung in Tibet La constitution de la linguistique tibe´taine Roy Andrew Miller, The early Tibetan grammatical treatises and Thon-mi Sambhotøa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pieter C. Verhagen, The classical Tibetan grammarians . . . . . . .

203 207

XII

32.

VIII.

33. 34. 35. 36.

IX.

37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

X.

51. 52.

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

Pieter C. Verhagen, The influence of the Sanskrit tradition on Tibetan indigenous grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

210

The Establishment of Hebrew Linguistics Die Anfänge der hebräischen Sprachforschung La constitution de la linguistique de l’he´breu Aaron Dotan, The origins of Hebrew linguistics and the exegetic tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irene Zwiep, Die Entwicklung der hebräischen Sprachwissenschaft während des Mittelalters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carlos del Valle, Hebrew linguistics in Arabic . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wout Jac. van Bekkum, Hebrew linguistics and comparative Semitic grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

215 228 234 240

The Establishment of Arabic Linguistics Die Anfänge der arabischen Sprachforschung La constitution de la linguistique arabe Rafael Talmon, The first beginnings of Arabic linguistics: The era of the Old Iraqi School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aryeh Levin, Sı¯bawayhi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael G. Carter, The development of Arabic linguistics after Sı¯bawayhi: Basøra, Ku¯fa and Baghdad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Patrick Guillaume, La nouvelle approche de la grammaire ˇ innı¯ (320/932⫺392/1002) . . . . . . . . . . au IVe / Xe sie`cle: Ibn G Ge´rard Troupeau, La pe´riode post-classique de la linguistique ˇ innı¯ a` al-ÅAstara¯ba¯dß ¯ı . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . arabe: d’Ibn G Jonathan Owens, The structure of Arabic grammatical theory . Kees Versteegh, Grammar and logic in the Arabic grammatical tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan Peters, Language and revelation in Islamic society . . . . . . Pierre Larcher, Les relations entre la linguistique et les autres sciences dans la socie´te´ arabo-islamique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mohammed Sawaie, Traditional linguistics and Western linguistics in the Arab world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adel Sidarus, L’influence arabe sur la linguistique copte . . . . . Robert Ermers, The description of Turkic with the Arabic linguistic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E´va M. Jeremia´s, Arabic influence on Persian linguistics . . . . . Nico Kaptein, Arabic influence on Malay linguistics . . . . . . . .

. .

245 252

.

263

.

273

. .

280 286

. .

300 307

.

312

. .

318 321

. . .

325 329 333

Rafael Talmon, Foreign influence in the Syriac grammatical tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Riccardo Contini, The role of linguistics in Syrian society . . . . .

337 341

The Establishment of Syriac Linguistics Die Anfänge der syrischen Sprachforschung La constitution de la linguistique syriaque

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

XI.

53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

XII.

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

XIII.

72.

XIII

The Establishment of Linguistics in Greece Die Anfänge der griechischen Sprachforschung La constitution de la linguistique en Gre`ce Peter Schmitter, Sprachbezogene Reflexionen im frühen Griechenland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hans Arens, Sprache und Denken bei Aristoteles . . . . . . . . . . Ineke Sluiter, Language and thought in Stoic philosophy . . . . . Fre´de´ric Lambert, La linguistique grecque chez les alexandrins: Aristophane de Byzance et Aristarque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vincenzo di Benedetto, Dionysius Thrax and the Te´khne¯ . . . . . . David L. Blank, The organization of grammar in ancient Greece R. H. Robins †, Greek linguistics in the Byzantine period . . . . . Elmar Siebenhorn, Die Beziehungen der griechischen Sprachforschung zu anderen Disziplinen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dirk M. Schenkeveld, The impact of language studies on Greek society and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vı´t Bubenı´k, Variety of speech in Greek linguistics: The dialects and the koine` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mzekala Shanidze, Greek influence in Georgian linguistics . . . . Jos Weitenberg, Greek influence in Armenian linguistics . . . . . . Yannis Kakridis, Greek influence in the grammatical theory of Church Slavonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

345 367 375 385 394 400 417 424 430 439 444 447 450

The Establishment of Linguistics in Rome Die Anfänge der Sprachforschung in Rom La constitution de la linguistique a` Rome Daniel J. Taylor, Varro and the origin of Roman linguistic theory and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` l’origine de la tradition artigraphique latine, Marc Baratin, A entre mythe et re´alite´ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Franc¸oise Desbordes †, L’ars grammatica dans la pe´riode postclassique: le Corpus grammaticorum latinorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carmen Codon˜er, L’organisation de la grammaire dans la tradition latine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James J. Murphy, Grammar and rhetoric in Roman schools . . . Arpa´d Orba´n, Augustin und die Sprache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

455 459 466 474 484 492

The Cultivation of Latin Grammar in the Early Middle Ages Die Pflege der lateinischen Grammatik im frühen Mittelalter La culture de la grammaire latine dans le Haut Moyen-Age Roger Wright, The study of Latin as a foreign language in the Early Middle Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

501

XIV

73. 74. 75.

XIV.

76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

Anneli Luhtala, Linguistics and theology in the Early Medieval West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louis Holtz, Alcuin et la rede´couverte de Priscien a` l’e´poque carolingienne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Amsler, The role of linguistics in early medieval education

Ire`ne Rosier-Catach, La grammaire spe´culative du Bas MoyenAge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corneille H. Kneepkens, Linguistic description and analysis in the Late Middle Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joel Biard, Linguistique et logique durant le Bas Moyen-Age . . Louis Kelly, Language study and theology in the Late Middle Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ludger Kaczmarek, Die Beziehungen der spätmittelalterlichen Sprachforschung zu anderen Gebieten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

541

. .

551 560

.

572

.

584

The Cultivation of Latin Grammar in the Late Middle Ages Die Pflege der lateinischen Grammatik im Spätmittelalter La culture de la grammaire latine dans le Bas MoyenAge

81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

Anne Grondeux, La Grammatica positiva dans le Bas Moyen-Age Anders Ahlqvist, The Latin tradition and the Irish language . . . Ann T. E. Matonis, The Latin tradition and Welsh . . . . . . . . . Valeria Micillo, The Latin tradition and Icelandic . . . . . . . . . . Kees Dekkers, Ælfric and his relation to the Latin tradition . . . Sylvie Archaimbault, La tradition latine et les langues slaves dans le Bas Moyen-Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hans-J. Niederehe, Sprachstudium und literarische Traditionen: Das Okzitanisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XVI.

88. 89. 90.

525 532

Linguistic Theory in the Late Middle Ages Sprachtheorien des späten Mittelalters La the´orie linguistique au Bas Moyen-Age

XV.

87.

510

598 610 614 617 625 634 638

The Classical Languages in the Age of Humanism Die klassischen Sprachen im Zeitalter des Humanismus Les langues classiques a` l’e´poque de l’humanisme Mirko Tavoni, The traditional study of Latin at the university the age of Humanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mirko Tavoni, The rediscovery of the classics in the age of Humanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernard Colombat, La re´forme du latin a` l’e´poque de l’humanisme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

in ..

650

..

657

..

661

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

91. 92.

XVII.

93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

101.

Christian Förstel, L’e´tude du grec a` l’e´poque de l’humanisme . . . Sophie Kessler-Mesguich, L’e´tude de l’he´breu et des autres langues orientales a` l’e´poque de l’humanisme . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Konrad Schröder, Kommerzielle und kulturelle Interessen am Unterricht der Volkssprachen im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert . . . . . Alda Rossebastiano, La tradition des manuels polyglottes dans l’enseignement des langues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Claudio Marazzini, The teaching of Italian in 15th- and 16th-century Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Otto Ludwig / Claus Ahlzweig, Der Unterricht des Deutschen im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barbara Kaltz, Der Unterricht des Französischen im 16. Jahrhundert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manuel Breva-Claramonte, The teaching of Spanish in 16th-century Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Konrad Schröder, Der Unterricht des Englischen im 16. Jahrhundert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hartmut Bobzin, Der Unterricht des Hebräischen, Arabischen und anderer semitischer Sprachen sowie des Persischen und Türkischen in Europa (bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts) . . . . Konrad Schröder, Die Traditionen des Sprachunterrichts im Europa des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Development of Grammatical Traditions for the Literary Vernaculars in Europe Die neuen Literatursprachen und die Herausbildung ihrer grammatischen Tradition Le de´veloppement des traditions grammaticales concernant les vernaculaires e´crits de l’Europe

102. 103.

Claudio Marazzini, Early grammatical descriptions of Italian . . . Miguel Angel Esparza Torres, Frühe grammatische Beschreibungen des Spanischen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maria Leonor Carvalha˜o Buescu †, Les premie`res descriptions grammaticales du portugais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andres Max Kristol, Les premie`res descriptions grammaticales du franc¸ais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monique Verrac, Les premie`res descriptions grammaticales de l’anglais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105. 106.

666 673

The Teaching of Languages in the 15th Through the 18th Centuries in Europe Der Fremdsprachenunterricht in Europa (15.⫺16. Jahrhundert) L’enseignement des langues du XVe au XVIIIe sie`cle en Europe

XVIII.

104.

XV

681 688 699 705 711 717 723

728 734

742 749 756 764 771

XVI

107. 108. 109. 110. 111.

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

Monika Rössig-Hager, Frühe grammatische Beschreibungen des Deutschen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geert Dibbets, Frühe grammatische Beschreibungen des Niederländischen (ca. 1550⫺ca. 1650) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helmut Schaller, Frühe grammatische Beschreibungen slawischer Sprachen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Erich Poppe, Early grammatical descriptions of the Celtic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kaisa Häkkinen, Early grammatical descriptions of Finno-Ugric

XIX.

The Normative Study of the National Languages from the 17th Century Onwards Das normative Studium der Nationalsprachen ab dem 17. Jahrhundert L’e´tude normative des langues nationales a` partir du fin du XVIe sie`cle

112.

Rudolf Engler, Die Accademia della Crusca und die Standardisierung des Italienischen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter von Polenz, Die Sprachgesellschaften und die Entstehung eines literarischen Standards in Deutschland . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jörg Kilian, Entwicklungen in Deutschland im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert außerhalb der Sprachgesellschaften . . . . . . . . . Francine Mazie`re, La langue et l’E´tat: l’Acade´mie franc¸aise . . . . Ramon Sarmiento, Die Königliche Spanische Akademie und die Pflege der Nationalsprache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maria Leonor Carvalha˜o Buescu †, L’Acade´mie des Sciences de Lisbonne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Normative studies in England Even Hovdhaugen, Normative studies in the Scandinavian countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan Noordegraaf, Normative studies in the Low Countries . . . . Sylvie Archaimbault, Les approches normatives en Russie (XVIIIe sie`cle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jirˇ´ı Kraus, Normativ orientierte Sprachforschung zum Tschechischen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jadwiga Puzynina, Normative studies in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . Tiborc Fazekas, Normativ orientierte Sprachforschung in Ungarn Arnold Cassola, Normative studies in Malta . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125.

XX.

The Study of ‘Exotic’ Languages by Europeans Die Europäer und die ‘exotischen’ Sprachen La connaissance des langues ‘exotiques’

126.

Even Hovdhaugen, The Great Travelers and the studies of ‘exotic languages’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edward G. Gray, Missionary linguistics and the description of ‘exotic’ languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127.

777 784 792 800 806

815 827 841 852 863 870 876 888 893 901 907 912 916 919

925 929

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134.

135. 136.

Leonardo Manrique, Das Studium der autochtonen Sprachen Zentralamerikas: Nahuatl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wolfgang Wölck / Utta von Gleich, Das Studium der Eingeborenensprachen Südamerikas: Ketschua . . . . . . . . . . . . Wolf Dietrich, Das Studium der Eingeborenensprachen Südamerikas: Guaranı´ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Hewson, The study of the native languages of North America: The French tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elke Nowak, First descriptive approaches to indigenous languages of British North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilhelm J. G. Möhlig, Das Studium der schwarzafrikanischen Sprachen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Luc Chevillard, Das Studium der Eingeborensprachen des indischen Ozeans: Frühe Kontakte mit dem Sanskrit und den dravidischen Sprachen (entfallen) Wei Chiao / Magnus Kriegeskorte, Das Studium der Sprachen des Fernen Ostens: Chinesisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Claude Rivie`re, La connaissance du malais et des langues de l’Oce´anie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XXI.

Theories of Grammar and Language Philosophy in the 17th and 18th Centuries Grammatiktheorien und Sprachphilosophie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert The´ories grammaticales et philosophie de langage aux XVIIe et XVIIIe sie`cles

137.

Claire Lecointre, Les transformations de l’he´ritage me´die´val dans l’Europe du XVIIe sie`cle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean Caravolas, Les origines de la didactique des langues en tant que discipline autonome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sylvain Aroux, Port-Royal et la tradition franc¸aise de la grammaire ge´ne´rale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David F. Cram / Jaap Maat, Universal language schemes in the 17th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernd Naumann, Die ‘Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft’ um die Wende zum 19. Jahrhundert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

138. 139. 140. 141.

XXII.

Ideas on the Origin of Language and Languages from the 16th to the 19th Centuries Vorstellungen vom Sprachursprung und vom Ursprung der Sprachen (16.⫺18. Jahrhundert) Conceptions de l’origine des langues et du langage du XVIe au XVIIIe sie`cle

142.

Daniel Droixhe, Les conceptions du changement et de la parente´ des langues europe´ennes aux XVIIe et XVIIIe sie`cles . . . . . . . .

XVII

937 950 960 966 973 980

991 998

1002 1009 1022 1030 1044

1057

XVIII

143. 144.

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

Klaus D. Dutz / Ludger Kaczmarek, Vorstellungen über den Ursprung von Sprachen im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert . . . . . . . . 1071 Harald Haarmann, Die großen Sprachensammlungen vom frühen 18. bis frühen 19. Jahrhundert. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081

Volume 2 / 2. Teilband / Tome 2 XXIII.

Studies of the Antecedents to and Connections between National Languages Vorstellungen von der Entstehung der Nationalsprachen und ihren Beziehungen zueinander E´tudes des origines et des rapports des langues nationales

145.

Werner Bahner, Frühe dialektologische, etymologische und sprachgeschichtliche Forschungen in Spanien . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 William Jervis Jones, Early dialectology, etymology and language history in German speaking countries . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Jan Noordegraaf, Historical linguistics in the Low Countries: Lambert ten Kate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Even Hovdhaugen, The study of early Germanic languages in Scandinavia: Ihre, Stiernhielm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124 Robin Smith, Investigating older Germanic languages in England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Roger Comtet, L’e´tude des langues slaves en Russie: M. L. Lomonosov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1136 Tiborc Fazekas, Die Entdeckung der Verwandtschaft der finnougrischen Sprachen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1144 Rosane Rocher, The knowledge of Sanskrit in Europe until 1800 1156

146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152.

XXIV.

Historical and Comparative Linguistics of the Early 19th Century Die historische und vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft zu Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts La linguistique historique et comparative au de´but du XIXe sie`cle

153.

Kurt R. Jankowsky, The renewal of the study of the classical languages within the university system, notably in Germany . . Kurt R. Jankowsky, The establishment of oriental language studies in France, Britain, and Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean Rousseau, La gene`se de la grammaire compare´e . . . . . . . N. E. Collinge, The introduction of the historical principle into the study of languages: Grimm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

154. 155. 156.

.

1164

. .

1182 1197

.

1210

XIX

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

157.

Theodora Bynon, The synthesis of comparative and historical Indo-European studies: August Schleicher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XXV.

The Establishment of New Philologies in the 19th Century Die Herausbildung neuer Philologien im 19. Jahrhundert Le de´veloppement des nouvelles philologies au XIXe sie`cle

158.

Jürgen Storost, Die ‘neuen Philologien’, ihre Institutionen und Periodica: Eine Übersicht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pierre Swiggers, Les de´buts et l’e´volution de la philologie romane au XIXe sie`cle, surtout en Allemagne . . . . . . . . . . . . Uwe Meves, Die Entstehung und frühe Entwicklung der Germanischen Philologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karl Gutschmidt, Die Entstehung und frühe Entwicklung der Slavischen Philologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tiborc Fazekas, Finno-ugrische Philologie und vergleichende Grammatik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rainer Voigt, Semitische Philologie und vergleichende Grammatik: Geschichte der vergleichenden Semitistik . . . . . . Rainer Voigt, Semitohamitische Philologie und vergleichende Grammatik: Geschichte der vergleichenden Semitohamatistik . .

159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 163a.

.

1240

.

1272

.

1286

.

1294

.

1305

.

1311

. 1318

XXVI.

Indo-European Philology and Historical Linguistics and their Legacy Indo-europäische Philologie, Historische Sprachwissenschaft und ihr Erbe La philologie indo-europe´enne et la linguistique historique et leurs legs

164.

Kurt R. Jankowsky, The crisis of historical-comparative linguistics in the 1860s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eveline Einhauser, Die Entstehung und frühe Entwicklung des junggrammatischen Forschungsprogramms . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kurt R. Jankowsky, The consolidation of the neogrammarian framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wilhelm J. G. Möhlig, Die Anwendung der vergleichenden Methode auf afrikanische Sprachen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert A. Blust, The comparative method applied to Austronesian languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Hewson, The comparative method applied to Amerindian: The reconstruction of Proto-Algonkian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine Bereznak / Lyle Campbell, The comparative method as applied to other Non-Indo-European languages . . . . . . . .

165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170.

1223

.

1326

. 1338 .

1350

. 1367 .

1374

.

1384

. 1391

XX

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

XXVII.

Language Typology, Language Classification, and the Search for Universals Sprachtypologie, die Klassifizierung der Sprachen und die Suche nach sprachlichen Universalien La typologie linguistique, la classification des langues et la recherche des universaux

171. 172.

Frans Plank, Typology by the end of the 18th century . . . . . Jean Rousseau, La classification des langues au de´but du XIXe sie`cle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manfred Ringmacher, Die Klassifizierung der Sprachen in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manfred Ringmacher, Sprachtypologie und Ethnologie in Europa am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regna Darnell, Language typology and ethnology in 19th-century North America: Gallatin, Brinton, Powell . . . . . George Yonek / Lyle Campbell, Language typology in the 20th century: From Sapir to late 20th century approaches . . . Bernard Comrie, Theories of universal grammar in the late 20th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

173. 174. 175. 176. 177.

..

1399

..

1414

..

1427

..

1436

. . 1443 ..

1453

..

1461

XXVIII.

The Analysis of Speech and Unwritten Languages in the 19th Century and its Continuation in the 20th Century Die Erforschung der lautlichen Äußerung und nicht verschrifteter Sprachen im 19. und die Fortsetzung im 20. Jahrhundert L’e´tude de la parole et des langues non-e´crites pendant le XIXe sie`cle et sa continuation au XXe sie`cle

178.

J. Alan Kemp, The development of phonetics from the late 18th to the late 19th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Even Hovdhaugen, Field work and data-elicitation of unwritten languages for descriptive and comparative purposes: Strahlenberg, Sjögren, Castre´n, Böthlingk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enrica Galazzi, Physiologie de la parole et phone´tique applique´e au XIXe et au de´but du XXe sie`cle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wolfgang Putschke, Die Dialektologie, ihr Beitrag zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft im 19. Jahrhundert und ihre Kritik am junggrammatischen Programm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joachim Herrgen, Die Dialektologie des Deutschen . . . . . . . . . Marinel Gerritsen, The dialectology of Dutch . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graham Shorrocks, The dialectology of English in the British Isles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

179.

180. 181.

182. 183. 184.

1468

1480 1485

1498 1513 1536 1553

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

185. 186.

187.

Tom Priestly, Dialectology in the Slavic countries: An overview from its beginnings to the early 20th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1563 J. Alan Kemp, The history and development of a universal phonetic alphabet in the 19th century: From the beginnings to the establishment of the IPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1572 Michael K. C. MacMahon, Modern Language Instruction and Phonetics in the Later 19th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1585

XXIX.

Approaches to Semantics in the 19th and the First Third of the 20th Century Ansätze zur Semantik im 19. und im ersten Drittel des 20. Jahrhunderts Les approches a` la se´mantique au XIXe et au premier tiers du XXe sie`cle

188.

Brigitte Nerlich, The renewal of semantic questions in the 19th century: The work of Karl Christian Reisig and his successors . . Brigitte Nerlich, The development of semasiology in Europe: A survey from the second half of the 19th to the first third of the 20th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Johannes Kramer, Die frühe Entwicklung des onomasiologischen Ansatzes in der Sprachwissenschaft und Lexikographie des 19. Jahrhunderts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brigitte Nerlich, The study of meaning change from Reisig to Bre´al Wolfgang Settekorn, Die Forschungsrichtung “Wörter und Sachen” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W. Terrence Gordon, The origin and development of the theory of the semantic field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

189.

190.

191. 192. 193.

XXX.

Psychology and Physiology in 19th-Century Linguistics Psychologische und physiologische Ansätze in der Sprachwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts La psychologie et la physiologie dans la linguistique du XIXe sie`cle

194.

Clemens Knobloch, Die Beziehungen zwischen Sprache und Denken: Die Ideen Wilhelm von Humboldts und die Anfänge der sprachpsychologischen Forschung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David J. Murray, Language and psychology: 19th-century developments outside Germany: A survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabriel Bergounioux, Le langage et le cerveau: La localisation de la faculte´ du langage et l’e´tude des aphasies . . . . . . . . . . . . Clemens Knobloch, Psychologische Ansätze bei der Erforschung des frühkindlichen Spracherwerbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195. 196. 197.

XXI

1596

1600

1611 1617 1628 1650

1663 1679 1692 1705

XXII

Contents / Inhalt / Table des matie`res

XXXI.

Structural Linguistics in the 20th Century Der europäische Strukturalismus im 20. Jahrhundert Le structuralisme europe´en au XXe sie`cle

198.

Manfred Kohrt / Kerstin Kuchaczik, Die Wurzeln des Strukturalismus in der Sprachwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts Rene´ Amacker, La dimension synchronique dans la the´orie linguistique de Saussure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rene´ Amacker, Le de´veloppement des ide´es saussuriennes par l’E´cole de Gene`ve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tsutomu Akamatsu, The development of functionalism from the Prague school to the present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jørgen Rischl, The Cercle linguistique de Copenhague and glossematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David G. Butt, Firth, Halliday, and the development of systemic-functional theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Giorgio Graffi, The emphasis on syntax in the early phase of European structuralism: Ries, Jespersen, Mathesius, Guillaume, Tesnie`re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heinz J. Weber, Die Entwicklung der Dependenzgrammatik und verwandter Theorien in der 2. Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts . . . . . Ulrich Püschel, Linguistische Ansätze in der Stilistik des 20. Jahrhunderts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John E. Joseph, The exportation of structuralist ideas from linguistics to other fields: An overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204.

205. 206. 207.

XXXII.

Traditions of Descriptive Linguistics in America Der amerikanische Deskriptivismus La linguistique descriptive aux E´tats-Unis

208.

Stephen O. Murray, The ethnolinguistic tradition in 19th-century America: From the earliest beginnings to Boas . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephen G. Alter, The linguistic legacy of William Dwight Whitney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephen O. Murray, Attempts at professionalization of American linguistics: The role of the Linguistic Society of America . . . . . . Victor Golla, The Sapirian approach to language . . . . . . . . . . John G. Fought, The ‘Bloomfield School’ and descriptive linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John R. Costello, Tagmemics and the analysis of non-verbal behavior: Pike and his school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Fought, Distributionalism and immediate constituent analysis in American linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheila Embleton, Quantitative methods and lexicostatistics in the 20th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215.

1719 1735 1746 1768 1790 1806

1838 1848 1866 1880

1909 1923 1932 1935 1950 1966 1986 1998

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century Linguistics, Generative Grammar, and Alternative Approaches Formalisierungstendenzen und Mathematisierung in der Sprachwissenschaft des 20. Jahrhunderts, die Generative Grammatik und ihre Alternativen Les tendances vers la formalisation et la mathe´matistion des the´ories linguistiques au XXe sie`cle, la grammaire ge´ne´rative et ses alternatives 216. The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction The axiomatic method Precursive deductive thinking in linguistics Quasi-axiomatization in linguistics Axiomatization in linguistics Concluding remarks Bibliography

1.

Introduction

Like other scientific disciplines, also within linguistics theories are constructed, which result from the research of a fairly diversified subject matter. All scientific disciplines pass through various stages in their development. As they advance and gradually mature, the question inevitably arises, of how their theories should be formulated and justified in order to attain their intended goals, which, in the case of linguistics, include the truth about language. In seeking answers to the posited question one usually turns to the methodology of linguistics, the subject matter of which is the class of all methods applicable in this discipline, among which the methods of formulation and justification of linguistic theories figure conspicuously (cf. Baudouin de Courtenay [1871] 1972: 73; Lieb 1970: 6⫺7, 14ff.) By virtue of investigating such methods methodology of linguistics investigates cer-

tain aspects of linguistic theories, and thereby it belongs to the metalinguistic disciplines, which are indispensable for research in the foundations of linguistics. Such research, in turn, promoting fecund intellectual discussion, is helpful for scientific penetration into language reality and contributes to a clear systematization and representation of linguistic knowledge. All scientific disciplines are faced with the necessity to perfect continuously their research methods. Neither can this ever present task be neglected by linguistics, among the methods of which inductive vs. deductive and quantitative vs. non-quantitative can be distinguished. Subsequently, the deductive method, which is non-quantitative, and also referred to as axiomatic will be subjected to our closer examination as far as it has been considered, studied, or applied in linguistics. Interest in this method by linguists was indubitably related to the progress of its application in mathematics and logic in the late 19th and early of 20th centuries (cf. Tarski 1994: 111; Bato´g 1996: 7, et passim). However, a brief, representative, and reasonably profound account of the axiomatic method in linguistics, approaches the impossible. Various aspects of axiomatization in linguistics have been treated by Marcus (1970), Kortlandt (1972), Lieb 1974, 1980a), and Fal-

2008

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

kenberg (1995, 1996). The problems brought to discussion in our survey will be approached from the position of a linguist rather than of a logician. After a brief explanation of the essence of the axiomatic method, it will be concisely shown, what has been accomplished in linguistics by applying it or by investigating the format of axiomatic linguistic theories. We shall endeavor to stay as close as possible to the spirit of the presented theories, in order to give the reader an insight into their contents as intended by their authors. The discussion of the formal aspects of linguistic theories should not mask what they are about, and even if they are axiomatized, formal sophistication should not replace vacuity or triviality of content.

2.

The axiomatic method

Although the axiomatic method is sensu stricto a kind of deductive method, these two terms, especially outside logic, are usually treated as synonymous. Also for the purposes of this survey, no distinction between them is necessary. By the term axiomatic method we mean a method of formulating theories as axiomatic theories. Expressing this conversely, an axiomatic theory will be each theory formulated by means of the axiomatic method. Clearly such a theory will differ in its exterior shape from any formulated in terms of other methods. An axiomatic theory is but a kind of theory. A (scientific) theory can be conceived of as a text stating something about an intended subject matter. The latter is a certain reality, which the theory intends to describe and explain, and the image of which is the theory’s domain, usually understood as a system (relational structure) comprised of objects and relations. A theory can be expressed in a natural or artificial (constructed) language, and its text consists of sentences being statements about its subject matter, that is, capable of assuming a truth-value (cf. Lieb 1974: 43). It goes without saying that theories are developed with the aim of producing true statements about the subject matter in question. The text of an axiomatic theory consists of sentences constructed in a formal language in conformity with the rules of logic (cf. Hempel 1965: 182⫺183; Lieb 1970: 78). Logic can be viewed as a grammar (theory) for the language of scientific theories, that is, for the

language of science. According to Tarski, the foundation-stones of the axiomatic method are four principles, two of which refer to the asserted statements of a theory, and two others to the terms occurring therein. Thus, the construction of an axiomatic theory proceeds as follows: (i) At first we distinguish a certain number of axioms (primitive sentences), the truth of which appears to us evident, and which are accepted without any further justification; (ii) No other sentences can be accepted as true, unless they have been proved based exclusively on the axioms, the definitions, and sentences proved previously. A proved sentence is called a theorem; (iii) Among the terms, a certain small number, the meanings of which seem obvious, are distinguished as primitive (undefined). They are used in sentences without having their meanings explained; (iv) No other terms can be employed, unless their meanings have been determined by defining them with the aid of primitive or previously defined terms (Tarski 1984: 23; 1994: 109ff.; Bato´g 1996a: 20⫺21) Obviously, a theory defying any of these four principles cannot be called an axiomatic theory. Axiomatic theories are thus expressed in a formal language which permits the correct formulation of axioms and definitions as well as the derivation and demonstration of theorems. The formal language is exact, and artificial to a certain extent. It is separated from natural language by virtue of being appropriately regularized (regimented), through the explicit specification of its syntax and semantics (cf. Sneed 1979: 6ff.; Falkenberg 1995: 9⫺10, 1996: 7ff.; Bato´g 1996: 58⫺59.) The syntax establishes formal relations between expressions of a theory which include intra- and intersentential relations, and which have their counterparts in the rules of formation, definition, and deduction. For an empirical axiomatic theory, the relation of interpretation binding the expressions of the theory with the entities of a domain is of special importance, because it is only by interpretation, as a semantic relation, that sentences can be associated with truth values (cf. Lieb 1970: 57, 78, 87ff.; Bato´g 1994b: 238ff.).

3.

Precursive deductive thinking in linguistics

One of the first linguists who considered the application of the deductive method in linguistics was Baudouin de Courtenay. As early

216. The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics

as 1870, in his inaugural lecture delivered at St. Petersburg university, he expressed the view that the broadest possible use of this method is a goal which linguistics shares with all inductive sciences (Baudouin de Courtenay [1871] 1972: 64; Dressler 1989: 307). However, the first linguist who explicitly spoke about “axioms” with reference to linguistics, and in particular, to the historical comparative method, was Kruszewski ([1883] 1995: 44, 172). Emphasizing the virtues of deduction, he asserted: “[…] the simple empirical method of usual comparison is insufficient; at every step we need the assistance of deduction from firmly established phonetic and morphological laws” (Kruszewski 1995: 45). The occurrence of such terms as axiom, deduction, theory, law and system in Kruszewski’s writings does not come as a surprise, if one recalls his thorough education in philosophy and logic, and his interest in pursuing linguistics from a logical point of view (cf. Jakobson 1967: xi). In light of the notes taken by his students, Riedlinger in 1909 and Gautier in 1911, during conversations with him, Saussure gave expression to his conjectures that general linguistics appears as a system of geometry, the theorems of which must be demonstrated (Godel 1957: 29⫺30) It may be supposed that Saussure’s remarks were caused by his conviction of the applicability of the axiomatic method in linguistics as it was employed by Euclid in geometry, and by his admiration for the deductive capacity of axiomatic theories. However, he did not use the axiomatic method himself.

4.

Quasi-axiomatization in linguistics

4.1. Introductory remarks The content of this section is heterogeneous to a certain extent, since we shall subsume both programmatic axiomatization and the calculization of grammars under quasi-axiomatization. Although these two differ considerably from each other, they are however similar in failing to yield axiomatic linguistic theories. However, it cannot be said that quasi-axiomatization has nothing to do with the idea of axiomatization. We shall subsequently attempt to illuminate some aspects of this relationship. Within programmatic axiomatization, certain programs for the reformulation of linguistics are advocated or developed, with

2009

axiomatization being adhered to as a guiding principle for linguistic research. However, theories belonging to this group, although sometimes claimed to be axiomatic, fail to satisfy the conditions required of axiomatic theories. Generally speaking, their degree of formalization is not sufficiently advanced, i.e., they do not use a formal language in order to guarantee the exact formulation of sentences and to allow for logical deduction. In particular, they may exhibit the following deficiencies: (i) the absence of a clear distinction between primitive and defined terms; (ii) the absence of a distinction between axioms and theorems; (iii) the absence of characterization of terms occurring in definitions by appropriate axioms. Therefore, calling the theories, which arose within this approach axiomatic, originates from a misunderstanding of the idea of axiomatic theory in the modern sense. Calculization of grammars can be viewed as a method of constructing a certain kind of grammars for natural languages, namely, in the form of calculi (algorithms). However, as it will subsequently turn out, the calculi investigated in linguistics can hardly be considered as (axiomatic) theories of natural languages. 4.2. Programmatic axiomatization The first attempt to apply the axiomatic method in linguistics was undertaken by Bloomfield, who understood it as: “the method of postulates (that is, assumptions or axioms) and definitions” (Bloomfield 1926: 153), and such an understanding was probably taken by him verbatim, since he did not try to deduce any theorems. But even if he had tried, he would hardly have been successful, because his postulates were formulated in a non-regularized natural language, i. e., in non-regularized English, instead of a formal (regularized, regimented) one. Bloomfieldian ideas were continued by Bloch (1948). The formal deficiencies of their approaches were pertinently indicated by Bato´g (1967: 5). In spite of serious formal flaws in his system, Bloomfield was, according to Lieb (1980a: 300), closer to an axiomatic theory than Bühler, whose name was associated for a long time with the first application of the axiomatic method in European linguistics. This myth survives to today. In devising his conceptions Bühler was influenced by Hilbert and Russell (cf. Bühler 1990: 25, 27). However, this influence did not suffice to make

2010

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

him properly understand the notion of the axiomatic method. Consequently, he misunderstood what axioms should be, and nowhere in his work can axioms as formally distinguished sentences be found, contrary to his assertion that there are four of them (cf. Bühler 1990: 26). Despite their non-existence the impression that they after all were formulated by Bühler has been successfully propagated (cf. Kamp 1977: 202; Graumann/Herrmann 1984: 93ff.) An attempt at a reconstruction of Bühler’s axioms has been undertaken by Wunderlich (1969), without, however, using a formal language. Therefore his effort is of limited value. Bühler’s contribution to axiomatization was put into proper perpective for the first time by Lieb (1980a: 300⫺301), and recently by Falkenberg (1995: 13⫺14; 1996: 67⫺68) Referring to Bühler’s conception of axioms Falkenberg observes: “Axioms in this sense are not sentences of a theory within a research area or discipline, but rather the descriptions of the point of view on the research area itself ” (Falkenberg 1995: 14). And the adequacy of such an interpretation of Bühler’s approach to axiomatization can easily be supported by his own words (cf. Bühler 1990: 17, 26). Bühler’s ideas seem to have exerted influence upon such authors as Koschmieder (1965), and Thümmel (1965). The former tried to justify the claim that the application of mathematical methods in linguistics would contribute to its advancement, while discussing earlier attempts at formalization, especially those undertaken by Jespersen and Reichenbach. He also formulates some ‘axioms’, from which, according to him, general sentences are derivable. Or, at least he believes axiomatization should create such a possibility (Koschmieder 1965: 132ff.) However, for reasons similar to those which disallowed us to recognize axioms in Bühler’s theory, neither can Koschmieder’s ‘axioms’ be viewed as such. Nor is the status of Holzer’s axioms any different (Holzer 1996: 211). An important position within the quasiaxiomatic linguistics is occupied by axiomatic functionalism, originated by Mulder in the 1960s and which he subsequently further developed both alone and in co-operation with Hervey. Intended to be both functionalist and axiomatically based, it should furnish a theoretical framework, applicable not only to natural languages but to semiotic systems in general (Mulder 1989: 65). Within this frame-

work not only linguistic theories but also a theory of linguistic theories have been developed (cf. Falkenberg 1995: 7⫺8) In many respects axiomatic functionalism continues the Saussurean, semiotically oriented, tradition as well as that of the Prague School, and French functionalism, as represented by Martinet. It also exhibits certain similarities with glossematics (cf. Mulder 1989: 66⫺67, 87ff.) The affinities with the latter concern, among others, the distinction made between theories and descriptions. In the intention of its authors, the theory of axiomatic functionalism, for which six ‘axioms’ have been assumed (Mulder 1989: 83ff., 436ff.), should be considered as an interpreted theory, in which the definitions provide interpretations to axioms (Mulder 1989: 65⫺66) The criticism of axiomatic functionalism exercized by Lieb (1980a: 304⫺307), and Falkenberg (1995: 18ff., 1996: 69) leaves no doubt that it does not follow the principles of the construction of axiomatic theories, specified above, in section 2. First of all, it does not avail itself of a formal language which, in consequence, would permit the derivation of theorems from axioms. Polemicising against the concept of interpretation as adhered to in axiomatic functionalism, and pointing out its incompatibility with the meaning that interpretation has acquired in modern logic and the philosophy of science as well as indicating some other deficiencies, Falkenberg ultimately arrives at the conclusion that a theory constructed in terms of axiomatic functionalism’s theory of linguistic theories, rather than being an axiomatic theory, “has to be considered a collection of research principles describing the point of view on the respective subject matter of the descriptions of the respective phenomena” (Falkenberg 1995: 25). 4.3. Calculization of grammars Although the theory of grammars will not be treated until the next section we may be permitted to say, anticipatorily, that a grammar of a language can be constructed either as: (i) a theory or as (ii) a calculus (algorithm), which is not a theory. Both may be axiomatized or not. Thus, the calculative approach to grammar belongs to this section. A calculus is usually conceived of as a deductive system within which vocabulary, a set of axioms (possibly empty), formation rules, and, obligatorily, rules of derivation (inference, generation, transformation) may be dis-

216. The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics

tinguished. It is the last of these which specify how chains of symbols should be converted into other chains of symbols. Thus, a calculus is a purely syntactic device intended for the automatic generation of a class of expressions, and it may be a component of a theory. In previously characterizing the axiomatic method as one used for the formulation of axiomatic theories we have understood it in a narrower sense. However, when it is understood in a broader sense, as some authors have done, then the construction of axiomatic systems or calculi is also considered as resulting from its application (cf. Wall 1972: 197ff.) Calculi as possible (syntactic) grammars for natural languages have been investigated within transformational generative linguistics. A grammar constructed as a calculus contains a vocabulary, in which non-terminal (categorial) and terminal symbols are distinguished, as well as phrase structure rules and transformational rules as rules of inference. These rules mirror some structural properties of the expressions of the language being dealt with rather than logical relations between them. Each sequence of the application of these rules which ends up with a chain of terminal symbols is a derivation or generation of well-formed expressions of an artificial language defined by the respective calculus. Thus, the calculus defines this language simply by generating its expressions, which are (or should be) linear representations of correct sentences of a natural language. However, neither the generative rules, nor the expressions generated by them, can be accepted as statements about a given natural language, i.e., about the subject matter of a grammar, because they do not tell us anything about it. They fail to admit truth or falsity, that is, they are neither true nor false (Lieb 1974: 42ff.; Itkonen 1976: 189ff.) Another kind of calculative grammars are so-called categorial grammars which as ‘recognition grammars’ proceed in the opposite direction to the generative ones, being ‘production grammars’ (cf. Ajdukiewicz 1935; Buszkowski 1989; 1996; Lambek 1958; Itkonen 1976: 199ff.) Their epistemological status, however, seems to be similar to that of the latter in that they, too, cannot be viewed as theories of natural language, since they can hardly be said to produce statements about it. Nevertheless both kinds of

2011

calculative grammars are based on certain theories of language, and the latter can be reconstructed from the former.

5.

Axiomatization in linguistics

5.1. Introductory remarks Research dealing with the application of the axiomatic method in linguistics has at least two aspects reflected in two kinds of theories, that is, (i) axiomatic linguistic theories, and (ii) theories of axiomatic linguistic theories. The former result from the application of the axiomatic method in various linguistic subdisciplines. Actually, we are dealing with theories describing various properties or fragments of language(s) here. On the contrary, the latter proceed as a consequence from the investigations of how axiomatic linguistic theories should be constructed. Such investigations concern, in particular, the theory of grammars, that is, they inquire into properties of grammars conceived of as axiomatic theories. Clearly, they are of a metatheoretic nature and their results may not necessarily assume axiomatic format. The susceptibility of particular linguistic subdisciplines to be axiomatized depends on the state of research on their foundations. A special position in this respect is occupied by phonology, the domain of which is relatively simple in comparison to those investigated by other subdisciplines of linguistics. Already in 1947, Milewski expressed the conviction that of all linguistic disciplines it is phonology, which had attained the highest level of methodological perfection, thereby becoming exemplary for others. The construction of deductive phonological theories testifies in his estimation, to the status of phonology as an exact science. Although the axiom adduced by him is rather insufficient for deducing from it all theorems of theoretical phonology his conception of this discipline as a deductive scientific one is, nevertheless, clearly articulated (Milewski 1947: 154⫺155) The application of the axiomatic method is indeed most advanced in phonology, therefore our survey will begin there. 5.2. Axiomatic linguistic theories 5.2.1. Phonology The first to formulate an axiomatic phonological theory was Greenberg, whose 1959 treatise is also chronologically the first to make large scale use of the conceptual and

2012

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

symbolic apparatus of formal logic in laying down and defining the foundations of general phonology (Bato´g 1961b: 195). Greenberg’s theory avails itself of numerous strictly phonetic primitive terms, and axioms characterizing their properties. However, he neither formulates nor proves any theorems, because he believed all phonological theorems, formulable and provable in his system, to be trivial and uninteresting. Therefore, he primarily concentrated upon the reconstruction of the conceptual apparatus of phonology, which finds reflection in a large number of definitions formulated in symbolic notation, provided with comments in ordinary language. Subjecting Greenberg’s theory to a critical examination, Bato´g pointed out its inadequacies and thereby the failure of his approach, which did not allow him to attain one of his principal aims, that is, a precise formulation of a definition of one of the fundamental phonological concepts, namely, that of the phoneme. Nevertheless, Greenberg’s results should not be underestimated. The first to make a significant effort leading to a break-through in the formulation of axiomatic linguistic theories was Bato´g, who is mentioned whenever axiomatization in linguistics is considered. The ultimate goal which guided Bato´g in his axiomatic battles in the research for the foundations of theoretical phonology has been the accomplishment of the logico-mathematical program of the systematization of knowledge in this discipline, a program already formulated explicitly by Bloomfield (1926), Bloch (1948), and Greenberg (1959), but which since has not been translated into reality. In order to achieve this objective Bato´g applied the axiomatic method, which enabled him to present theoretical phonology in the shape of a formalized deductive theory, the logico-mathematical basis for which formed the simple theory of types and extended mereology in Tarski’s formulation. Although Bato´g’s inquiry was conducted against the background of the phonology of Harris, his conceptions evolved both in respect to their contents as well as to their formulation. As for the former, three chronologically successive stages can be distinguished, based on the criterion of the number of properties of sounds taken into account, while defining the phonemic system. And these stages find reflection in the respective phonological theories which, in turn, can be referred to

as: (i) distributional, (ii) distributional/phonetic, and (iii) distributional/phonetic/semantic. These theories are relatively independent of each other, and capable of functioning as deductive systems in their own right. Nevertheless, the second incorporates the first, and the third incorporates both. The definition of the concepts of phoneme and phonemic system are formulated in theory (i) exclusively in terms of distributional properties of sounds, i.e., the main role is attributed to the relations of free variation and complementary distribution (Bato´g 1961a, 1962). The corresponding definitions in theory (ii) already allow for phonetic features of sounds in addition to their distribution (Bato´g 1967). And in theory (iii) the distinctive property of sounds, namely, their function in distinguishing utterances conveying different meanings is already resorted to (Bato´g 1971b, 1976, 1978). Thus, in the final outcome meaning has explicitly found its way into phonological theory. For its consistency, complete explicitness and comprehensiveness the phonological theory proposed in Bato´g (1967) surpasses all other similar attempts offered thus far, and it shows for the first time what a full-fledged axiomatic theory would be like. For its primitive terms the following have been chosen: (i) the class of all idiolects (I), (ii) the class of all kinds of phonetic features (K), and (iii) the set of all pauses or zero segments (O). The class I is formally related to the set of all human utterances (∪I) as is the class K to the class of all phonetic features (∪K), and to the set of all elementary segments (∪∪K). These relationships derive from an extensional treatment of idiolects and phonetic features. An idiolect is identified with a set of utterances, a phonetic feature with a set of elementary segments, and a kind of feature with a family of features. The properties of primitive terms are characterized by a system of 14 axioms. The notion of the phoneme was introduced in terms of a phonemic basis, the latter being a grouping of sounds satisfying certain determined conditions. A phoneme emerges as an element of phonemic basis, and hence as a class of sounds in the relations of free variation and/or complementary distribution, and phonetically proximal to a relatively high degree. A qualitatively new development in Bato´g’s phonological conception ensued due to his turn to the European tradition, in par-

216. The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics

ticular the Prague School, whereby meaning has been explicitly taken into consideration (Bato´g, 1971b, 1976, 1978). An essential novelty of this semantic approach was the introduction of subtle and original notions of actual and potential meanings. Ultimately, the phonemic basis of a language has been defined as any such classification of the set of phones of the language, which satisfies the postulates of free variation, complementary distribution, distinctiveness, differentiation, and economy (Bato´g 1976, 1978). The universality of this definition lies in its adaptability for the needs of theoretical phonology in the sense that by substituting some other propositions for certain postulates different phonological theories can be arrived at. Within Bato´g’s contribution to theoretical phonology the following should be recapitulated: (i) The systematization of phonological terminology by providing precise definitions for a number of phonological terms; (ii) The formulation of a sufficiently strong axiomatics, based on which various phonological theories can be founded; (iii) The demonstration that the existence of at least one phonemic basis for each idiolect as well as the principle of a one-one correspondence between phonemic and phonetic structures of phrases are ⫺ contrary to Harris ⫺ not consequences of the phonological theory but empirical hypotheses; (iv) The elaboration of a certain standard for axiomatic linguistic theories. A characteristic trait of Bato´g’s linguistic endeavor has not only been the precise formulation of phonological theories but also the inquiry into the problems of their verification by means of constructing two kinds of algorithms: (i) phonemization algorithm (Bato´g 1961a, 1992; Bato´g & Steffen-Bato´g 1991, 1996), and (ii) orthographization algorithm (Bato´g & Steffen-Bato´g 1977). Such algorithms are a natural consequence of the combination of linguistic theorization with linguistic practice. Soon after the appearance of Bato´g’s first papers in 1961 and 1962, other authors also began their own axiomatic inquiries into phonology. This usually resulted in theories concerning fragments of the phonological domain, with the possible exception of Qvarnström’s theory. In this context, the contributions of Kanger (1964), Uspenskij (1964), and Wedberg (1964) must be mentioned. A modification of Kanger’s approach was suggested by Marcus (1965a, 1966).

2013

Some general problems of axiomatization in phonology were raised by Arany (1967). The logical reconstruction of fragments of Trubetzkoy’s phonology was undertaken by Zgo´łka (1976) and Lieb (1979). Zgo´łka did not present his theory in an axiomatic form but explicit to the extent that an axiomatization suggested itself and was tentatively proposed in Ban´czerowski (1992a). Lieb aims at clarifying the most basic concepts as used by Trubetzkoy and at an elucidation of a metatheoretical conception, which is implicit in his work, and which concerns the relationship between theories of language and individual grammars (in this case phonological grammars). In explicating Trubetzkoyan concepts, Lieb constructs, in a semi-formal manner, an axiomatic theory, which corresponds to a fragment of Trubetzkoy’s non-formal theory (Lieb 1979: 3). The following three terms have been chosen as primitive: (i) the relation of being a contrast of sound, (ii) the set of all words, and (iii) the relation of realization. Lieb gives only a few sample axioms and concentrates principally on defining fundamental terms such as: distinctive opposition, distinctive property, sound, phoneme, and variant. The outlined fragment of a general phonological theory has been augmented by the addition of four assumptions referring to German, whereby it should already be viewed as a fragment of a grammar of German. A reformulation of Lieb’s theory is considered in Ban´czerowski (1992a), and some of its shortcomings are pointed out by Bato´g and Steffen-Bato´g (1991: 33; 1996: 12). An attempt at a logical reconstruction of Trubetzkoy’s phonological theory as a whole was undertaken by Qvarnström (1979), who based his study on the first three chapters of Grundzüge der Phonologie (1939), in which, according to him, the theory is systematically and clearly developed. His axiomatics contains nine propositions, four of which should correspond to basic assumptions in any structuralist phonology (Qvarnström 1979: 46). Among the defined terms the following can be found: indistinctive opposition, distinctive opposition, interchangeable sounds, noninterchangeable sounds, is a variant of, phoneme, etc. The central concept of Qvarnström’s theory is a relevant set of rules for the determination of phonemic systems (phonemes). This concept is defined as a four-member set, the elements of which are exactly one precise version of Trubetzkoy’s “practical” rules of

2014

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

application I, II, III and IV, respectively (Qvarnström 1979: 8, 60ff.) Subsequently, for each of these precise versions it has been proved that it is either inconsistent under certain conditions or else specifies at least two phonemic systems for every language (Qvarnström 1979: 8, 85⫺86, 175). This finding, in turn, contradicts Trubetzkoy’s conviction that for every natural language exactly one phonemic system is available (Qvarnström 1979: 85, 175). With the help of the concept of phonological representation various versions of the condition of phonological representability are formulated. This condition, which seems to be required by Trubetzkoy and believed by him to be automatically fulfilled, could be conceived of as saying that every word of a given language is representable as a sequence of phonemes for that language (Qvamström 1979: 102ff.) Which versions of the condition are implied or not implied by which relevant sets of rules is also investigated (Qvamström 1979: 107). A proposal of an axiomatics for Trubetzkoy’s theory of oppositions has been made by Pogonowski (1993a, 1995a, cf. Ban´czerowski et al. 1992). To our knowledge it is certainly the most systematic exposition of this theory in linguistic literature. Pogonowski has also offered an axiomatics for acoustic phonetics within the framework of Jassem’s approach (Pogonowski 1995a). However, he did not succeed in formulating a respective definition of the phoneme without taking recourse to the concept of phonemic basis in the sense of Bato´g. The relationship between structural and generative phonologies has been dealt with by Ban´czerowski (1992b), who has proved that the latter is but a consequence of the former. He also sketched axiomatic theories concerning, respectively, fragments of morphonology (1983a), holomeric phonology (1992c), and general phonetics (1983b, 1985, 1987, 1990). Vennemann is surely a pioneer of axiomatic syllabic phonology. The theory of universal syllabic phonology as constructed by him (1978) assigns the syllable central position in any phonological description of natural language. It makes use of 15 primitive terms, which the set of possible syllables belongs to. The properties of these terms are characterized by 10 general axioms, assumed to hold for any syllabic phonology. The set of defined terms includes: head and coda of a syllable, open, closed, light, heavy, and re-

duced syllables. The addition of languagespecific axioms to general ones yields ⫺ according to Vennemann ⫺ systems which can be understood as the phonological component of the grammar of specific natural language systems (Vennemann 1978: 211). Examples of such grammars for several languages are given. Vennemann thus distinguishes clearly between universal syllabic phonology and syllabic phonology, the latter being any phonology derived from the former by the addition of language specific axioms. The theory of universal phonology has been further developed within the framework of an axiomatic word-phonology (Bartsch & Vennemann 1982: 66ff.). In this theory, intended by the authors to be a logical reconstruction of a fragment of phonetics and phonology, the concept of syllable already functions as defined. A fundamental hypothesis of word-phonology, in weak and strong versions, has been formulated (Bartsch & Vennemann 1982: 80ff.) This hypothesis accounts for the relationships between certain phonetic events and phonological word-forms of language systems. Some aspects of wordphonology have been discussed in Ban´czerowski et al. (1992: 202ff.), and a reformulation of certain concepts of this theory has been suggested by Pogonowski (1995a). 5.2.2. General theory of language It seems appropriate to start this subsection with a brief presentation of the ideas of Wojtasiewicz, although his treatise (1962) goes beyond linguistics and concerns the general theory of sign systems. The explicit goal of the author was to formulate basic concepts and postulates of a general theory of language, with “language” being understood in the broadest possible sense, as any system of signs, and thus it covers both natural and artificial languages. Nevertheless, he principally focused his attention on some properties of the former. Wojtasiewicz’s formal apparatus is borrowed from predicate calculus, set theory, theory of relations, and mereology. Based on a criterion, which could be called the degree of metalinguality, he introduces a hierarchy of languages starting with extralingual reality as a zero-level language. This is followed by the class of all object languages, the class of all metalanguages, the class of all metametalanguages, and so on. The set of primitive terms contains, among others, the following: the set of expressions, the set of fragments, the relation of equi-

216. The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics

formity, the relation of isosemy, the relation of precedence in time or space, the relation of semantic equivalence. The primitive terms are characterized by 27 postulates (axioms). Such terms as: the class of linear languages, the operation of composition by juxtaposition, the class of elementary expressions, the relation of syntactic equivalence, and the relation of subordination are defined. Certain flaws of Wojtasiewicz’s theory, the originality of which cannot be denied, have been pointed out by Bato´g (1997, 1998). The form-function relationships between units of different levels of the language system were the object of axiomatic description by Nebesky´ and Sgall (1964). In axiomatic investigations concerning the general theory of language, Lieb figures prominently. He is certainly a phenomenon among contemporary linguists. Not only is his scholary output of an impressive size and diversity, but it is almost exclusively concerned with the fundamental problems of linguistics, and should also be of interest for the philosophy and methodology of science. What especially deserves attention is his courage in challenging mainstream inquiry, even at the cost of being unduly ignored himself. His versatile contribution to axiomatic linguistics has been within Integrational Linguistics, a conception of linguistics with a broad view of its subject matter, which he himself founded (cf. Lieb 1983: 3; 1993b: 430ff.) One of the characteristic features which permeate Lieb’s linguistic conceptions is his drawing a basic distinction between two linguistic subdisciplines: (i) the theory of language, and (ii) the theory of grammars. Within the former, particular theories of language are developed, and its domain contains all natural languages. Within the latter, on the contrary, particular theories of grammars are developed, and hence its domain contains linguistic grammars, that is, certain theories of particular languages, language varieties, etc., as written by linguists. Clearly, such a theory is about grammars, and not directly about languages. Particular grammars are directly about the latter, (cf. Lieb 1983: 4; 1993b: 432). Lieb sets very high standards for linguistic theories by demanding that “Any theory of language and any grammar of language variety is to be an axiomatic theory” (Lieb 1983: 423, 421). The utility of a theory of language as well as of grammar presupposes

2015

the availability of adequate interpretations, whereby the theory is related to speakers and speech events, and its empiricality is guaranteed (cf. Lieb 1983: 460; Vennemann 1982: 240; Falkenberg 1996: 196ff.) To Lieb, theories of language and grammars of languages and varieties are to be taken as abstract axiomatic theories as opposed to applied axiomatic theories, the “semantic basis” of which specifies one or more domains, and interprets the axiomatic primitives. Idiolect grammars are of this kind (cf. Lieb 1974, sections 2 and 3; 1983: 445ff., 449). Since theories of language and grammars of languages are both taken by Lieb as abstract axiomatic theories, the problem of interpreting them can be solved by integrating them with applied axiomatic theories, in particular, with idiolect grammars, whereby this problem reduces to the problem of interpreting idiolect grammars (Lieb 1983: 461). A theory of language variability in time as presented in Lieb (1970), and the preliminary version of which appeared in Lieb (1968a), was developed within a comprehensive language-theoretical framework, enlarged communication-theoretically. This theory is formulated in accordance with Carnap-Hempel’s conception of axiomatic theories for the empirical sciences (cf. Carnap 1956; Hempel 1952, 1965), and concerns one of the fundamental lingual dualities, that is, synchrony vs. diachrony as it manifests itself in the relationship between the systematic and temporal aspects of languages. Lieb’s theory contains a topological theory of physical time modeled upon Tarski’s mereology (Tarski 1937), as well as a fragment of communication theory. Some changes in basic assumptions were introduced in Lieb (1976a, Sec. 6.3; 1977: 22ff.) The language of the theory is based upon a higher-order many-sorted predicate calculus with identity assuming simple system of types. In order to clarify the temporal aspect of historical languages and its relationship with the systematic aspect, the proposed theory explicates for linguistics the concept of stage of a language and inquires into the essential properties of stages (Lieb 1970: 3). The Saussurean distinction between synchrony and diachrony and his concept e´tat de langue serve Lieb as a point of departure for the construction of an axiomatic theory, within which “a stage of a language” and “a state of a system for a language” as well as other important linguistic terms lend themselves to

2016

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

being defined (Lieb 1970: 5, 146, 249⫺250; cf. Lieb 1993a: 37). In formulating his theory, Lieb relinquishes the symbolic or constructed language of logic and deliberately avails himself of a version of natural language, as he calls it, a regimented form of German, whereby he believes he has reached a fair compromise between sufficient precision and potential loss of readers. The theory is based upon 10 primitive terms and 25 axioms, and it contains 43 definitions and 164 theorems. The primitive terms are as follows: earlier, organism, communicates regularly by, has full command of, language, system (of), corresponds to, system of level […,], (is) based (on), is successor to (Lieb 1970: 86, 289⫺290). The defined terms embrace, among others, the following: means of communication, communication complex, period, cross-section. Lieb alters the Saussurean conception according to which stages should be identified with systems, and splits the notion of e´tat de langue into stage of a language and state of a system (cf. Lieb 1993a: 36ff). Pogonowski, in his studies, offers some valuable insights concerning: (i) hierarchical analyses of language, (ii) similarity (tolerance) relations, and (iii) linguistic oppositions. The conception of a hierarchical analysis was elaborated in his Ph. D. dissertation in 1976 (published in 1988a), and developed further in his treatises (1979: 40ff.; 1981a; 1982a; 1991a; 1993a: 106ff.) Although the initial intention of the author was to perform a logical reconstruction of Hjelmslev’s glossematics, the theory, which emerged, turned out to be much more general in nature, since it applied to a rather large class of language domains. Within the proposed theoretical framework glossematics can be viewed as but a particular case of hierarchical linguistic analysis. Pogonowski avails himself of the following three primitive terms: (i) analyzed token, (ii) syntagmatic relation, and (iii) language level (cf. Pogonowski 1981a: 76ff.; 1991a: 25ff.) An analyzed token is a relational structure consisting of a set of linguistic units, and a family of syntagmatic relations binding these units on a certain level. A language level is a set of analyzed tokens of the same sort. Each language level is specified by a certain class of syntagmatic relations. Or, more exactly, it can be identified with fields of these relations (Pogonowski 1993a: 104). Syntagmatic, paradigmatic and interlevel relations are distin-

guished. Syntagmatic relations underlie the formation of complex units in text, paradigmatic relations allow for the construction of abstract linguistic objects, and interlevel relations hold between entities belonging to different language levels (Pogonowski 1993a: 105). Actually the axiomatics characterizing the primitive terms is given by the definition of a hierarchical analysis (Pogonowski 1991a: 28). Each hierarchical analysis is conceived of as a sequence (S1, … Sk) of sets of relational structures. These sets are simply particular language levels. Each language unit is a certain whole consisting of units of an immediately lower level and syntagmatic relations binding them. A mathematical theory of similarity (tolerance) relations is presented in Pogonowski (1981a), and its applications to lexical semantics (hyponymic similarity and incomparability, synonymy), and to a general model of stratified language are discussed. A general theory of linguistic oppositions is worked out in Pogonowski (1993a; 1985; 1988b). Since the concept of opposition is fundamental in various approaches to language, the theory of oppositions applies not only to phonology but also to semantics and syntax. A fragment of a general theory of language has been surveyed in Ban´czerowski (1996). With the avail of 14 primitive terms and 12 axioms, concepts such as: lectal basis of language, the systematic basis of lect, language use, transtextification, language communication, homolinguality, among others, have proved amenable to being defined. Problems of language variability and stability were also joined into the discussion. 5.2.3. Syntax, semantics, informatics, pragmatics, textology The application of the axiomatic method in syntax was initiated by Chomsky (1953), when he was still engaged in refining the techniques of structural linguistics, while working on (discovery) procedures by which linguists attempted to derive the statements of a grammar from language use (texts). The source of his investigations was the work of Harris (1951). By axiomatizing a fragment of this work Chomsky intended to develop an adequate notion of syntactic category, while basing this categorization on the distributional properties of units, i.e., on their occurrence in sentences (Chomsky 1953: 242⫺243). The resultant theory makes use of the follow-

216. The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics

ing five extralogical primitive terms: overlaps, equally long, conform, precedes, and environment, while defined terms are, among others, is a segment of, is an atom, is a continuous inscription, is a discontinuity of, is a context of. Axiomatics contains 13 propositions. However, Chomsky admits that his system is not adequate for the analysis of natural languages (Chomsky 1953: 243). Beleckij et al. made an attempt, as they themselves claim, to apply the axiomatic method to the description of some of the most general regularities of word order and governance in simple sentences (Beleckij et al. 1963). They assume as primitive the set of words, the relation of linear succession (mazˇorirovanije), and the relation of governance (rukovodstvo, to be distinguished from government). These relations binding words in correct sentences are characterized by ten axioms. Among the defined terms the following deserve mention: the relation of precedence, the relation of direct precedence (upravlenije), phrase, subphrase, phrasal isomorphy, and phrasal superposition. Also some possibilities of extending the assumed axiomatics are hinted at. An interpretation of this approach in terms of graph theory was proposed by Marcus (1965b). A fragment of semantics and syntax, the latter being explicitly semantically based, has been axiomatized within the framework of the so-called determinational theory in Ban´czerowski (1980). This theory operates with nine primitive terms and 36 axioms, and its main goal is to define syntactic system, which is identified with a classification of words (lexes) into syntactic categories. Before such a definition could be formulated, some aspects of other systems such as: lexical, semic, determinational, and linear (vocablic) had to be innvestigated first. Basic to this theory is the distinction drawn between lexical and semic (grammatical) meanings (features) as well as such relations as: homophony, hyponymy, homolexy, homosignification, and determination, among others. The definition of the syntactic system has been reformulated by the author in Ban´czerowski et al. (1982: 264ff). Some extensions of determinational theory are discussed in Ban´czerowski (1993; 1994). A critical analysis of this theory has been carried out by Pogonowski (1982b) who also proposed its modification providing for the reduction of the number of primitive terms and axioms, and subsequently devel-

2017

oped it further in several respects (Pogonowski 1981b; 1993b). Quite a few linguistically interesting results have been obtained by Pogonowski in his research into semantics. They concern such semantic relations as: synonymy, hyponymy, lexical similarity and opposition (Pogonowski 1981a; 1985; 1991a; 1993a). A tentative axiomatic theory of the informational structure of sentences has been outlined in Ban´czerowski (1991). Some relevant aspects of this structure are captured with the aid of such terms as: notum, ignotum, certum, incertum, rogator, responsor, notification, and certification. The morphological significators of informational meanings in Japanese and Korean have also been discussed. In spite of the complexity of its domain, which in addition to language expressions also embraces users of language, their actions, situations, etc., pragmatics did not prove immune to axiomatization. However, in the sequel we shall limit ourselves only to a brief presentation of some ideas of Martin (1959) and Koj (1971). Searle and Vanderveken (1985), Wolniewicz (1985), and Tokarz (1993) must also be mentioned in this context. The contribution of Sweet is primarily relevant for logic (Sweet 1972; 1975; Danecki 1980). Martin attempts to clarify the logical structure of pragmatics, more specifically, of certain pragmatic metalanguages (Martin 1959: 8). The pragmatic theory surveyed by him is based upon the following three relations, admitted as primitive terms: acceptance, utterance, and performance. Within the assumed axiomatics, six propositions are considered as general pragmatical rules, in the sense that they hold for all expressions, persons and times. In addition to general ones Martin also allows for specific pragmatical rules, empirical statements concerning, for instance, actual acceptances, and thus holding only of particular expressions, persons or times (Martin 1959: 39). A number of pragmatic relations such as: quasi-intention, co-intensiveness, understanding, assertion, acceptance as a basis for action have been defined, and an idea of comparative pragmatics has been indicated. The theory of Koj has semantic and pragmatic components. The former avails itself of seven primitive terms, which are the following relations: denotation (= nominal denotation), reference (= sentential denotation), equiformity, copying, concatenation, transla-

2018

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

tion and quotation. The axiomatics contains, in addition to semantic propositions, others concerning pragmatic denotation and reference. Koj considers semantic properties of natural languages as derivative from the corresponding pragmatic properties. This reveals itself in the definability of semantic terms with the help of pragmatic ones. Pragmatic theorems, however, follow from semantic theorems (Koj 1971: 128). The introduction into pure semantics of the concepts of denotation, reference, and equiformity, all of them relativized to respective contexts, is, according to Koj, absolutely necessary for the description of natural languages, and he argues as follows: “In natural languages almost everything depends on context […] Therefore no one using unrelativized concepts can hope to succeed in describing natural language in its normal, unsimplified, uninjured form. The path leading to the description of natural languages using concepts developed in semantics of artificial languages (ergo: of very simplified languages) is a dead end road” (Koj 1971: 90⫺91; cf. Hiz˙ 1968: 239ff.). He also claims that his system describes a more complex language, which in many respects is closer to natural languages, than to very simple artificial languages, which one can encounter in formal logic and mathematics (Koj 1971: 86). An axiomatic theory of text has been proposed by Trze¸sicki. The motivation for this theory was found by the author in the nonformal theory of text as expounded in Ingarden’s work Das literarische Kunstwerk (1931). Trze¸sicki avails himself of the operation of thematization, as the only primitive term, which is characterized by seven axioms forming a definition of a text (Trze¸sicki 1977; 1981; 1983; 1986; 1990). 5.2.4. Historical and typological linguistics The so far modest application of the axiomatic method in these linguistic sub-disciplines has been highly tentative and exploratory. An attempt at constructing an axiomatic theory in historical linguistics has been undertaken in Ban´czerowski (1978), where an axiom system for a general theory of fortition-lenition has been offered for consideration. This theory intends to formalize some aspects of the conception of the fortitionlenition processes as developed by Zabrocki with application to Indo-European and Finno-Ugric, and by Ban´czerowski to Finnish and Lappish.

In Pogonowski (1996) an axiomatics for the preference laws has been discussed in a preliminary way, in conjunction with his attempt at logical reconstruction of structural typology. 5.3. Investigations of axiomatic grammars The ideas of Chomsky broadly expounded in his work The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, available from 1955, in mimeographed form, and with some modifications, published only in 1975, have exerted a versatile influence upon research about the theory of grammars. On the one hand, they were conducive to the development of various conceptions of transformational generative grammars, on the other, they induced a creative criticism. Although a number of problems studied in Chomsky (1975) also belong to the theory of language and to syntax, and although his approach is largely axiomatic, nevertheless, with regard to the relevance of this work to the theory of grammars, it will be dealt with in this paragraph. Chomsky makes a three-way distinction between (i) language, (ii) structure of language, and (iii) grammar. By a “language” a set of utterances is referred to. By “the structure of a given language” the particular system of levels assigned to this set of utterances and asserted to underlie it is meant. A “grammar”, in general, is a set of rewrite rules, converting strings into other strings. By “the grammar of a given language (with a given structure assigned to it)” a description of this structure is intended, showing exactly how this structure is related to the language, i.e., showing how just this set of utterances can be generated in a mechanical manner in terms of the system of levels (Chomsky 1975: 201). What has been axiomatized is that part of Chomsky’s theory which refers to the levels of phrase structure and transformations. The axiomatics for the former level consists of 13 propositions, and for the latter of 4 propositions. By means of rules of generation of the form XJY, called also conversions, a sequence of representations (R1, … ,Rn) for each sentence is generated, where R1 is the representation Sentence, Rn is a phonetic spelling, and R2, … ,Rn-1, are intermediate representations in terms of phrases, words, phonemes. The sequence (R1, … ,Rn) is a derivation of Rn. A grammar can be taken as a sequence of conversions generating derivations of sentences. “A derivation is roughly analogous to a proof, with Sentence playing

216. The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics

the role of a single axiom, and the conversions corresponding roughly to rules of inference” (Chomsky 1975: 67). A critical analysis of Chomsky’s theory of levels was performed by Lieb, who pointed out that this theory should be conceived of as a theory of levels of a transformational grammar, and that the relationship of such levels to language and language system is not clear (Lieb 1968b: 345). He also took critical issue with Chomsky’s axiomatization (Lieb 1968b: 346ff.). A conception of axiomatic grammars was not, however, systematically elaborated until Lieb, whose penetrating studies also clarified the epistemological status of transformational generative grammars of natural languages by pointing out that they are not theories of their intended subject matter in any ordinary sense of the term “theory (of)”, since they do not contain any expressions that can be understood as statements about the subject matter (Lieb 1974: 42ff.). The principles of axiomatic grammars, within the framework of Integrational Linguistics, have already been laid down in Lieb (1974), and subsequently revised and applied to particular idiolect grammars in Lieb (1976a). A rather informal presentation of those principles can be found in Lieb (1983: 419ff.), and an introduction to them in Lieb (1989). Their application to theoretical problems of language universals has been demonstrated in Lieb (1975; 1978), and to contrastive linguistics in Lieb (1980b). Recently, certain claims made for the terminology of grammars and grammatical statements have been advanced in Lieb (1993a: 203ff.). Inquiry into the problem of axiomatic grammars is being successfully continued by Falkenberg, who has pointed out certain deficiencies in the theory of Integrational Grammars and proposed some new solutions (Falkenberg 1995, 1996). A succinct characterization of integrational grammars can be given as follows. “A grammar is construed as a theory. The object of the theory is, or contains, a pair whose first component is either an idiolect or a set of idiolects (a variety, stage, or even an entire language), and whose second component is a system of or for the first. Correspondingly, we may have idiolect grammars, variety grammars etc. Idiolect grammars are not only about an idiolect and idiolect system but also about a speaker and his or her utterances by being used as a basis for idiolect grammars”

2019

(Lieb 1992: 134⫺135). Within the Liebian conception, the properties of a grammar can be specified with respect to appropriate dimensions, reflected in the following oppositions among others: (i) idiolect/language/ comparative, (ii) axiomatic/generative (algorithmic), (iii) abstract/applied, (iv) complete/ partial, (v) exhaustive/non-exhaustive. A generative grammar conceived of as a system of rules for recursively enumerating representations of sentences or other linguistic objects does not say anything about the language, which it is to be a grammar of, and thus it is irreconcilable with Integrational Grammars. These latter are not algorithms but empirical axiomatic theories containing statements about the properties of their objects (Lieb 1983: VIII, 11, 451f.; 1993b: 432). Thus, unlike the statements of an axiomatic theory, generative rules are neither true nor false. Without being explicitly expressed, the idea of an axiomatic grammar seems not to have been alien to Hiz˙, if his assertion that “It is implausible that the set of assumed true sentences be recursive” (1968: 248) is to be understood as taking into consideration an axiomatic approach which would allow for the specification of various properties of texts, instead of their recursive enumerability. What is more, according to Lieb “[…] a grammar corresponding to the general theory of Hiz˙ (1969) can be conceived as an applied axiomatic theory […]” (Lieb 1974: 101). The theory of Hiz˙ underlies the ‘paraphrase grammars’ as proposed by Smaby (1971). These grammars being formal systems, similar to those as applied by Wang, are closely related to axiomatic theories. Denying generative grammars the status of theories of their intended subject matter, does not, however, answer the question of how they are relatable to the latter. Two methods to account for this relationship have been applied, that is, the re-interpretation method developed by Lieb, and the correlation method developed by Wang. The essence of the former consists in re-interpreting the rules of a generative grammar in such a manner that they may be understood as statements on its intended subject matter (cf. Lieb 1967; 1968b; 1974: 52f.). The application of the correlation method results in the construction for generative grammar as a rule system, a corresponding axiomatic theory such that, roughly speaking, what can be generated by the grammar, can also be derived within this

2020

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

theory from axioms by means of the rules of logical deduction (cf. Wang 1971b: 273; 1973: 302). The reformulation of generative grammars as axiomatic theories also makes it possible for Wang to apply to them the HempelOppenheim model of deductive-nomological explanation (Wang 1972; cf. Lieb 1974: 99; Itkonen 1976: 192). Bellert’s approach to syntax is certainly related to the re-interpretation or the correlation methods. Her conception of grammar is intended to make it “analogous to a formal interpreted theory” (Bellert 1972b: 299). Certain inadequacies of Bellert’s proposal have been made evident by Lieb, who convincingly argued that she is equating sentences of natural language with strings of symbols of (a level of) the grammar (Lieb 1974: 52, 102ff.). Thorough-going research into the principles, on which writing grammars of natural languages as empirical axiomatic theories should rest, has recently been done by Falkenberg (1996) within a comprehensive framework first specified by his discussion of the idea of axiomatic theories in general as well as the idea of empirical axiomatic theories and their application to the theory of grammars. Falkenberg’s conception of grammars as axiomatic theories has essentially been developed in conformity with the conception of axiomatic theories in formal sciences, while the “theory integration” in the sense of Liebian theory of Integrational Grammars has been taken into consideration. The problem of interpretation, unavoidable for any empirical theory, has been solved by Falkenberg via abandoning the binary division of vocabulary into theoretical and observational terms, in which an empirical theory is formulated, and availing himself of what is called sentence-wise interpretation (satzweise Interpretation). This kind of interpretation makes use of a testability basis (Beurteilungsbasis) being comprised of a set of sentences ‘partially’ interpreting the terms of a given empirical theory in the sense that it permits only such interpretations of the terms, which make all sentences of the testability basis true (Falkenberg 1996: 250ff.). The discussion of the empiricality of grammars of natural languages has been enriched by new aspects due to objections raised by Itkonen, who attempts to justify the claim that such grammars cannot be viewed as empirical theories (Itkonen 1976; 1978; 1979). Linguistics is not, according to him, an em-

pirical science, since it is impossible to identify those spatio-temporal phenomena investigated by a natural language grammar. The data of linguistics are not all actual utterances occurring in space and time, but only correct utterances. However, the concept of correctness cannot be defined in terms of space and time. The decision on correctness is possible only on the basis of knowledge of the respective language system which specifies the necessary conditions for correct utterances. Consequently, prior to testing a grammar, a theory describing such knowledge must be assumed as true. What is more, such a theory cannot be refuted on empirical grounds. Hence it must be unempirical or necessarily true (Itkonen 1976: 187). Grammars are, for Itkonen, theories about intuitive (grammatical) knowledge of language, and this property makes them comparable, as regards their testability, with logical theories, which are also about intuitive (logical) knowledge, rather than with empirical theories of natural sciences. Arguing against Itkonen’s rejection of the thesis of the possibility of empirical grammars of natural languages Falkenberg refers to similar problems in testing theories in natural sciences and, consequently, considers his concept of empirical theories as too strong a concept (Falkenberg 1995: 17; 1996: 164ff., 169ff.; Lieb 1976b: § 4; Kutschera 1975: 11ff.).

6.

Concluding remarks

For reasons of space we were forced to limit ourselves to an almost indecent minimum, while shaping the contents of our contribution. Not only could we not develop our argumentation more fully and be more polemic with certain theses, but we were even not able to touch upon many important problems, such as, e. g., the possibility of treating logic as a branch of linguistics (cf. Cooper 1978: 121). The axiomatization of linguistic theories requires a considerable effort, perhaps even drudgery, on the part of linguists who construct such theories. Against this background the question cannot be avoided whether the application of the axiomatic method, at least, in theoretical linguistics is necessary or even worth the effort? We would like to answer this question in the positive, without, however, giving here sufficient justification but only hinting at that this method appears to

216. The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics

be the most perfect of those which have been thus far offered for the formulation of theories. No better method has yet been devised for the systematization of knowledge and for alleviating the devastating effects of informational inflation. In an age of incessant information inundation, when theories are multiplied in excessive and incontrollable amounts, axiomatization should take over the role of informational razor eliminating superfluity. Nowadays, it seems that for linguistics there is already no retreat from the axiomatic path. There may even come a time, when avoiding axiomatization in theoretical linguistics will be regarded as an inclination to unnecessary prolixity or tedious verbosity.

7.

Bibliography

Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz. 1935. “Die syntaktische Konnexität”. Studia Philosophica 1.1⫺27. Arany, La´szlo´ A. 1967. “Axiomatische Probleme der Phonologie”. Phonologie der Gegenwart. Vorträge und Diskussion anläßlich der internationalen Phonologie-Tagung in Wien, 1966 ed. by J. Hamm, 382⫺385. Graz: Herrmann Böhlaus Nachf. Ban´czerowski, Jerzy. 1978. “A formal approach to the theory of fortition-lenition: a preliminary study”. Recent developments in historical phonology ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 57⫺98. The Hague: Mouton. ⫺. 1980. Systems of semantics and syntax: a determinational theory of language. Warszawa & Poznan´: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. ⫺. 1983a. “On some morphonological relations”. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jeø zykoznawczego 40.25⫺33.

2021

⫺. 1992a. “Formal properties of neostructural phonology”. Studia Phonetica Posnaniensia 3.5⫺ 28. ⫺. 1992b. “Is generative phonology consequent upon structural phonology”. Phonological investigations ed. by Jacek Fisiak & Stanisław Puppel, 247⫺307. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. ⫺. 1992c. “Towards holomeric phonology”. Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 1356 (= Studia Neerlandica et Germanica). 17⫺29. ⫺. 1993. “A theory of predicative structure. (Insights from Japanese and Korean)”. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 27.5⫺26. ⫺. 1994. “A proposal for syntactic categorization”. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyz˙szej Szkoły Pedagogicznej w Opolu. Filologia Rosyjska 33.19⫺32. ⫺. 1996. “A formal approach to a general theory of language”. Theoretical linguistics and grammatical description: Papers in honour of Hans-Heinrich Lieb on the occasion of his 60th birthday. (= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 138) ed. by Robin Sackmann, 13⫺30. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. ⫺. 1997a. “Towards a general theory of the category of person”. Language in time and space: Studies in honour of Wolfgang Viereck of the occasion of his 60th birthday ed. by Heinrich Ramisch & Kenneth Wynne, 441⫺461. Stuttgart: Steiner. ⫺. 1997b. “Aspects of general morphology”. Studia Germanica Posnaniensia 23. 13⫺46. ⫺. 1998. “A general theory of flection”. Scripta manent ed. by Stanisław Puppel, 7⫺65. Poznan´: Adam Mieckiewicz University. ⫺. 1999. “Towards a grammar of flection”. Investigationes Linguisticae 6.5⫺84.

⫺. 1983b. “Phonetische Similarität: Einige qualitative und quantitative Aspekte”. Lingua Posnaniensis 26.144⫺165.

⫺. 2000. “Is linguisitic semantics axiomatically tangible?” Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia 2. 3⫺26.

⫺. 1985. “Phonetic relations in the perspective of phonetic dimensions”. Studia Linguistica Diachronica et Synchronica. Werner Winter Sexagenario Anno MCMLXXVII ed. by Ursula Pieper & Gerhard Stickel, 25⫺40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

⫺. 2003. “A concept of truth for linguistic semantics”. Language in Time and Space: A festschrift for Werner Winter on his 80th birthday ed. by Brigitte L. M. Bauer & Georges-Jean Pinault, 35⫺62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

⫺. 1987. “Towards a dynamic approach to phonological space”. Studia Phonetica Posnaniensia 1. 5⫺30.

⫺, Jerzy Pogonowski & Tadeusz Zgo´łka. 1982. Wste˛p do je˛zykoznawstwa (Introduction to linguistics). Poznan´: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza.

⫺. 1990. “Undular aspect of phonological spacetime”. Studia Phonetica Posnaniensia 2.13⫺42. ⫺. 1991. “Appearances of informational structure. (The significance of Japanese and Korean)”. Lingua Posnaniensis 32, 33.7⫺30.

⫺. 1992. “A new structuralism in phonology”. Prospects for a new structuralism ed. by HansHeinrich Lieb, 185⫺224. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

2022

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

Bartsch, Renate & Theo Vennemann. 1982. Grundzüge der Sprachtheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

nal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvesˇcˇenija 153. 279⫺316.

Bato´g, Tadeusz. 1961a. “Logiczna rekonstrukcja poje˛cia fonemu”. Studia Logica 11.139⫺183.

⫺. 1972. “Some general remarks on linguistics and language”. A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology: The beginnings of structural linguistics ed. by Edward Stankiewicz, 49⫺80. Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ. Press.

⫺. 1961b. “Critical remarks on Greenberg’s axiomatic phonology”. Studia Logica 12.195⫺205. ⫺. 1962. “A contribution to axiomatic phonology”. Studia Logica 13.67⫺80. ⫺. 1967. The axiomatic method in phonology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ⫺. 1969. “A reduction in the number of primitive concepts of phonology”. Studia Logica 25.55⫺60. ⫺. 1971a. “On the definition of phonemic basis”. Studia Logica 27.117⫺122. ⫺. 1971b. “A formal approach to the semantic theory of phoneme”. Studia Logica 29.27⫺42. ⫺. 1976. “O klasycznym poje˛ciu bazy fonematycznej”. Komunikaty i Rozprawy, 3⫺16. Poznan´: Instytut Matematyki, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza. ⫺. 1978. “On the classical concept of phonemic basis”. Lingua Posnaniensis 21.53⫺64. ⫺. 1992. “On the existence of an algorithm for phonemizing texts with given phonetic structures”. Studia Phonetica Posnaniensia 3.29⫺46. ⫺. 1994a. Studies in axiomatic foundations of phonology. Poznan´: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza. ⫺. 1994b. Podstawy logiki. Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. ⫺. 1996. Dwa paradygmaty matematyki. Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. ⫺. 1997. “W sprawie aksjomatycznej teorii systemo´w znakowych”. Investigationes Linguisticae 2. 24⫺31. ⫺. 1998. “Towards an axiomatic theory of sign systems”. Lingua Posnaniensis 40. 25⫺31. ⫺ & Maria Steffen-Bato´g. 1977. “Wste˛pny algorytm konwersji polskich teksto´w fonematycznych w ortograficzne”. Lingua Posnaniensis 20.65⫺95. ⫺. 1991. “Das Problem der automatischen Beschreibung des Phoneminventars einer Sprache”. The application of microcomputers in the humanities ed. by J. Ban´czerowski, 30⫺34. Poznan´: Adam Mickiewicz University. ⫺. 1996. “Problem automatycznego opisu fonemo´w je˛zyka”. Przyczynki do metodologii lingwistyki ed. by Jerzy Pogonowski & Tadeusz Zgo´łka, 9⫺13. Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan I. 1871. “Nekotorye ˇ urobsˇcˇie zamecˇanija o jazykovedenii i jazyke”. Z

Beleckij, M. I., V. M. Grigorjan & I. D. Zaslavskij. 1963. “Aksiomaticˇeskoe opisanije porjadka i upravlenija slov v nekotoryx tipax predlozˇenij”. Matematicˇeskie Voprosy Kibernetiki i Vycˇislitel’noj Texniki 1.71⫺86. Erevan. Bellert, Irena. 1972a. On the logico-semantic structure of utterances. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. ⫺. 1972b. “Theory of language as an interpreted formal theory”. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguists, 489⫺498. Bologna: Societa Editrice Il Milano. ⫺. 1973. “Sets of implications as the interpretative component of a grammar” Generative grammar in Europe ed. by Ferenc Kiefer & Nicolas Ruwet. Dordrecht: Reidel. Bloch, Bernard. 1948. “A set of postulates for phonemic analysis”. Language 24.3⫺46. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1926. “A set of postulates for the science of the language”. Language 2.153⫺164. Bogusławski, Andrzej. 1992. Two Essays on Inflection. Warsaw. Wydawnictwo Energeia. Bühler, Karl. 1933. “Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften”. Kant-Studien 38.19⫺90. (Republished as book: Elisabeth Ströker, ed. 1969. Frankfurt/M.: Klostermann.) ⫺. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer. (New ed. 1982, with an introd. by Friedrich Kainz. Stuttgart & New York: Fischer). ⫺. 1990. Theory of language: The representational function of language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Buszkowski, Wojciech. 1989. Logiczne podstawy gramatyk kategorialnych Ajdukiewicza-Lambeka. Warszawa: Pan´twowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. ⫺. 1996. “Categorial grammars with negative information”. Negation. A notion in focus ed. by Heinrich Wansing, 107⫺126. (= Perspektiven der analytischen Philosophie, Perspectives in analytical philosophy ed. by Georg Meggle & Julian NidaRümelin. Band 7. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter). Carnap, Rudolf. 1956. “The methodological character of theoretical concepts”. The foundations of science and the concepts of psychology and psychoanalysis ed. by Herbert Feigl & M. Scriven, 38⫺

216. The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics

2023

76. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota. (= Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science.)

Vol. 1: Method and theory. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

⫺. 1968 [1954]. Einführung in die symbolische Logik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer Anwendungen. 3rd ed. Wien: Springer.

Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1953. “Systems of syntactic analysis”. Journal of Symbolic Logic 18.242⫺256. ⫺. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York & London: Plenum Press. Cooper, William. 1978. Foundations of logico-linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel. Danecki, Ryszard. 1980. “Semantical characterization of Sweets’s pragmatic synonymy”. Functiones et Approximatio. Commentarii Mathematici, vol. VIII.105⫺109. Dobrzyn´ska, Teresa, ed. 1990. Tekst w konteks´cie. Zbio´r studio´w. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolin´skich & Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Dressler, Wolfgang. 1989. “Jan Baudouin de Courtenay und eine deduktive Theorie der Morphonologie”. Jan Niecisław Baudouin de Courtenay a lingwistyka s´wiatowa (Jan Niecisław Baudouin de Courtenay and the world linguistics) ed. by Janusz Rieger, Mieczyslaw Szymczak & Stanisław Urban´czyk, 307⫺312. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Euklides. 1883⫺1886. Euclidis elementa. Vol. I⫺ IV, ed. by I. L. Heiberg. Lipsiae: Teubner. Falkenberg, Thomas. 1995. “Axiomatic functionalism and the use of the axiomatic method in linguistics”. Lingua Posnaniensis 37.7⫺27. ⫺. 1996. Grammatiken als empirische axiomatische Theorien. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Feigl, Herbert & M. Scriven, eds. 1956. The foundations of science and the concepts of psychology and psychoanalysis (= Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science I). Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota. Finke, Peter. 1979. Grundlagen einer linguistischen Theorie. Braunschweig & Wiesbaden: Vieweg & Sohn. Godel, Robert. 1957. Les sources manuscrites du Cours de linguistique ge´ne´rale de F. de Saussure. Gene`ve: Droz; Paris: Minard. Graumann, Carl F. & Theo Herrmann. 1984. Karl Bühlers Axiomatik. Frankfurt/M.: Klostermann. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1959. “An axiomatization of the phonologic aspect of language”. Symposium on Sociological Theory ed. by L. Gross, 437⫺480. Greenberg, J. R., C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik, ed. 1978. Universals of human language. 4 vols.

Hempel, Carl G. 1952. Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. Chicago. (repr. 1964 (= International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vol. II, nr. 7.) Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press). ⫺. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York & London: Free Press, Collier-MacMillan. Hervey, Sa´ndor G. J. 1975. “Grammar and semantics in ‘axiomatic functionalist’ linguistics”. Lingua 36.47⫺67. ⫺. 1979. Axiomatic semantics: A theory of linguistic semantics. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Hilbert, David. 1918. “Axiomatisches Denken”. Mathematische Annalen 78.405⫺415. Hiz˙, Henry. 1968. “Computable and uncomputable elements of syntax”. Logic, methodology and philosophy of science III. Proceedings of the third international congress for logic, methodology and philosophy of science. Amsterdam 1967 ed. by B. van Rootselar & J. F. Staal, 239⫺254. Amsterdam: North Holland. ⫺. 1969. “Aletheic semantic theory”. The Philosophical Forum I (New Series), 438⫺451. Holl, Alfred. 1988. Romanische Verbalmorphologie und relationentheoretische mathematische Linguistik. Axiomatisierung und algorithmische Anwendung des klassischen Wort-und-Paradigma-Models. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Holzer, Georg. 1996. Das Erschließen unbelegter Sprachen. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Ingarden, Roman. 1931. Das literarische Kunstwerk. Halle & Saale: Niemeyer. Itkonen, Esa. 1976. “The use and misuse of the principle of axiomatics in linguistics”. Lingua 38.185⫺220. ⫺. 1978. Grammatical theory and metascience. A critical investigation into the methodological and philosophical foundations of ‘autonomous’ linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ⫺. 1983. Causality in linguistic theory. A critical investigation into the philosophical and methodological foundations of ‘non-autonoms’ linguistics. London, Canberra & Bloomington: Croom Helm & Indiana Univ. Press. Jakobson, Roman. 1967. “Znaczenie Kruszewskiego w rozwoju je˛zykoznawstwa ogo´lnego (The importance of Kruszewski in the development of general linguistics)”. Mikołaj Kruszewski. Wybo´r

2024

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

Pism (Selected Writings) ed. by Jerzy Kuryłowicz & Krystyna Pomorska, x⫺xxv. Wrocław: Ossolineum.

⫺. 1976a. “Grammars as theories: the case for axiomatic grammar”. Part II: Theoretical Linguistics 3.1⫺98.

Kamp, Rudolf. 1977. Axiomatische Sprachtheorie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

⫺. 1976b. “Rekonstruktive Wissenschaftstheorie und empirische Wissenschaft. Kommentare zu Kanngießer, Ballmer und Itkonen”. Probleme und Fortschritte der Transformationsgrammatik ed. by Dieter Wunderlich, 183⫺199. München: Hueber.

Kanger, Stig. 1964. “The notion of phoneme”. Statistical Methods in Linguistics 3.43⫺48. Kiefer, Ferenc & Nicholas Ruwet. 1973. Generative grammar in Europe. Dordrecht: Reidel. Koerner, E. F. Konrad, ed. 1995. Mikolaj Kruszewski. Writings in general linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Koj, Leon. 1971. Semantyka a pragmatyka. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnitwo Naukowe. ⫺. 1998. Zdarzeniowa koncepcja znaku. Warszawa: Polskie Towarystwo Semiotyczne. Kortlandt, F. H. H. 1972. Modelling the phoneme. The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Koschmieder, Erwin. 1965. “Die Mathematisierung der Sprachwissenschaft”. Beiträge zur allgemeinen Syntax ed. by E. Koschmieder, 124⫺139, Winter. (Originally published in Forschungen und Fortschritte 30 (1956) 210⫺216). Kruszewski, Mikolaj. 1884. Ocˇerk nauki o jazyke (Outline of linguistic science). (= Ucˇenye Zapiski Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo Universiteta 50: 1, supplement.) ⫺. 1995. “Outline of linguistic science”. Mikolaj Kruszewski. Writings in general linguistics ed. by Konrad Koerner, 43⫺173. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kutschera, Franz von. 1975. Sprachphilosophie. 2nd ed. München: Fink. Lambek, Joachim. 1958. “The mathematics of sentence structure”. American Mathematical Monthly 65.154⫺170. Lieb, Hans-Heinrich. 1967. “A note on transformational grammars”. Word 23.369⫺373. ⫺. 1968a. Communication complexes and their stages. A contribution to a theory of language stage. The Hague: Mouton. ⫺. 1968b. “Zur Kritik von N. Chomskys Theorie der Ebenen”. Lingua 19.341⫺385. ⫺. 1970. Sprachstadium und Sprachsystem. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ⫺. 1974. “Grammars as theories: The case for axiomatic grammar”. Part I: Theoretical Linguistics 1.39⫺115. ⫺. 1975. “Universals of language: Quandaries and prospects”. Foundations of Language 12.471⫺511.

⫺. 1977. Outline of integrational linguistics: Preliminary version. (= Linguistische Arbeiten und Berichte Berlin (West) 9.) Berlin (West): Freie Universität Berlin, Fachbereich Germanistik. ⫺. 1978. “Universals and linguistic explanation”. Joseph H. Greenberg et al. 1978. 155⫺202. ⫺. 1979. “Some basic concepts of Trubetzkoy’s phonology”. Forum Linguisticum 4: 1.1⫺25. ⫺. 1980a. “On the history of the axiomatic method in linguistics”. Progress in linguistic historiography ed. by Konrad E. F. Koerner, 297⫺307. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ⫺. 1980b. “Integrational linguistics as a basis for contrastive studies”. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 12. 5⫺36. ⫺. 1983. Integrational linguistics. Vol. I: General Outline. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. ⫺. 1989. “Integrational grammars: An integrative view on grammar writing”. Reference grammars and modern linguistic theory ed. by Gottfried Graustein & Gerhard Leitner, 205⫺228. Tübingen: Niemeyer. ⫺. 1992. “Integrational linguistics: Outline of a theory of language”. Prospects for a new structuralism ed. by Hans-Heinrich Lieb, 127⫺182. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ⫺. 1993a. Linguistic variables: Towards a unified theory of linguistic variation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. ⫺. 1993b. “Ansätze syntaktischer Theoriebildung VI: Syntax in der integrativen Sprachwissenschaft [Approaches to a theory of syntax VI: Syntax in integrational linguistics]” Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (An international handbook of contemporary research) ed. by Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann, 430⫺468. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Marcus, Solomon. 1965a. “Sur un ouvrage de Stig Kanger concernant le phone`me”. Statistical Methods in Linguistics 4.27⫺36. ⫺. 1965b. “Sur une description axiomatique des liens syntaxiques”. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 11:1.181⫺ 192.

216. The axiomatic method in 20th-century European linguistics ⫺. 1966. “Le modelage mathe´matique en phonologie”. Cahiers de linguistique the´orique et applique´e 3.109⫺116. ⫺. 1972. “Mathematical linguistics in Europe” Current trends in linguistics ed. by Thomas Sebeok, vol. 9, 646⫺687. The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Martin, R. H. 1959. Toward systematic pragmatics. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. Milewski, Tadeusz. 1947. Zarys je˛zykoznawstwa ogo´lnego. Cze˛s´c´ I. Lublin & Krako´w: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Ludoznawczego. Mulder, Jan W. F. 1968. Sets and relations in phonology: An axiomatic approach to the description of speech. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ⫺. 1989. Foundations of axiomatic linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nebesky´, Ladislav & Petr Sgall. 1964. “The relations of ‘form’ and ‘function’ in language”. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 1.29⫺ 37. Pieper, Ursula & Gerhard Stickel, eds. 1985. Studia Linguistica Diachronica et Synchronica. Werner Winter Sexagenario Anno MCMLXXXIII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pogonowski, Jerzy. 1979. “Formal methods in linguistics”. Buffalo Papers in Linguistics 1:3.31⫺83. ⫺. 1981a. Tolerance spaces with applications to linguistics. Poznan´: Adam Mickiewicz University. ⫺. 1981b. An axiom system for hypotaxis. (Working papers). Poznan´: Institute of Linguistics, Adam Mickiewicz University.

2025

⫺. 1993a. Linguistic oppositions. Poznan´: Adam Mickiewicz University. ⫺. 1993b. Combinatory semantics. Poznan´: Adam Mickiewicz University. ⫺. 1995a. “Trzy drobiazgi fonologiczne (Three phonological trifles)”. Investigationes Linguisticae 1.7⫺54. ⫺. 1995b. “Systemy fonologiczne Tadeusza Batoga”. Eufonia i Logos ed. by Jerzy Pogonowski, 257⫺279. Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe. ⫺. 1996. “Przyczynek do logicznej rekonstruckji typologii strukturalnej”. Przyczynki do metodologii lingwistyki ed. by Jerzy Pogonowski & Tadeusz Zgo´łka, 93⫺108. Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Qvarnström, Bengt-Olof. 1979. Formalizations of ˚ bo: A ˚ bo Akademi. Trubetzkoy’s phonology. A Searle, John R. & Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Smaby, Richard M. 1971. Paraphrase grammars. Dordrecht: Reidel. Sneed, Joseph D. 1979 [1971]. The logical structure of mathematical physics. Dordrecht: Reidel. Sweet, Albert. 1972. “The pragmatics of first order languages I”. Notre-Dame Journal of Formal Logic 13:2.145⫺160. ⫺. 1975. “The pragmatics of first order languages II”. Notre-Dame Journal of Formal Logic 16:1.119⫺131.

⫺. 1982a. “Set theoretical approach to general systems theory” Cybernetics and systems research ed. by R. Trappl, 15⫺18. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.

Tarski, Alfred. 1937. “An alternative system for P and T”. The axiomatic method in biology ed. by J. H. Woodger, Appendix, 161⫺172. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

⫺. 1982b. Review of Ban´czerowski (1980). Lingua Posnaniensis 25.121⫺131.

⫺. 1984. “Prawda I dowo´d”. Studia Filozoficzne 2(219).9⫺30.

⫺. 1985. “A contribution to the theory of linguistic oppositions”. Lingua Posnaniensis 28.117⫺135.

⫺. 1994. Introduction to logic and to the methodology of the deductive sciences. 4th ed. New York & Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

⫺. 1988a. Matematyczny model analizy lingwistycznej (Mathematical model of linguistic analysis). (= Working Papers 29). Poznan´: Institute of Linguistics, Adam Mickiewicz University.

Thümmel, Wolf. 1965. “Die Gewinnung von Kriterien zur Systematisierung des Zeicheninventars in der Sprache”. Beiträge zur Sprachkunde und Informationsverarbeitung 7.29⫺49.

⫺. 1988b. A formal theory of linguistic oppositions. (= Working Papers 31). Poznan´: Institute of Linguistics, Adam Mickiewicz University.

Tokarz, Marek. 1993. Elementy pragmatyki logicznej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

⫺. 1991a. Hierarchiczne analizy je˛zyka (Hierarchical analyses of language). Poznan´: Adam Mickiewicz University.

Trubetzkoy, (Prince) Nicolai S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7.)

⫺. 1991b. Hiponimia (Hyponymy). Poznan´: Adam Mickiewicz University.

⫺. 1967. Fourth edition of Trubetzkoy 1939. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.

2026

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

⫺. 1969. Principles of phonology. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. (English translation of Trubetzkoy 1939.) Trze˛sicki, Kazimierz. 1977. “Aksjomatyczne uje˛cie teorii tekstu w zwi'zku z problematyk' informacji naukowej”. Zagadnienia informacji naukowej 1: 30.21⫺40. ⫺. 1981. “Axiomatic text theories”. Studies in logic, grammar and rhetoric. Vol. II. 70⫺83. ⫺. 1983. “Problem spo´jnos´ci tekstu w zwi'zku z aksjomatyczn' teori' tekstu”. Tekst i zdanie. Zbio´r studio´w ed. by Teresa Dobrzyn´ska & Elz˙bieta Janus, 201⫺221. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolin´skich & Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. ⫺. 1986. “Streszczanie jako operacja nad tematyczno-rematyczn' struktur' tekstu”. Teoria tekstu. Zbio´r studio´w ed. by Teresa Dobrzyn´ska, 41⫺ 53. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolin´skich & Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.

Wang, Jün-Tin. 1971a. “Zu den Begriffen der grammatischen Regel und der strukturellen Beschreibung”. Probleme und Fortschritte der Transformationsgrammatik ed. by Dieter Wunderlich, 57⫺71. München: Hueber. ⫺. 1971b. “Zur Beziehung zwischen generativen und axiomatischen Methoden in linguistischen Untersuchungen”. Beiträge zur generativen Grammatik ed. by Arnim von Stechow, 273⫺282. Braunschweig: Vieweg. ⫺. 1972. “Wissenschaftliche Erklärung und generative Grammatik”. Linguistik 1971. Referate des 6. linguistischen Kolloquiums 11⫺14 August 1971 in Kopenhagen ed. by K. Hylgaard-Jensen, 50⫺66. Frankfurt/M.: Athenäum. ⫺. 1973. “On the representation of generative grammars as first-order theories”. Logic, language and probability ed. by J. Radu & I. Niiniluoto, 302⫺316. Dordrecht: Reidel. Wedberg, Anders. 1964. “On the principles of phonemic analysis”. Ajatus. Suomen Filosofisen Yhdistyksen Vuosikirja 26.235⫺253.

⫺. 1990. “Tekst-fragment tekstu (Analiza formalna)”. Teoria tekstu. Zbio´r studio´w ed. by Teresa Dobrzyn´ska, 135⫺144. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolin´skich & Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.

Wojtasiewicz, Olgierd. 1962. “Towards a general theory of sign systems. I”. Studia Logica 13.81⫺ 101. (Repr. in Lingua osnaniensis 40. 1⫺23 [1998].)

Uspenskij, V. A. 1964. “Odna model’ dlja ponjatija fonemy”. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 13:6.39⫺53.

Wolniewicz, Bogusław. 1985. Ontologia sytuacji. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Vennemann, Theo. 1978. “Universal syllabic phonology”. Theoretical Linguistics 5:2,3.175⫺215.

Wunderlich, Dieter. 1969. “Karl Bühlers Grundprinzipien der Sprachtheorie”. Muttersprache 79.52⫺62.

⫺. 1982. “Remarks on grammatical relations”. Linguistics in the morning calm, 233⫺267. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.

Zgo´łka, Tadeusz. 1976. O strukturalnym wyjas´nianiu fakto´w je˛zykowych. Warszawa & Poznan´: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Wall, Robert. 1972. Introduction to mathematical linguistics. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

Jerzy Ban´czerowski, Poznan´ (Poland)

217. Early formalization tendencies in 20th-century American linguistics 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Introduction Formalization Formalization Formalization Formalization Bibliography

1.

Introduction

Stage Stage Stage Stage

1 2 3 4

Formalization, provided it is done properly and with good judgment, is the crowning achievement of science. Unfortunately, many

linguists have a tendency to jump to formalizations prematurely, mistakenly thinking that only fully formalized theories can make a contribution to science. This unwise attitude explains a great deal of the theoretical myopia witnessed during the last century. Formalization is the last step in a long process of finding one’s feet and getting one’s bearings, of cautious exploration and ground testing, of becoming familiar with the object of enquiry and discovering possible generalizations and causal connections. Those who

217. Early formalization tendencies in 20th-century American linguistics

insist on full formalization straight away show that they have little idea of what real science amounts to. On the other hand, those who reject any attempt at formalization are equally unwise. Marshaling one’s findings into a formal theory with predictive power is the ultimate goal of all serious research, whether in the physical or in the social sciences. As regards the latter, the mathematical turn of the last century has led to such improvements in the clarity and systematicity of thinking in the traditional human sciences that it can no longer be rejected with impunity. A sensible middle course should, therefore, be followed. On the one hand, the available facts should be scrutinized as completely and as impartially as is feasible given the circumstances. On the other hand, the results should, at the right moment, be cast into an appropriately formalized framework or theory.

2.

Formalization Stage 1

When speaking of formalization in science, one may distinguish several stages. We will distinguish four. Stage 1 consists in the typing or categorizing of the observed data and their representation in terms of a particular notational system or format. This format singles out certain parameters, other properties of the data being considered irrelevant for the purpose at hand. It reduces the observed unique token occurrences to types which can be multiply instantiated. The earliest form of formalization in linguistics consisted in the invention of writing systems. A writing system or orthography abstracts from all kinds of properties of token speech utterances and singles out those parameters that are essential for the prime function of language, the public undertaking of a commitment by the speaker with regard to a possible state of affairs. Seen from this angle, the invention of writing, which occurred some five thousand years ago, is a major intellectual achievement.

3.

Formalization Stage 2

Stage 2 in the process of formalization consists in the setting up of a systematic charting or taxonomy of available data according to some criterion. Some taxonomy is necessary for any form of typing or categorizing as described above. Hence the Stages 1 and 2 often go hand-in-hand for some level of analysis.

2027

To develop an orthography, for example, one must first set up a taxonomy of significantly differing classes of speech sounds (phonemes). However, in certain phases in the development of a science, the taxonomy of data, in the sense of setting up complete inventories of large data complexes, becomes a major or even prime concern. It is then that we speak of Stage 2 formalization. In linguistics, the setting up of a systematic taxonomy of the world’s languages began in the late 18th century, as a direct consequence of the colonial expansion of the European nations. In the 19th and 20th centuries, this kind of taxonomy played an important role in the collection and description of native American languages, an activity that is still continuing. Language taxonomy is a major feature of modern typological linguistics, which is defined by the effort of singling out those features that characterize a language as belonging to a specific group or type. Largescale, computer-based projects are now under way in various parts of the world to classify and categorize the languages of the world.

4.

Formalization Stage 3

Stage 3 consists in the assigning of structure to the data observed and recorded. The beginning of Stage 3 formalization in linguistics lies in Greece during the late 5th century BC, when philosophers, soon followed by language teachers, distinguished subject and predicate as the primary constituents of sentences. These structural analyses were refined through the subsequent centuries, until, in the early 20th century, the assignment of structure became the prime concern of American structuralist linguistics. The prime mover, in this respect, was Leonard Bloomfield (1887⫺1949), who drew his inspiration mainly from the German philosopher-psychologist Wilhelm Wundt (cf. Percival 1976). In various publications (Wundt 1880: 53⫺71; 1922[1900]: 320⫺355; 1901: 71⫺ 82), Wundt proposed that both psychological and linguistic structures should be analyzed according to the principle of hierarchical constituency, corresponding to the modern notion of tree structure or immediate constituent analysis (IC-analysis). The earliest source is Wundt (1880: 53⫺54; translation mine): The simplest form of a thought, i. e. a self-contained apperceptive representational process, occurs when a total representation (‘Gesamtvorstel-

2028

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

lung’) falls into two parts that are connected with each other. This happens in the simple judgement. If we use the sign  for apperceptive connections  of successive representations, then A B is the psychological symbol of the simple judgement. As soon as the total representation, the splitting up of which results in a thought process, is separated into three or more single representations, the judgement is no longer simple but composite. In a composite judgement the connection of the single parts is never uniform, in the sense that the form  A B would extend over a larger number of mem bers, as in A B C […]. On the contrary, these apperceptive connections always proceed in such a way that first, as with the simple thought, the total representation is separated into two single representations, upon which either or both of these can be subdivided into two further single representations, and so on. Herein lies the essential difference between apperceptive and associative connections. If we use the sign for the associative connection of successive representations, we see that an associative sequence A B C D […] can contain any number of members. In contrast to this, the apperceptive thought process always proceeds in forms like the following:

etc.

A B C

A B C D

A B C D E

Fig. 217

This principle of duality or of binary connection has found its unmistakable expression in the categories of grammatical syntax. For all these categories always reduce to just two representations which are connected with each other. Thus we distinguish first the two main representations Subject and Predicate, which correspond with the first division of the thought. The Subject may be divided again into Noun and Attribute. The Predicate, when it is nominal, splits into the Copula and the Predicate proper, upon which the latter, like the Subject, may split into Noun and Attribute again. But if the Predicate is verbal it may split into Verb and Object, or into the Predicate proper and the supplementary Predicate.

(One sees that Wundt professes a preference for strictly binary branchings. To him, multiply branching structures were a sign of a primitive mind.) In Wundt (1900: 320⫺355) the constituents of the tree structures are labeled, as shown in Fig. 217.1 (Wundt 1900: 329). (‘G’ stands for ‘Gesamtvorstellung’, expressed as a full sentence.)

Type I

Type II

Type III

G

G

G

A

B a

A

B

b

c

A d

B c

a a'

b'

c'

d'

Fig. 217.1: Wundt’s labeled treesy

In his first introductory textbook on linguistics, Bloomfield followed Wundt closely. The only clear difference between him and Wundt lay in Bloomfield’s disinclination to actually draw tree diagrams, no doubt due to a deeply ingrained reluctance to adopt formalizing procedures in the human sciences. In fact, neither in his (1914) nor in his later book (1933), or in any of his other writings, did Bloomfield draw a single tree structure, even though the notion of hierarchically ordered constituent trees permeates most of his work. We read (Bloomfield 1914: 110): When the analysis of experience arrives at independently recurring and therefore separately imaginable elements, words, the interrelations of these in the sentence appear in varied and interesting linguistic phenomena. Psychologically the basis of these interrelations is the passing of the unitary apperception from one to the other of the elements of an experience. The leading binary division so made is into two parts, subject and predicate, each of which may be further analyzed into successive binary groups of attribute and subject, the attribute being felt as a property of its subject.

In the early 1920s Bloomfield turned away from Wundtian psychology and embraced the then brand new ideology of behaviorism. Yet the Wundtian notion of constituent structure remained and even became more and more central to Bloomfield’s thinking about language. It is the central notion in the theory of grammar presented in the chapters 10 to 16 of his (1933). The linguist-anthropologist Sapir (1884⫺ 1939) followed Bloomfield (1914) in his book Language of 1921, again showing a remarkable reluctance to resort to the actual drawing of diagrams (Sapir 1921: 31⫺32): One example will do for thousands, one complex type for hundreds of possible types. I select it from Paiute, the language of the Indians of the arid plateaus of southwestern Utah. The word wii-tokuchum-punku-rügani-yugwi-va-ntü-m(ü) is of unusual length even for its own language, but it is no psychological monster for all that. It means “they

2029

217. Early formalization tendencies in 20th-century American linguistics

ø subject m(ü) anim.pl. ntü participle va future yugwi sit rügani cut up

wii knife to black kuchum buffalo

punku pet

Fig. 217.2: Immediate constituent analysis of the Paiute word wii-to-kuchum-punku-rügani-yugwi-va-ntü-m(ü)

who are going to sit and cut up with a knife a black cow (or bull)”, or, in the order of the Indian elements, “knife-black-buffalo-pet-cut up-sit(plur.)future-participle-animate-plur”. The formula for this word, in accordance with our symbolism, would be (F) ⫹ (E) ⫹ C ⫹ d ⫹ A ⫹ B ⫹ (g) ⫹ (h) ⫹ (i) ⫹ (0). It is the plural of the future participle of a compound verb “to sit and cut up” A ⫹ B. The elements (g) ⫺ which denotes futuricity ⫺ (h) ⫺ a participial suffix ⫺ and (i) ⫺ indicating the animate plural ⫺ are grammatical elements which convey nothing when detached. The formula (0) is intended to imply that the finished word conveys, in addition to what is definitely expressed, a further relational idea, that of subjectivity; in other words, the form can only be used as the subject of a sentence, not in an objective or other syntactic relation. The radical element A (“to cut up”), before entering into combination with the coordinate element B (“to sit”), is itself compounded with two nominal elements or element-groups ⫺ an instrumentally used stem (F) (“knife”), which may be freely used as the radical element of noun forms but cannot be employed as an absolute noun in its given form, and an objectively used group ⫺ (E) ⫹ C ⫹ d (“black cow or bull”). This group in turn consists of an adjectival radical element (E) (“black”), which cannot be independently employed […] and the compound noun C ⫹ d (“buffalo-pet”). The radical element C properly means “buffalo”, but the element d, properly an independently occurring noun meaning “horse” […], is regularly used as a quasi subordinate element indicating that the animal denoted by the stem to which it is affixed is owned by a human being. It will be observed that the whole complex (F) ⫹ (E) ⫹ C ⫹ d ⫹ A ⫹ B is functionally no more than a verbal base, corresponding to the sing- of an English form like singing; that this complex remains verbal in

force on the addition of the temporal element (g) ⫺ this (g), by the way, must not be understood as appended to B alone, but to the whole basic complex as a unit ⫺ and that the elements (h) ⫹ (i) ⫹ (0) transform the verbal expression into a formally well-defined noun.

Had Sapir simply drawn a tree diagram, the result would have been the much more informative, mainly left-branching constituent tree structure of Fig. 217.2 (above). Tree structures (provided they do not have discontinuous constituents) can be represented also as one-dimensional strings of symbols with a so-called ‘bracketing’ structure. Labeling of the bracket pairs then corresponds to the labeling of the constituent nodes. A form of unlabeled bracketing was used in Wells (1947), where the structure of the English sentence (1a) is represented as (1b) (1a) The king of England opened Parliament. (1b) The 储 king 兩储 of 储储 England 兩 open 兩储 ed 储 Parliament The first actually drawn tree diagram in the American linguistic literature, still with unlabeled constituent nodes, is in Nida (1949: 87), reproduced here as Fig. 217.4. Chomsky (1957) contains just one tree diagram (p. 27). It was not until the late 1950s that the convention was established of drawing tree diagrams in the format that is now generally accepted, i. e., with labeled nodes and from the root down.

2030

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

the king

Parliament of

open

England

ed

Fig. 217.3: The king of England opened Parliament (according to Wells 1947)

Peasants throughout China

work very hard

The technique of tree structure assignment developed by Bloomfield and applied by his followers and students inevitably gave rise to the vital question of what motivates the selection of any particular tree structure assignment. On what grounds should one structure assignment be considered better than another? To give a concrete example, till the present day linguists are divided over the issue of which of the two structure assignments for the same sentence I reckon the man to be a swindler should be considered to be the correct one, (2a) or (2b). S

(2a) NP I

Fig. 217.4: IC-diagram in Nida (1949: 87)

VP VP

V NP reckon the man

That tree structure analysis has been so successful in linguistics may be explained not only by its intuitive appeal but also by the fact that tree diagrams provide an ideal framework for computation procedures of all kinds. An illustration for the arithmetical computation of (5 ⫻ 6) ⫹ 8 and 5 ⫻ (6 ⫹ 8), respectively, is given in Fig. 217.5 (see Seuren 1998: 225). One branch is interpreted as a function, the remaining branch or branches are interpreted as input to the function. The dominating node is interpreted as the resulting value. (5 3 6) + 8 = 38 = 30 + 5

3

6

8

NP Part V to be a swindler

NP I

+

S

NP the man

VP

NP Part V to be a swindler

3 = 14 6

VP

V reckon

5 3 (6 + 8) = 70 5

S

(2b)

8

Fig. 217.5: Constituency trees for simple arithmetic

The Frenchman Lucien Tesnie`re (1893⫺ 1954) introduced a different type of tree structure, the so-called dependency trees, which place the function in the position of the dominating node and presents the input as its branches. These trees, however, though much used in mathematics and also in some European schools of linguistics, have had no career in American structuralism. (For further elaboration, see Seuren 1998: 225⫺227.)

Bloomfield himself never answered this question. Some among his followers, notably Kenneth L. Pike and his circle of missionarylinguists, proposed that an appeal to introspection would suffice: one somehow ‘feels’ what the right structure assignment is. These so-called ‘God’s truth’ linguists, however, did not carry the day. Their opponents, headed by Zellig Harris, came with a totally different answer, which involved a stepping up of the level of formalization, for which reason they were nicknamed ‘hocus pocus’ linguists by Fred Householder reviewing Harris (1951).

5.

Formalization Stage 4

It was Zellig Sabbettai Harris (1909⫺1992) who provided the first principled answer to the question of what motivates tree structure

217. Early formalization tendencies in 20th-century American linguistics

assignments. His answer involved a stepping up of the level of formalization of linguistic theory. In his magnum opus of 1951 he demonstrates a progress of formalization from the stages (1), (2) and (3) to the final Stage 4, which consists in the setting up of a formal predictive and explanatory theory that has the precision of an algorithmic procedure. The book, which reflects work done during the mid-1940s, starts with an expose´ on how to categorize and record token speech sounds (Stage 1). From there it proceeds to present a method for grouping them into wider, more abstract descriptive categories called phonemes. In Harris’s perspective, this step is made possible by a careful charting of the positions in which the token sounds occur, their distribution (Stage 2). Whenever two different speech sound types never fill the same position but are each reserved for one or more specific positions, they are said to be in complementary distribution, which, in Harris’s view, justifies their subsumption under one single, higher-level descriptive unit or category. This is a feedback operation involving the Stages 1 and 2. When it is found that members of two or more categories typically co-occur in a fixed order in the corpus of utterances, they may be tentatively classified as forming a composite unit. Thus, typical co-occurrences of phonemes yield units called ‘morphemes’. Morphemes are again subsumed under morpheme classes, according to their occurrence patterns, and typical co-occurrences of morpheme classes are again taken to yield higher order units, or constructions. The repeated application of this method of analysis is thus supposed to lead straight up to structure assignments for all the utterances of a given corpus (Stage 3). If done in the most efficient possible way, it is taken to provide the most economical assignment of structure to speech utterances. Harris’s method thus provides a discovery procedure for grammars that assign structure to sentences. This discovery procedure is an elaborate form of Stage 3 formalization. Since structures thus assigned are of the constituent tree structure type, Harris’s method provides, at the same time, a principled answer to the question of what motivates tree structure assignments: those tree structure assignments are optimal which result from the most economical possible application of Harris’s method of analysis. By giving this answer, Harris deflected the attention

2031

from individual cases to the overall system of structure assignments. At the time, this perspective was experienced as startlingly new and daring. Similar attempts at a discovery procedure for well-motivated structure assignments, often reflecting the same general ideas that underlay Harris’s work, were made by others during the period in question, in particular by Wells (1947), Bloch (1948), Hockett (1947, 1952). It was, however, the approach set out in Harris (1951) that has proved to be the most influential, mainly, and paradoxically, because it was so obviously unrealistic and impractical: one could hardly imagine any linguist actually applying Harris’s convoluted and labour-intensive method to any given corpus of utterances. Harris himself was sensitive to the charge of impracticability. For that reason he proposed, towards the end of the book, that the results of the work of analysis as proposed by him should be brought together into what he called a deductive system of synthetic statements, thereby laying the foundation for what was soon to be known as ‘Generative Grammar’. He writes, still in a somewhat stilted terminology (Harris 1951: 372⫺373): The work of analysis leads right up to the statements which enable anyone to synthesize or predict utterances in the language. These statements form a deductive system with axiomatically defined initial elements and with theorems concerning the relations among them. The final theorems would indicate the structure of the utterances of the language in terms of the preceding parts of the system.

It did not take him long to realize that one might then just as well start at the ‘synthetic’ or generative end by formulating hypotheses about the deductively organized ‘synthetic statements’ that would ‘predict utterances in the language’. These hypotheses could then be tested for factual correctness and for maximal generality and efficiency, which would make the ‘work of analysis’ unnecessary and thus save time as well as make the linguist’s work more practical and intellectually more exciting. This realization marked the beginning of the period of Generative Grammar, which meant a definite paradigm shift in the study of language. In fact, it marked a transition to stage 4 formalization. It was, however, not Harris but his student Noam Chomsky who ushered in the new paradigm with his little book (1957). In Syntactic Structures, Harris’s discovery procedure is

2032

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

skipped. Instead, the linguist is advised to start with the setting up of an overall hypothesis of structure assignments for the language in question in the form of a set of algorithmically (i. e., deductively) organized production rules, called Phrase Structure rules or PSrules which generate sentences while simultaneously assigning them a constituent tree structure or PS-structure. In Chomsky’s own words (1957: 56):

second component, known as Transformational Component or T-Rules, takes one or more products of the PS-Grammar and transforms these into a surface structure. The motivation for this distinction is a simple insight that goes back at least to the 16th-century Spanish linguist and philosopher of language Sanctius (see Seuren 1998: 41⫺46) and has had a constant though not always overt influence on grammatical thinking till the present day. It is the insight that there are systematic relations between sentence structures of different types, such as between active and passive sentences, between assertions and questions, between affirmative and negative sentences, and so on. The question was (and is) how to make best use of these correspondences so as to produce a grammar with the simplest overall structure and the widest possible generalizations. The first suggestion was to let the PSGrammar generate simple sentences, the socalled kernel sentences, to which transformational rules can be applied to generate the more complex variants. This ‘horizontal’ idea of transformations was soon abandoned, by both Harris and Chomsky, in favor of a ‘vertical’ notion, which implied that the PSGrammar would generate a so-called deep structure (DS) for every sentence. The DS would serve as the input to the transformational component, which would transform the DS into a corresponding surface structure (SS). Soon a further Phonological Component was added to account for the proper phonetic form of the sentence generated. The resulting concept of grammar became known as Transformational Generative Grammar or TGG.

In short we shall never consider the question of how one might have arrived at the grammar whose simplicity is being determined. […] Questions of this sort are not relevant to the program of research that we have outlined above. One may arrive at a grammar by intuition, guess-work, all sorts of partial methodological hints, reliance on past experience, etc. […] Our ultimate aim is to provide an objective, non-intuitive way to evaluate a grammar once presented, and to compare it with other proposed grammars. We are thus interested in describing the form of grammars (equivalently, the nature of linguistic structure) and investigating the empirical consequences of adopting a certain model for linguistic structure, rather than in showing how, in principle, one might have arrived at the grammar of the language.

Once the notion of an algorithmic (or deductive or generative) grammar had been accepted, it began to make sense to look at the overall organization of such grammars. Harris soon found ⫺ an insight immediately taken over by his student Chomsky ⫺ that it would make obvious sense to distinguish two components in the grammar of a language. The first component, now generally known as ‘Formation Rules’ or ‘PS-Grammar’, generates structures from scratch (symbolized as the starting symbol ‘S’). Subsequently, the

S

Formation Rules

Deep Structure

Transformation Rules

Phonological Rules

Surface Structure

Phonetic Form

Fig. 217.6: The overall structure of a TGG around 1960

217. Early formalization tendencies in 20th-century American linguistics

The PS-Grammar may be seen as a primitive algorithm, generating strings from scratch. The T-Rules form a derived algorithm, taking the structures generated by a preceding, primitive or derived, algorithm as input and producing an output transformed according to certain rules and principles (see Seuren 1998: 267⫺279, for ample comment). In the context of contemporary philosophy of science, it became customary, just after 1960, to see a TGG as an explicit formal theory of the intuitive notion of speaker’s linguistic competence. It was felt that ‘competence in a language’ amounts to the ability to produce and analyze (‘parse’) syntactically well-formed sentences. However, no sooner was this notion mooted than it was realized that, of course, linguistic competence involves a great deal more than just the ability to produce and analyze well-formed sentences. To be competent in a language involves the ability to understand or interpret sentences as well. This led to the proposal (Katz & Fodor 1963) to add a Semantic Component to the grammar, that would, somehow, ‘interpret’ the syntactic structures, both DS and SS, producing a ‘semantic representation’, even though it was unclear how exactly that should be done or what a ‘semantic representation’ should look like. In Katz & Postal (1964) arguments were presented to show that this proposal should be modified in the sense that the Semantic Component should take the DS of any sentence as the sole input, so that the whole semantic interpretation process would come to depend on the DS. It was argued that the SS should be seen as the mere surface representative of the meaning fixed at DS level. Subsequently, during the mid-1960s, many linguists in America and some in Europe, realized that this view in fact made the entire Semantic Component redundant, since there was no good argument to distinguish any longer between the DS and the, hitherto unclear, notion of semantic representation. This ushered in the period of Generative Semantics, about which more in the article on ‘Sentence-oriented semantic approaches in generative grammar’. This concludes the discussioin of early formalization tendencies in American linguistics. From the 1970s onwards, other schools of linguistic thought, in particular Montague Grammar, Categorial Grammar, and Headdriven Phrase Structure Grammar, have pro-

2033

duced elaborate formalized systems for the analysis and description of sentences, complete with their semantic properties. These, however, fall outside the scope of the present article.

6.

Bibliography

Bloch, Bernard. 1948. “A Set of Postulates for Phonemic Analysis”. Language 24: 1.3⫺46. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1914. An Introduction to the Study of Language. New York: Holt & Co. (Repr., with an Introduction by Joseph F. Kess, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1983.) Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt & Co. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. (= Janua Linguarum, 4.) The Hague: Mouton. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? and Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin, Amsterdam & New York: Mouton. Fillmore, Charles J. 1971. “Types of Lexical Information”. Steinberg & Jakobovits, eds. 1971. 370⫺ 392. Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hockett, Charles F. 1947. “Problems of Morphemic Analysis”. Language 23: 3.321⫺343. (Also in Joos, ed. 1957. 229⫺242.) Hockett, Charles F. 1952. “A Formal Statement of Morphemic Analysis”. Studies in Linguistics 10: 1.27⫺39. Joos, Martin, ed. 1957. Readings in Linguistics: The development of descriptive linguistics in America since 1925. Washington: American Council of Learned Societies. Katz, Jerrold J. & Jerry A. Fodor. 1963. “The Structure of a Semantic Theory”. Language 39: 2.170⫺210. Katz, Jerrold J. & Paul M. Postal. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Description. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1971. “Fact”. Steinberg & Jakobovits, eds. 1971. 345⫺369. Nida, Eugene A. 1949 [19461]. Morphology. The Descriptive Analysis of Words. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Percival, W. Keith. 1976. “On the Historical Source of Immediate Constituent Analysis. Notes from the Linguistic Underground ed. by James D. McCawley. (= Syntax and Semantics, 7), 229⫺242.

2034

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

New York, San Francisco & London: Academic Press.

linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quine, Willard V. O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Wells, Rulon S. 1947. “Immediate Constituents”. Language 23: 1.81⫺117. (Also in Joos, ed. 1957: 186⫺207.)

Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. “Cognitive Representations in Semantic Categories”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104.192⫺233. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1996. Semantic Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1998. Western Linguistics: An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wundt, Wilhelm. 1880. Logik: Eine Untersuchung der Prinzipien der Erkenntnis und der Methoden wissenschaftlicher Forschung. Stuttgart: Enke. Wundt, Wilhelm. 1901. Sprachgeschichte und Sprachpsychologie. Mit Rücksicht auf B. Delbrücks “Grundfragen der Sprachforschung”. Leipzig: Engelmann. Wundt, Wilhelm. 1922 [1900]. Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Vol. II: Die Sprache, Part 2. 4th ed. Leipzig: Kröner.

Steinberg, Danny D. & L. A. Jakobovits, eds. 1971. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy,

Pieter Seuren, Nijmegen (The Netherlands)

218. On the origins and early developments of Chomskyan linguistics: The rise and fall of the standard model 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction Language as a rule-governed system Emphasis on structure and on competence Typical components Constraints on transformations Conclusion Bibliography

1.

Introduction

quent modifications in its implementation details. This article briefly traces the development of the ‘standard model’ of generative grammar from its origins in the 1950s through its decline in the early 1970s.

2. At the heart of Chomskyan linguistics is a research program called generative grammar. Generative grammar originated in work done by Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) during a research fellowship at Harvard University in the early 1950s. By the end of the 20th century, generative grammar had followers all over the world, and Chomsky had become one of the most cited living researchers (v. Otero 1994: I.xxii). While transformational analysis actually originated at the University of Pennsylvania with Chomsky’s advisor, Zellig Harris, generative grammar has always been closely associated with Chomsky, his students and the university where Chomsky has taught, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). From its inception, generative grammar has remained a fast-moving, controversial research effort, characterized by a largely invariant core of metaphysical and methodological principles, but with fre-

Language as a rule-governed system

One central claim of Chomskyan linguistics is that natural language can be described as a regular, rule-governed system whose combinatory characteristics can be discovered and studied. This was a bold claim to make in the 1950s, when the syntax of natural languages, like many other aspects of human knowledge and behavior, was commonly believed to be too irregular to be susceptible to rigorous treatment. Yet the claim was not entirely novel, as one finds precedent in structural linguistics, which emphasized making theories as compact and explicit as possible. Louis Hjelmslev (1899⫺1965), for example, suggested that linguistics, as one of the sciences, must seek a “general and exhaustive calculus” of its subject matter (1961 [1943]: 9), both arbitrary and appropriate. A few years later, Zellig Harris (1909⫺1992) wrote that linguistic analysis should include a “deductive system with axiomatically defined initial

218. On the origins and early developments of Chomskyan linguistics

elements and with theorems concerning the relations among them” (1951 [1947]: 372⫺73), so that anyone could synthesize or predict the utterances of the language. Early Chomskyan linguists explored these ideas in two distinct ways. First, researchers attempted to build formal models, which they called grammars, of the syntax of a number of individual languages, such as English, Mohawk and Korean. The early generativists took language in the extensional sense, as simply a collection of sentences ⫺ a clear echo of Leonard Bloomfield’s (1887⫺ 1949) “totality of utterances which can be roduced in a speech-community” (1926: 155). In addition, they assumed that the sentences of any natural language could be enumerated, and accordingly sought algorithms capable of recognizing or producing just those sentences. Despite their top-down appearance, generative grammars are neither analytic nor synthetic; they do not “start” at either at the top (i.e., with sentences) or at the bottom (with words or morphemes), but are actually neutral in this respect. Second, generative grammarians sought general properties common to all human languages, which would not need to be stated in individual language descriptions. Taken in the aggregate, such general properties were called universal grammar and were thought of as a constraint on what is a possible human language. The origins of universal grammar, as well as its localization and ontological status, have remained a matter of debate. Most of Chomsky’s earliest published works contain no psychological element whatever (e.g. 1975 [1955], 1956, 1957). An exception is “Linguistics, Logic, Psychology and Computers”, where Chomsky (1958: 433) conjectures that “to account for the ability to learn language, we must ascribe a rather complex ‘built-in’ structure to the organism” and goes on to claim that any description of this structure will have to “account for the fact that humans appear to somehow internalize a transformational grammar in a very short time, and with great uniformity among speakers” (p. 453). Later, Chomsky (1964: 915) wrote that speakers and hearers actually “put to use” a generative grammar which has been “internalized by someone who has acquired a language”. Chomsky (1965: 27⫺33) added that natural language grammars are so greatly underdetermined by the stimulus available to children that human language would be unlearnable without uni-

2035

versal grammar. One may wonder why, if even young children have ready access to universal grammar, its properties have been so difficult to discover and to describe. For the early Chomskyans, rather than undermining the plausibility of universal grammar, this was taken as an indication that knowledge of language is indirect or unconscious. Experimental psychologists were unable to confirm the psycho-biological existence of any of the rules postulated by early Chomskyan linguistics, suggesting that the relationship between our bodies and the linguist’s grammar is more abstract than was thought in the 1950s and 1960s.

3.

Emphasis on structure and on competence

Chomsky’s early work emphasized, as a matter of logical priority, the study of language structure over meaning. The idea that every language has its own structure, and that this structure can be studied independently of its other aspects, can be traced back at least to Ferdinand de Saussure (1857⫺ 1913). Chomsky (1957: 17) took the idea further, claiming that “we are forced to conclude that grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning”. A radical separation between syntax and semantics requires that semantic features play no role in the functioning of the syntactic component, with the result that derivations in early Chomskyan grammars resemble logicians’ formal rewrite systems, treating grammatical structure like proof structure. Chomsky believed that it was necessary to construct grammars on purely formal grounds, without appeal to meaning, in order to have any hope of explaining meaning at a later stage. In the sense just described, transformational generative grammar was still very much structural linguistics, although, ironically, structural was fast becoming a catchall term for any work not done within Chomskyan generative grammar. Chomsky’s early work is also remembered for the strong emphasis it placed on language competence over performance, a dichotomy somewhat reminiscent of Saussure’s langue and parole. For Chomsky (1965: 4), a speakerhearer’s competence in a language is his or her “knowledge” of that language, including in particular knowledge of an “underlying system of rules” that is actually “put to use”

2036

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

during speech. Language performance, however, is the “actual use of language in concrete situations”, together with all the “false starts, deviations from rules, changes of plan in mid-course and so on” that are characteristic of spontaneous speech. Many structuralist linguists in North America vehemently rejected any dichotomy along these lines, but Chomsky dismissed their objections. Chomsky (e.g., 1964, 1965) also suggested that if one wished to draw historical parallels, a more useful comparison could be made between his own view of language competence and Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1767⫺1835) observation of “infinite use of finite means”.

4.

Typical components of an early generative grammar

In this section, we examine some typical components of a transformational generative grammar. Chomsky (1957) considered several possible ways of modeling natural language and arranged these approaches in a hierarchy, according to the formal properties of the sentences each admits. The models can be thought of as competing theories of linguistics. 4.1. Unsuitability of certain models The simplest theory of language imaginable is a list grammar, which is nothing more than a list of all the grammatical sentences of a language. Chomsky (1957: 18) immediately excluded list grammars from further consideration because lists are necessarily finite, yet there is no upper bound to the number of grammatical sentences in any human language. Taking a lead from work done in the fields of mathematics and communication, Chomsky (1957) also considered basing a theory of language on abstract, mathematical “machines” called a finite state automata. While acknowledging this approach to language as “extremely powerful and general”, Chomsky (1957: 20) ultimately rejected finite state automata from consideration because some natural languages (e. g., English) have combinatorial properties, such as serial dependencies, which lay beyond their scope, a result he proved in 1956. 4.2. Phrase structure rules Chomsky (1957) next considered a formal device called phrase structure grammar. Phrase structure grammars have intrinsically greater

descriptive power than finite state automata, and all of Chomsky’s early theories of language incorporate them as a component. Most of Chomsky’s early phrase structure rules are straightforward adaptations of work previously done in traditional grammar or in Bloomfieldian immediate constituent analysis. In the simplified phrase structure grammar shown below (1), the sentence (S) is “rewritten” as a noun phrase (NP) followed by a verb phrase (VP). Similarly, noun phrases are rewritten as determiners (Det) followed by nouns (N), and verb phrases are rewritten as verbs (V) followed by noun phrases. Applying rewrite, or phrase structure, rules generates a hierarchical structure that can be represented visually in a number of ways, e. g., as a branching tree diagram or as a series of nested bracketed expressions (2). As a last step, the symbols Det, N and V are replaced with lexical items, yielding a terminal string. The structure in (2), for instance, might be realized as the terminal string in (3). Note that there is no lexicon distinct from the phrase structure rules. (1a) (1b) (1c) (1d) (1e) (1f)

S J NP VP NP J Det N VP J V NP Det J {the, a, …} N J {cat, dog, …} V J {chased, saw, ate, …}

(2)

[S [NPDet N] [VP [V [NPDet N] ] ] ]

(3)

the cat chased a dog

4.3. Transformational rules Despite the greater descriptive power of phrase structure grammars, Chomsky (e. g. 1957: 44) argued that there were language phenomena which had no straightforward representation in terms of phrase structure alone. Notice that in (3) the verb chased and its direct object a dog are contiguous. Consider that in many languages the verb can be separated from its underlying, logical object by indefinitely many words and their habitual order can even be reversed. Despite the discontinuous dependency formed, speakers have no trouble identifying a dog as the verb’s object. In English, discontinuous dependencies can be found in relative clauses, passive sentences and interrogative sentences (e.g., What did the cat chase?). While Chomsky (e.g., 1975 [1955], 1957) was aware that the phrase structure compo-

218. On the origins and early developments of Chomskyan linguistics

nent could be enriched enough to generate such sentences directly, he argued that such structures could be generated more elegantly in a separate “transformational” component. Thus, for a sentence like What has Mary seen?, the phrase structure rules would generate a string similar to Mary has seen what, then transformational rules would apply, first to reverse the order of the auxiliary verb has and the subject Mary, and then to displace the interrogative word what to the beginning of the sentence. No one knows how what gets interpreted as the object of seen in either the original “kernel” sentence or the transformed sentence, and transformational analysis alone does not resolve this mystery. Transformational analysis simply affirms that whatever the rule which links verbs and their objects semantically, this same rule is at work in both sentences. This is a welcome result because it affords a homogenous treatment of the semantics of verbs and their objects, suggesting one way that a transformational generative grammar could explain some aspects of meaning. Transformational rules in the modern sense first appeared in grammatical theory in the 1940s, when Zellig Harris, in an effort to extract additional information from corpora, proposed using them as a way of describing relationships between pairs of observable sentences in a text or discourse. In Chomsky’s work, however, transformations relate a surface string (i. e. an observable sequence of words) to a hypothetical underlying string which is thought of as a prior stage in the derivation of the observed utterance. Transformational rules can be complex, incorporating more elementary operations, such as deletion, substitution, adjunction and permutation, and can operate within a single sentence or combine two or more sentences into one. Structural ambiguity results when nonequivalent derivations realize a single sequence of words. In the sentence Flying planes can be dangerous, for example, flying can be analyzed either as a verb with an understood subject and planes as its object, or as an attributive adjective modifying the noun planes (Chomsky 1975 [1955]: 216).

5.

Constraints on transformations

One of the first ways that grammatical transformations were constrained was by imposing on them the principle of the cycle. In the early days of generative grammar, trans-

2037

formational rules had to be carefully ordered relative to one another in order to avoid generating unacceptable strings. For example, it was necessary that the auxiliary transformation (called affix hopping) apply before subject-verb inversion, and that these both apply before any rules of ellipsis (deletion). A proposal by Fillmore (1963) alleviated the vexing “traffic rule” problems caused by rule ordering by requiring that transformations first apply to the most deeply embedded sentence, and then gradually work outward. Chomsky (1965), following Katz & Postal (1964), proposed that the output of the phrase structure component, known as deep structure, served not only as the input to the transformational component, but also as the sole input to the semantic component. From this basic idea grew a controversial theory of syntax, called generative semantics, which was characterized by a proliferation of new transformational rules. This prompted theorists to wonder what constituted an acceptable grammatical transformation, whether there were any limits on what a transformation could do, and how transformations could best be prevented from applying spuriously. John Ross (1967) identified a number of constructions, such as complex noun phrases and coordinate structures, that appear to immunize their constituents from syntactic extraction. Ross called these constructions islands, and proposed a set of constraints prohibiting the application of certain transformational rules to them. Ross’s complex noun phrase constraint, for instance, accounted for the fact that it is impossible to question the subject of the relative clause Jack in the sentence The house that Jack built is red (cf. the unacceptable * Who is the house that built red?). Despite the new constraints proposed by Ross and others, the inflation in the number and kinds of transformational rules caused by generative semantics ultimately proved untenable, and Chomskyan linguistics took a new turn. Chomsky (1970) advanced the lexicalist hypothesis, arguing that the semantic relationship between a derived nominal and its corresponding lexical entry was too idiosyncratic to be captured by transformational rules, proposing that morphologically derived nominals be considered atomic lexical items instead. In another effort to limit the complexity and scope of transformational rules, Jackendoff (1972) suggested that the

2038

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

semantics should not be “generated” from deep structure after all but rather should be statically “read off ”, or interpreted, directly from surface structure, an approach to meaning called interpretive semantics. In a further blow to the standard model’s transformational grammars, Peters & Ritchie (1973) presented a proof that transformational grammars had the weak generative capacity of Turing machines (unrestricted rewriting systems), implying that the languages generated by transformational grammars had no particular properties other than that they were finitely specifiable. Even though it makes no claim about transformational grammars’ strong (i.e., structure assigning) generative capacity, some syntacticians took the proof as a definitive indication that such grammars were inadequate as theories of natural language syntax.

6.

Conclusion

Constraining the expressive power of transformations, both by imposing restrictions on transformations, and by transferring the explanatory responsibility of various linguistic phenomena from transformations to other components of the grammar, became a central theme of succeeding versions of generative grammar (cf. Rebuschi’s “La grammaire generative du milieu des annees 70 au milieu des annees 90: du modele standard e´tendu au programme minimaliste”, J 223). While the elaborate transformational rules of early generative grammar have disappeared from mainstream Chomskyan linguistics, and the derivational approach to sentence grammar has had strong competition from purely representational, constraintbased formalisms, the research endeavor initiated by transformational generative grammar has unquestionably enriched our understanding of human language.

7.

Bibliographie

Anderson, Stephen. 1985. Phonology in the Twentieth Century: Theories of Rules and Theories of Representation. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Botha, Rudolf. 1981. The Conduct of Linguistic Inquiry: A Systematic Introduction to the Methodology of Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton. ⫺. 1989. Challenging Chomsky. Oxford: Blackwell. Chomsky, Noam. 1956. “Three models for the description of language”. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2: 3.113⫺124. ⫺. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. ⫺. 1958. “Linguistics, Logic, Psychology and Computers”. Computer Programming and Artificial Intelligence ed. by John Carr, 429⫺456. Ann Arbor: College of Engineering, Univ. of Michigan. ⫺. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, in Fodor & Katz (1964), pp. 50⫺118. ⫺. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ⫺. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Harper & Row. ⫺. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. ⫺. 1970. “Remarks on nominalization”. Readings in English Transformational Grammar ed. by R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum, 184⫺221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. ⫺. 1975 [1955]. Logical Structure in Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum. Fidelholtz, James L. 1999. “Reminiscences of an effervescent period: The early years of generative grammar from the perspective of a young neophyte”. Colegio de Mexico Conference, 1997 (cf. mitpress.mit.edu/chomskydisc/fidelholtz.html). Fillmore, Charles. 1963. “The position of embedding transformations in a grammar”. Word 19. 208⫺231. Fodor, Jerry & Jerrold Katz, eds. 1964. The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs (ICJ.): Prentice-Hall. George, Alexander, ed. 1989. Reflections on Chomsky. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Harris, Zellig. 1951 [1947]. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. ⫺. 1952. “Discourse analysis”. Language 28.18⫺ 23. Hockett, Charles. 1965. “Sound Change”. Language 41.185⫺204. ⫺. 1968. The State of the Art. The Hague: Mouton.

Auroux, Sylvain. 1988. La raison, le langage et les normes. Paris: PUF.

Huck, Geoffrey & John Goldsmith. 1995. Ideology and Linguistic Theory: Noam Chomsky and the Deep Structure Debates. London: Routledge.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1926. “A set of postulates for the science of language”. Language 2.153⫺164.

Hymes, Dell & John Fought. 1981 [1975]. American Structuralism. The Hague: Mouton.

219. Les de´veloppements de la grammaire cate´gorielle et de la grammaire applicative

2039

Itkonen, Esa. 1978. Grammatical Theory and Metascience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Newmeyer, Frederick. 1986. Linguistic Theory in America. Orlando: Academic Press.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Otero, Carlos P., ed. 1994. Noam Chomsky: Critical Assessments. 4 vols. London: Routledge.

Joos, Martin, ed. 1957. Readings in linguistics: The development of descriptive linguistics in America since 1925. Washington, D. C.: American Council for Learned Societies. Katz, Jerrold & Paul Postal. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lyons, John. 1991. Chomsky. London: Harper Collins. Matthews, P. H. 1993. Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, Stephen. 1994. Theory Groups and the Study of Language in North America: A social history. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Peters, Stanley & R. W. Ritchie. 1973. “On the generative power of transformational grammars”. Information Sciences 6.49⫺83. Putnam, Hillary. 1991. “Meaning and Mentalism: Three Reasons Why Mentalism Can’t Be Right” Representation and Reality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Robins, R. H. 1973. “Theory-orientation versus data-orientation”. Historiographia Linguistica 1: 11⫺26. Ross, John. 1985 [1967]. Infinite Syntax!. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (= Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph. D. diss., MIT). Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1998. Western Linguistics: A historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

David Bundy, Paris (France)

219. Les de´veloppements de la grammaire cate´gorielle et de la grammaire applicative

6.

Caracte´risation ge´ne´rale L’horizon philosophique Les premie`res grammaires cate´gorielles Les mode`les mixtes des anne´es 70 Les grammaires cate´gorielles contemporaines Bibliographie

1.

Caracte´risation ge´ne´rale

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Une grammaire cate´gorielle (GC) d’un langage L peut eˆtre repre´sente´e sous la forme d’un quintuplet GC = (V, C, s, Rd, Rc) ou` V est le vocabulaire de L, C l’ensemble des symboles de´notant les cate´gories syntaxiques de L, s le symbole initial, Rd les re`gles de de´rivation du syste`me et Rc l’ensemble des re`gles assignant des cate´gories a` chaque e´le´ment de V. Les cate´gories syntaxiques de C constituent des classes d’expressions qui rassemblent des e´le´ments de V sur la base de leur respect du principe de substitution: deux expressions a1 et a2 appartiennent a` la meˆme cate´gorie syntaxique si et seulement si une phrase contenant a1 ne cesse pas d’eˆtre une phrase lorsque a2 est substitue´ a` a1. On distingue, de plus, a` l’inte´rieur de C, un sous-

ensemble B de cate´gories de base qui contient le plus souvent deux cate´gories {s, n} symbolisant respectivement la cate´gorie des phrases (sentences) et celle des noms. Outre ces cate´gories basiques, l’ensemble C contient des cate´gories complexes (appele´es, selon les the´ories, cate´gories de foncteur, d’ope´rateur, de´rive´es, …) qui repre´sentent les autres parties du discours de L (par ex. les verbes, les adverbes, …). Ces cate´gories complexes sont compose´es a` partir des seules cate´gories de base et posse`dent une structure bipartite valeur/argument(s) qui indique de fac¸on transparente la valeur syntaxique a` affecter a` une expression de L si ses liens grammaticaux de de´pendance (marque´s par les arguments) sont satisfaits (la notation de ces cate´gories complexes varie de the´orie en the´orie). Les re`gles de de´rivation Rd sont de deux sortes. D’une part, elles de´rivent re´cursivement a` partir de B l’ensemble des cate´gories complexes (meˆme si cellesci ne sont pas toutes pertinentes pour le langage e´tudie´): Rd1: Si a, b1, …, bn (n x 1) sont des cate´gories, alors a/b1 … bn est aussi une cate´gorie. D’autre part, elles ope`rent des simplifications successives qui testent la bonne

2040

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

connexion syntaxique (i. e. la grammaticalite´) des phrases: Rd2: Soit x, y1, … ym (ou` m x 1) l’ensemble de tous les e´le´ments d’une se´quence S. Si les e´le´ments de y1, … ym sont respectivement de cate´gories b1, … bm, et que x est de cate´gorie a/b1 … bm, alors S est de cate´gorie a. En contraste du mode`le transformationnel ou` les re`gles syntaxiques engendrent des phrases correctement ordonnance´es, les GC ve´rifient la grammaticalite´ de se´quences de´ja` constitue´es (techniques du diagramming et du parsing). Cette ve´rification consiste a` affecter a` chaque e´le´ment de la se´quence un indice cate´goriel (application des re`gles Rc), puis a` simplifier cette suite d’indices graˆce a` l’utilisation re´ite´re´e des re`gles Rd2. Si cette proce´dure conduit a` obtenir l’index final s, la se´quence est dite syntaxiquement bien-forme´e. Il faut toutefois mentionner qu’une GC peut eˆtre repre´sente´e comme une grammaire ge´ne´rative qui partant du symbole cate´goriel s engendre la se´quence bien forme´e des expressions terminales de V (Karlgren 1978).

2.

L’horizon philosophique et logique des grammaires cate´gorielles

L’origine philosophique de la conception cate´gorielle se situe dans la Quatrie`me recherche logique de Husserl qui vise a` poser les fondements d’une grammaire pure. N’effectuant pas de diffe´rence entre bonne formation syntaxique et se´mantique, Husserl propose de penser le calcul grammatical graˆce a` la notion de cate´gorie de signification (Bedeutungskategorien) et ce choix aura pour conse´quence que les GC ulte´rieures se donneront pour but d’e´valuer conjointement la grammaticalite´ et la signification des phrases. Dans la rivalite´ qui opposa les mode`les syntaxiques de Chomsky au courant des GC, cette optique the´orique fut mise en avant dans les anne´es 80 par les tenants de l’approche cate´gorielle qui y voyaient (de par les contraintes plus strictes qu’elle implique) la preuve de leur originalite´ et de leur supre´matie (Bach in Oehrle 1988: 10). L’ide´e de recourir au test de la substitution des expressions comme base de de´partage des cate´gories provient e´galement de Husserl qui argumente qu’une se´quence bien ordonne´e se reconnaıˆt a` sa signification unitaire et que la substitution des expressions pre´servant la signification de la proposition constitue le crite`re ultime conduisant a` regrouper deux expressions dans la meˆme cate´-

gorie ou au contraire a` les re´partir dans deux cate´gories distinctes. Enfin, l’origine de la distinction entre cate´gorie de base et cate´gorie complexe est e´galement issue de la conception husserlienne. Conside´rant qu’une expression linguistique complexe est obtenue par articulation d’e´le´ments de base, Husserl fait intervenir, afin d’obtenir une premie`re caracte´risation des cate´gories de signification, l’opposition cate´gore`me / syncate´gore`me qu’il de´finit (conforme´ment a` la conception me´die´vale) comme correspondant a` la distinction entre, d’une part, les expressions qui sont pourvues d’une signification inde´pendante et, d’autre part, celles qui n’ont de signification comple`te que lorsqu’elles sont accole´es a` d’autres parties du discours (1913: 95, 105). Le principe de cette dichotomie sera repris par Lesniewski et Ajdukiewicz qui renommeront, dans un but ope´rationnel, cate´gorie de base les expressions cate´gore´matiques, et cate´gorie de foncteur les expressions syncate´gore´matiques. Mais la conception husserlienne qui revient a` analyser la signification des expressions en les conside´rant comme forme´es a` partir de sche´mas incomplets qui sont sature´s par des expressions comple`tes offrira e´galement la possibilite´, de par sa similitude avec l’analyse des propositions logiques de Frege, de proposer une repre´sentation mathe´matise´e des phrases qui seront alors retranscrites en termes de fonction et d’arguments. L’e´cole polonaise, qui cherche une alternative a` la the´orie des types de Russell, s’emparera de l’analyse husserlienne afin de proposer une nouvelle me´thode de re´solution des antinomies. Lesniewski e´labore ainsi en 1922 une the´orie des cate´gories se´mantiques mettant en œuvre un principe hie´rarchique de construction des cate´gories qui sera conserve´ par les GC ulte´rieures; a` savoir la possibilite´ de ge´ne´rer une infinite´ de cate´gories de foncteur (de degre´ croissant) a` partir d’un ensemble restreint de cate´gories de base: la proposition (de´finie par l’unique axiome de la protothe´tique) et le nom de l’ontologie. Cette grammaire logique qui comporte a` chaque e´tape un nombre fini de cate´gories mais est ‘constructivement’ non borne´e si on la regarde dans son ensemble, est re´gie par quelques principes: ⫺ la cate´gorisation est obtenue a` partir d’une substitution pre´servant la signification de la proposition, ⫺ la de´termination de la cate´gorie se´mantique d’une expression est de´pendante du stade de de´veloppement du langage,

219. Les de´veloppements de la grammaire cate´gorielle et de la grammaire applicative

⫺ tous les constituants figurant dans une proposition appartiennent a` une cate´gorie se´mantique (a` l’exception des signes de parenthe´sage et des quantificateurs), ⫺ aucune expression n’appartient a` plus d’une cate´gorie se´mantique. Ce dernier principe met en e´vidence l’inapplicabilite´ de cette the´orie au langage naturel qui ne´cessite (pour ne donner qu’un exemple) de doter les adverbes d’une double cate´gorisation refle´tant leur capacite´ a` modifier un verbe ou une phrase.

3.

Les premie`res grammaires cate´gorielles

L’apport d’Ajdukiewicz vis-a`-vis de la the´orie de Lesniewski consista, d’une part, a` remplacer sa notation contextuelle par une notation alge´brique et, d’autre part, a` appliquer cette mathe´matisation au langage naturel. Ajdukiewicz (1935) expose ainsi le symbolisme fractionnel qui rendra ope´ratoire, a` l’inte´rieur d’un algorithme syntaxique, les notions de cate´gories de base et de foncteurs. S’inspirant des travaux de Bolzano et de Frege sur la notion de fonction, Ajdukiewicz repre´sente les cate´gories de foncteurs sous la forme d’une fraction (symbolisant la notion de fonction) dont le nume´rateur indique la cate´gorie se´mantique de toute l’expression (i.e., le re´sultat de la fonction) et le de´nominateur les arguments de la fonction, c’est-a`-dire les diverses cate´gories se´mantiques des mots pris en ordre qui participent a` la constitution de la cate´gorie globale de l’expression. Ainsi, un verbe qui forme une phrase a` partir d’un nom s aura l’index fractionnaire: . De plus, Ajdun kiewicz re´alise un de´placement de la proble´matique husserlienne en conside´rant que si une se´quence de mots bien ordonne´e se reconnaıˆt a` sa signification unitaire, les amas de mots du type peut-eˆtre cheval si sera cependant brille ne doivent plus eˆtre pense´s en termes logico-philosophiques de non-sens mais a` l’aide du concept de connexite´ syntaxique. C’est afin de pouvoir tester la connexite´ des phrases qu’Ajdukiewicz e´labore une unique re`gle de simplification (qui s’applique toujours de la gauche vers la droite) selon laquelle on ne garde que le nume´rateur d’une premie`re fraction A lorsque la fraction B qui lui succe`de est identique au de´nominateur de A. Ajdukiewicz calque donc la simplification des foncteurs sur le mode`le de la simplifica-

2041

tion des fractions en arithme´tique, puisque cette re`gle revient a` poser que l’expression x y se simplifie en x. Afin d’e´viter toute ery reur d’interpre´tation syntaxique, Ajdukiewicz re´ordonne de plus les phrases selon la notation polonaise, et ceci a pour conse´quence de bouleverser l’ordre de la phrase “naturelle”, comme en te´moigne l’unique application au langage ordinaire propose´e par Ajdukiewicz: The lilac smells very strongly and the rose blooms est analyse´ dans cette perspective sous la forme and very strongly smells the lilac blooms the rose. Le proble`me the´orique, qui sera re´solu par les GC ulte´rieures, est que ce re´ordonnancement pre´alable pre´suppose que la structure de la phrase est directement apparente, si bien qu’il n’est nul besoin de de´finir une proce´dure qui la re´ve´lerait. Une difficulte´ supple´mentaire re´side dans la fac¸on de proce´der lors de la cate´gorisation des expressions: il n’y a pas dans cette syntaxe de re`gles de type Rc et l’affectation s’effectue intuitivement graˆce a` la compe´tence e´pilinguistique du sujet qui teste la phrase. On note, enfin, une absence de contrainte se´mantique sur le processus de substitution qui a pour conse´quence que les cate´gories se´mantiques se re´ve´lent n’eˆtre en fait que de simples cate´gories syntaxiques correspondant aux classiques parties du discours. Conservant le symbolisme fractionnel d’Ajdukiewicz, BarHillel (qui cre´a le terme de grammaire cate´gorielle) e´labore une grammaire bidirectionnelle (1964 [1953]) qui conjugue l’algorithme d’Ajdukiewicz et la me´thode distributionnelle de Harris et le comple`te graˆce a` l’ajout d’une seconde re`gle de simplification des cate´gories a, a\b J b qui proce´dant de la droite vers la gauche permet de conserver l’ordre des phrases du langage ordinaire. En accord avec la perspective distributionnelle, les cate´gories se´mantiques sont rebaptise´es par Bar-Hillel cate´gories syntaxiques car les ope´rateurs de la grammaire bidirectionnelle ne marquent plus, dans leur de´nominateur, des liens de de´pendance, mais la trace de l’environnement syntaxique imme´diat de l’expression. Abandonnant de plus l’ordonnancement de la phrase selon la notation polonaise, Bar-Hillel recourt a` diffe´rents types de parenthe´sages pour distinguer a` l’inte´rieur de ses cate´gories d’ope´rateur le contexte gauche du contexte droit de l’expression cate´gorise´e. Un mot occurrant dans diffe´rents contextes syntaxiques se voit attribuer une liste de cate´gories (appele´e dictionnaire) correspondant a` ses divers

2042

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

environnements. La gestion de cette polycate´gorisation est re´solue par Bar-Hillel en affectant a` chaque mot de la phrase que l’on veut tester la liste de ses cate´gories syntaxiques, puis en appliquant a` diffe´rents parenthe´sages de la phrase, les deux re`gles de simplification qui par une proce´dure de´ductive d’e´limination de´terminent conjointement la structure de la phrase et la cate´gorie syntaxique des mots qui la composent. Le changement qui s’ope`re a` partir de Bar-Hillel est donc que la grammaire n’a plus, en fonction d’une structure donne´e, a` de´terminer si la se´quence ainsi organise´e est une phrase, car sa taˆche consiste a` se demander s’il est possible d’e´tablir, pour la se´quence conside´re´e, une ou des structures qui en fasse(nt) une phrase. S’inscrivant dans la continuite´ des travaux d’Ajdukiewicz et de Bar-Hillel, Lambek e´labore le calcul syntaxique associatif (1958, repr. in Buszkowski, 1988) qui constitue un mode`le cate´goriel bien plus puissant que la grammaire bidirectionnelle. Il sera ainsi a` l’origine du renouveau a` la fin des anne´es 80 de la branche non-combinatoire du paradigme cate´goriel. Rompant d’avec l’approche distributionnelle et s’inspirant des travaux qu’il me`ne en alge`bre homologique (d’ou` l’utilisation du terme mathe´matique de type qui supplante celui de cate´gorie), Lambek de´finit les types compose´s graˆce a` une proce´dure re´cursive mettant en œuvre trois ope´rations formelles: la multiplication, la division a` gauche et la division a` droite. Les types se forment donc de la fac¸on suivante: si l’expression A a le type x et l’expression B a le type y, alors l’expression AB a le type xy; si l’expression AB a le type z, quelle que soit l’expression B de type y, alors l’expression A a le type z/y; si l’expression AB a le type z, quelle que soit l’expression A de type x, alors l’expression B a le type x\z. Les types sont conside´re´s comme les e´le´ments d’un semigroupe re´siduel, c’est-a`-dire d’un semi-groupe partiellement ordonne´ satisfaisant les conditions suivantes (ou` J marque une relation transitive et re´flexive que les logiciens appellent la de´ductibilite´ mais que les linguistes interpre`tent comme la de´rivabilite´): ab J c ssi a J c/b ssi b J a\c. La puissance de ce calcul re´sulte de l’adjonction de trois nouvelles re`gles qui ge`rent l’ordre des mots tout en re´duisant le nombre de structures pouvant eˆtre affecte´es aux phrases. Ainsi, la re`gle de l’associativite´ (x\y)/z L x\(y/z), qui donnera son nom au calcul syntaxique de Lambek, pose qu’une fonction qui posse`de deux arguments

(situe´s de part et d’autre) peut se combiner avec eux dans n’importe quel ordre. La re`gle de composition, (x/y) (y/z) J x/z et (x\y) (y\z) J x\z, permet d’appliquer deux fonctions au dernier argument trouve´ sans prendre en compte l’ordre des mots de la phrase. La re`gle de la division, x/y J (x/z)/(y/z) et x\y J (z\x)\(z\y), effectue des changements de cate´gorie en caracte´risant le modifieur comme un type de cate´gorie-image et argument identiques. Appliquant la me´thode d’e´limination des coupures de Gentzen, Lambek fournit de plus la preuve de la de´cidabilite´ de son calcul et Buszkowski (1986) en de´montrera la comple´tude. Plus ge´ne´ralement, il sera reconnu que cette syntaxe est identique au calcul propositionnel positif intuitionniste de Heyting (excepte´ qu’elle n’accepte pas les trois re`gles structurales de Gentzen). En 1961, Lambek proposera une version non-associative de son calcul qui ne s’applique plus a` des chaıˆnes de mots mais a` des arbres et qui ne´cessite d’inclure une parenthe´tisation dans les se´quents pour de´montrer sa cohe´rence. Mais la puissance du calcul de Lambek restera inaperc¸ue dans les anne´es 60 qui seront par contre marque´es par la condamnation sans appel du mode`le cate´goriel par Bar-Hillel alors convaincu de la supe´riorite´ de la perspective transformationnelle. “Some Linguistic Obstacles to Machine Translation” (Bar-Hillel, 1964 [1960]) se pre´sente ainsi comme un article critique de´nonc¸ant l’inade´quation the´orique des GC sur la base de l’impossible me´canisation d’une syntaxe reposant sur une infinite´ de cate´gories. L’inade´quation empirique des GC (en particulier leur incapacite´ a` traiter des particules se´parables) sera de plus mise en avant par Bar-Hillel et cette critique se verra confirme´e par la preuve de Gaifman (1964 [1960], 99⫺115) de´montrant que la capacite´ ge´ne´rative des GC n’exce`de pas celle des grammaires hors-contexte (grammaire de type 2). Aucun nouveau mode`le cate´goriel ne verra le jour dans les anne´es 60, car les travaux de Lambek (qui ne sont pourtant pas concerne´s par les limitations de la preuve de Gaifman) paˆtiront de l’engouement qui se manifestera en faveur des ide´es exprime´es dans Syntactic Structurs.

4.

Les mode`les mixtes des anne´es 70

Il faut attendre la grammaire universelle de Montague pour que le projet originel du calcul en tandem de la signification et de la

219. Les de´veloppements de la grammaire cate´gorielle et de la grammaire applicative

grammaticalite´ des phrases trouve ses premie`res applications. On constate alors un radical changement dans les batteries d’exemples qui testent la pertinence des GC au profit de phrases syste´matiquement ambigues de par la pre´sence de quantificateurs et d’expressions intensionnelles. La particularite´ des grammaires de cette pe´riode re´side dans leur mixite´: Lyons et Lewis combinent ainsi les perspectives cate´gorielle, transformationnelle et montagovienne; Geach allie quant a` lui l’approche d’Ajdukiewicz a` la logique combinatoire. Ce n’est pas la partie syntaxique de la grammaire de Montague qui retiendra l’attention des tenants des GC mais la conception compositionnelle de la se´mantique qu’elle met en œuvre et qui ⫺ re´sume´e par la ce´le`bre formule the rule-to-rule hypothesis ⫺ consiste a` coupler chaque re`gle syntaxique d’une re`gle se´mantique qui donne l’interpre´tation de l’expression qui vient d’eˆtre grammaticalement analyse´e. Ainsi que Dowty et al. (1981, ix) s’en font l’e´cho, les analyses de Montague offrent alors l’espoir que la se´mantique soit caracte´rise´e avec la meˆme exactitude et rigueur formelle que la syntaxe en grammaire ge´ne´rative. C’est dans cette perspective que vont s’inscrire les re´flexions de Lyons (1968 [1971]: 227⫺327) et de Lewis (1970). Reprenant l’ide´e de Lyons d’une grammaire transformationnelle qui reposerait sur une base cate´gorielle, Lewis re´serve significativement a` la partie cate´gorielle de sa syntaxe le soin de ge´rer la dimension se´mantique des mots conforme´ment a` la conception compositionnelle issue de la the´orie des mode`les de Montague. Applique´ a` des phrases quantifie´es et de type non-de´claratif, le composant transformationnel (tel qu’il est de´fini dans Aspects) ge`re l’ordre des mots en ope´rant sur leur cate´gorie qui est elle-meˆme relie´e a` des significations ge´ne´re´es par un lexique. Recourant a` la forme de l’ope´rateur d’abstraction ∧ utilise´e par Ajdukiewicz pour repre´senter la quantification dans les langages formels (celui-ci est comparable a` l’ope´rateur l de Church), Lewis de´finit ainsi une re`gle transformationnelle de monte´e du quantificateur qui ope`re au niveau de la forme logique de la phrase (et non au niveau de sa structure profonde). Bien que programmatique, l’article de Geach (1970, repr. in Buszkowski et al. 1988) influencera plus durablement le courant des grammaires cate´gorielles de par la vise´e de ses re´flexions formelles, syntaxiques et se´mantiques. Se pre´sentant explicitement comme une extension du sys-

2043

te`me d’Ajdukiewicz, cette grammaire explore les re`gles re´cursives de la division en les posant comme les converses de la re`gle de simplification par multiplication des foncteurs. Geach de´finit ainsi deux nouvelles re`gles de division “If a b J g, a :bd J :gd” et “If a b b J g, then a :bd :bd J :gd” qui ont pour caracte´ristiques, en portant sur un item situe´ de par et d’autre du sche´ma de re´duction, de constituer d’une part une preuve de la validite´ du processus de composition ge´ne´ralise´e et d’expliquer d’autre part les raisons de l’existence de diffe´rents niveaux de foncteurs car elles permettent d’analyser la structure interne des cate´gories en mettant en e´vidence les relations qui les unissent (cas des noms propres cate´gorise´s n et des NP quantifie´s du type every man qui sont repre´sente´s par un foncteur :s:sn de second niveau). Ce faisant, elles offrent aussi une solution au proble`me de la prolife´ration des cate´gories dans l’analyse du langage naturel car elles permettent de de´river, graˆce au processus d’expansion qu’elles expriment, de nouvelles cate´gories a` partir d’un nombre limite´ de cate´gories inscrites dans le dictionnaire (cf. Lambek in Oehrle et al. 1988, 299 pour la de´rivation de la loi de Geach a` partir des re`gles du calcul syntaxique). Dans cette perspective, il devient possible d’analyser une assez grande diversite´ de faits linguistiques: les noms quantifie´s, les verbes transitifs et intransitifs, les conjonctions de coordination et de subordination, les adverbes et ne´gations verbale ou phrastique, certaines pre´positions et pronoms re´flexifs, … C’est a` propos du traitement des pronoms relatifs que Geach recourt a` la logique combinatoire. La proce´dure consiste a` traduire la phrase Anybody who hurts anybody who hurts him hurts himself en logique des pre´dicats (x) ((y) (Hxy J Hyx) J Hxx) puis a` de´finir une se´rie de combinateurs qui e´liminera les variables x et y. On affecte alors a` la se´quence de pre´dicats et de combinateurs des indices cate´goriels qui sont ensuite simplifie´s par les re`gles de la grammaire. Si la se´quence cate´gorielle peut eˆtre re´duite a` un s, celle-ci est retraduite en langage naturel. La difficulte´ est que l’on obtient alors ⫺ de l’aveu meˆme de Geach ⫺ du pidgin english (1970, 16): anybody who anybody who hurt get hurt by hurt self, si bien que l’on est tente´ de penser que l’on n’a pas teste´ la phrase en elle-meˆme, mais une suite de mots mal-ordonnance´s dont on vient malheureusement de prouver qu’elle est bien-forme´e.

2044

5.

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

Les grammaires cate´gorielles contemporaines

La fin des anne´es 80 marque un ve´ritable renouveau de la perspective cate´gorielle. En te´moigne la parution en 1988 de deux anthologies d’articles (Buszkowski et al.; Oehrle et al.) qui exposent la spe´cificite´ des enjeux de la proble´matique cate´gorielle (cf. les articles de Bach ou de van Benthem dans ces recueils) et montrent, graˆce a` l’e´laboration de nouvelles re`gles syntaxiques et se´mantiques, comment celle-ci peut eˆtre concre´tise´e. 5.1. Les grammaires cate´gorielles issues du calcul de Lambek S’inspirant du calcul syntaxique de Lambek (1958), Moortgat, Morrill et Casadio proposent des ame´liorations du mode`le dans le but de rendre compte du langage naturel alors que Buszkowski, Dosen, Kanazawa, Mikulas et Pentus tentent quant a` eux de re´soudre les questions the´oriques qui se posent lorsque le calcul est conside´re´ sous la forme d’un syste`me formel. La raison d’eˆtre de ces articles qui testent la puissance, la comple´tude, …, du mode`le cate´goriel est de servir de gardefou aux divers perfectionnements apporte´s qui risqueraient sinon d’apparaıˆtre comme de simples solutions ad hoc. Une premie`re se´rie de travaux consista a` enrichir le calcul de Lambek de nouvelles familles de re`gles (Morrill 1994, Moortgat 1997, Carpenter 1998). C’est essentiellement les diffe´rentes variantes des re`gles de composition et de monte´e (typeraising) qui furent ainsi syste´matiquement explore´es. La principale difficulte´ que les GC ont a` re´soudre est qu’elles ne peuvent rendre compte des constituants discontinus (comme les particules se´parables, les expressions topicalise´es, les verbes a` l’infinitif qui sont rejete´s en fin de phrase dans certaines langues, …) car leurs re`gles obe´issent a` un principe d’adjacence qui postule qu’elles ne sont applicables qu’a` des entite´s linguistiquement re´alise´es et contigues. Travaillant sur le ne´erlandais et l’allemand, Moortgat (1988) ajoute ainsi au calcul de Lambek des versions mixtes de la re`gle de composition X/Y Y\Z ⇒ X/Z; Y/Z X\Y ⇒ X\Z et de la re`gle de monte´e X\Y ⇒ (Z/X)\(Z/Y) et X/Y ⇒ (Z\X)/(Z\Y) qui offrent la possibilite´ d’un traitement unifie´ des phe´nome`nes de de´pendance discontinue. Ce faisant, il cre´e des ensembles de re`gles contenant toutes les variantes pertinentes et rend compte, sans avoir a` ajouter de re`gles pe´riphe´riques, de constructions grammaticales

qui diffe`rent de langue en langue. Les versions simple et mixte de la re`gle de composition permettent ainsi respectivement d’analyser l’ordre des mots dans les subordonne´s allemande et ne´erlandaise, alors que celui-ci obe´it a` un ordonnancement inverse: te lezen proberen NP \VP VP/ VP NP \VP NP \VP

will VP/ VP

re`gle de composition mixte

möchte zu lesen versuchen VP \VP NP \VP VP \VP NP \VP NP \VP

re`gle de composition simple Observant le principe montagovien de compositionnalite´, Moortgat double de plus ses re`gles syntaxiques d’une interpre´tation se´mantique et amorce, a` partir de son travail sur la re`gle de monte´e, une re´flexion sur l’interaction du lexique et de la syntaxe qui le conduit a` privile´gier une approche minimaliste ou` les types secondaires d’un mot sont de´rive´s de leur type de base. A partir des anne´es 90, le calcul de Lambek subit une radicale modification. On prend conscience qu’il correspond a` un fragment multiplicatif d’une version intuitionniste de logique line´aire non commutative (i.e., la logique line´aire moins la re`gle de permutation) et l’on de´cide d’utiliser cette logique pour fac¸onner la grammaire. Appele´e biline´aire par Lambek, cette logique (de´veloppe´e par Grishin, 1983; Abrusci, 1991 et Lambek, 1993) est obtenue en introduisant dans le calcul syntaxique un objet dualisant 0 tel que: (0/a)\0 = a = 0/(a\0). En posant les abre´viations 0/a = al et a\0 = ar, on peut alors ve´rifier ce que Lambek note par a ⫹ b; soit (bl al)r = (brar)l. Cette ope´ration satisfait les re`gles d’associativite´ mixte et de distributivite´: a ⫹ 0 = a = 0 ⫹ a et (a ⫹ b)c J a ⫹ bc; c(a ⫹ b) J ca ⫹ b. L’apport de Lambek fut de proposer comme interpre´tation linguistique de a ⫹ b, l’identification a ⫹ b = ab (donc 0 = 1); situant alors le calcul syntaxique dans le cadre d’une logique biline´aire compacte que l’on peut repre´senter comme suit (le signe J de´signe une relation d’ordre partiel qui pre´serve la multiplication): (ab)c

219. Les de´veloppements de la grammaire cate´gorielle et de la grammaire applicative

= a(bc), a1 = a = 1a, ala J 1 J aal, aar J 1 J ara. Dans ce cadre, Lambek (2000a) ve´rifie la bonne formation des phrases d’un fragment de l’anglais en usant du concept mathe´matique de pre´groupe (un monoı¨de partiellement ordonne´ dans lequel chaque e´le´ment a a un e´le´ment contigu situe´ a` sa droite ar et un e´le´ment contigu situe´ a` sa gauche al tel que: aar w 1 w ara et ala w 1 w aal) qu’il ge´ne`re a` partir d’un ensemble ordonne´ de types de base. La particularite´ des derniers mode`les de Lambek re´side de plus dans la multiplicite´ des type de bases mise en œuvre pour rendre compte du langage naturel. Graˆce a` ces types, il devient possible d’esquisser la matrice de conjugaison des verbes et de cate´goriser des expressions complexes telles que she had been seeing me (2000a, 188). Enfin, Lambek insiste sur la ne´cessite´ d’ajouter des me´tare`gles (pour ge´rer par exemple les interrogatives) renonc¸ant ainsi a` son ancienne perspective the´orique ou` la syntaxe e´tait directement incorpore´e dans le dictionnaire des types. Mene´e en e´troite collaboration avec Lambek, les recherches de Casadio (1999) explorent l’application de certaines proprie´te´s de la logique line´aire non-commutative (NMLL) au langage naturel. Conside´rant que l’inte´reˆt de cette logique est qu’elle permet d’obtenir une perspective dynamique des fonctions fre´ge´ennes ou` la notion de point de vue des arguments est repre´sente´e, Casadio utilise les re´seaux de preuve pour analyser la ou les structure(s) des phrases (cf. Abrusci in Girard et al. 1995 pour une e´tude des proprie´te´s de ces re´seaux). La ve´rification de la bonne-formation syntaxique des phrases s’appuie sur la traduction des types de Lambek dans le symbolisme de la NMLL qui consiste a` remplacer les connecteurs / et \ par le symbole par (note´ 㜷 ) et la ne´gation (en prenant soin de distinguer les deux types de ne´gation de la logique line´aire non-commutative, soit la ne´gation post-pose´e de A = A⊥ et la ne´gation

ante´-pose´e de A = ⊥A). Les types A\B et B/ A se re´e´crivent donc respectivement A⊥㜷 B et B㜷 ⊥A, et les types complexes qui correspondent aux fonctions d’ordre supe´rieur sont ensuite de´rive´s (en accord avec cette traduction) de telle fac¸on qu’un verbe transitif (NP\S) sera note´ NP⊥㜷 S㜷 ⊥NP, un quantificateur S/ (NP\S) en position sujet: S㜷 (⊥S 丢 NP), etc. Le fait qu’une suite de mots forme une phrase ⫺ telle que Les enfants mangent des pommes ⫺ est exprime´ a` l’aide d’un se´quent: les enfants: NP, mangent: TV, des pommes: NP  S qui permet graˆce aux re`gles logiques d’introduction des deux sortes d’implications de la logique line´aire intuitionniste (A ⫺◦ B qui se traduit A⊥㜷 B et B ◦⫺ A qui est e´quivalent a` B㜷 ⊥A) d’obtenir le type des expressions composant la phrase. Ainsi, le type du verbe transitif est  mangent⊥, NP⊥, S, ⊥NP et cette notation indique ⫺ comme le montre le re´seau de preuve ci-dessous ⫺ que le TV peut se combiner simultane´ment avec son sujet et son objet:

les enfants mangent des pommes NP NP NP ' S ' NP

Les de´rivations des phrases complexes sont obtenues en exploitant les proprie´te´s duales des types logiques de la NMLL et en appliquant les re`gles de coupure (cut ainsi que les re`gles relatives aux connecteurs 丢 et 㜷 (Casadio 1999: 27). Il devient alors possible d’analyser des phrases qui ⫺ telle Whom did Elisa write a letter to? ⫺ contiennent des discontinus. Les travaux les plus re´cents tentent de de´velopper une se´mantique approprie´e en e´tudiant les relations que la logique biline´aire entretient avec le calcul de Curry et la se´mantique de Montague.

This is one of the derivations of the string Whom did Elisa write a letter to: did⊥, Q, ⊥INF, ⊥NP1ß Elisa⊥, NP1ß [cut] Elisa⊥, did⊥, Q, ⊥INF write⊥, INF, ⊥PP, ⊥NP2ß [cut] write⊥, Elisa⊥, did⊥, Q, ⊥PP, ⊥NP2ß a-letter⊥, NP2ß [cut] ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ ⊥ a-letter , write , Elisa , did , Q, PP to⊥, PP, ⊥Np3ß [cut] Whom⊥, Q, (⊥⊥NP1ß 丢⊥ Q) to⊥, a-letter⊥, write⊥, Elisa⊥, did⊥, Q, ⊥NP3ß [cut] to⊥, a-letter⊥, write⊥, Elisa⊥, did⊥, Whom⊥, Q Whom, did, Elisa, write a letter, to Q Fig. 219.1

2045

2046

XXXIII. Formalization Tendencies and Mathematization in 20th-Century

5.2. Les grammaires cate´gorielles combinatoires Marquant une certaine opposition vis-a`-vis des grammaires cate´gorielles issues du calcul de Lambek, certains the´oriciens (Shaumyan, Steedman, Bach, Dowty, …) choisirent d’e´laborer le mode`le cate´goriel en recourant aux combinateurs utilise´s par Curry et Feys (1958) pour de´finir les bases du lambda calcul. Appele´ grammaire cate´gorielle combinatoire, ce courant the´orique recouvre en fait deux types d’approches: la grammaire applicative et la grammaire combinatoire a` strictement parler. La premie`re grammaire applicative universelle (GAU) fut propose´e par Shaumyan (1965) en re´action au mode`le de la grammaire ge´ne´rative. Cette grammaire (qui connut des de´veloppements en 1977 et 1987) postule deux niveaux de description: un niveau phe´notype et un niveau ge´notype ou` doivent eˆtre formule´s tous les invariants se´miotiques constitutifs des langues naturelles. L’hypothe`se de Shaumyan est que le ge´notype est structure´ comme un langage applicatif et que la taˆche du linguiste est de former des classes paraphrastiques d’expressions obtenues en fonction de constantes de signification, appele´es formes normales. Le the´ore`me de Church-Rosser qui de´montre l’invariance du re´sultat du processus de re´duction des phrases vers une unique forme normale offre la justification mathe´matique de ce mode`le en le´gitimant l’ide´e que les langues naturelles peuvent eˆtre structure´es (graˆce a` la relation de paraphrase) en sous-langues qui repre´sentent chacune un invariant. La GAU se donne e´galement pour but d’exprimer des lois transcendant la typologie des langues (en particulier l’opposition langues accusatives/langues ergatives). Un principe directeur de cette grammaire est qu’elle doit pouvoir retracer “l’histoire constitutive” des phrases (par exemple le traitement hie´rarchique des arguments dans une relation de pre´dication) graˆce a` une ope´ration primitive binaire ⫺ l’application ⫺ qui construit des expressions de´rive´es a` partir d’e´le´ments simples. Ainsi le syste`me des types syntaxiques (qui ne comprend que les types de base t (terme) et s) est engendre´ re´cursivement a` l’aide de l’ope´rateur d’application pre´fixe´ O de telle fac¸on que si x et y sont des types alors Oxy est un type (x est appele´ l’ope´rande et y le re´sultat). Les combinateurs (introduits pour permettre l’analyse des conjonctions, des modaux, …) ont e´galement le statut d’ope´rateurs qui proce`dent (inde´pendamment de toute interpre´tation ex-

terne) sur des expressions applicatives pour former des ope´rateurs complexes dont l’action est spe´cifie´e par une b-re`gle de re´duction (i. e. un sche´ma de re`gle). Chaque combinateur e´tant repre´sentable par une lambda-expression, la structure des phrases est restitue´e graˆce a` l’ope´ration de curriage qui de´compose les ope´rateurs complexes en une suite d’ope´rateurs unaires ne s’appliquant qu’a` un seul ope´rande a` la fois. Les types se´manticologiques sont e´labore´s re´cursivement en fonction de quatre types de base (J individus, H propositions, L lieux et C classes collectives), et ont pour particularite´ de ne pas eˆtre isomorphes aux types syntaxiques afin d’e´viter la formation d’infe´rences non-valides. Une extension de ce mode`le, appele´e grammaire applicative et cognitive, a e´te´ propose´e par Descle`s (1990) qui vise a` coordonner les cate´gorisations issues des activite´s de perception a` celles ope´re´es dans les langues. Il faut attendre le mode`le propose´ par Ades et Steedman (1982) pour que le courant des grammaires combinatoires (a` strictement parler) connaisse une ve´ritable expansion. Geˆne´s par le principe d’adjacence mais de´sireux de ne pas recourir a` des notions telles que le mouvement ou l’effacement, ces auteurs eurent l’ide´e de formuler de nouvelles re`gles graˆce a` des combinateurs dont l’action permet de re´aliser les ope´rations demande´es (cf. Steedman in Oehrle et al. 1988 pour la mise en e´vidence de cette correspondance). Le rejet du calcul de Lambek est duˆ a` la volonte´ de conserver les trois re`gles structurales de Gentzen (la permutation, la contraction et l’affaiblissement) juge´es essentielles dans l’approche combinatoire pour re´soudre le proble`me des e´le´ments discontinus. Sche´matiquement, les diffe´rentes formes des grammaires combinatoires contemporaines sont issues de la se´lection qu’elles ope`rent vis-a`-vis des combinateurs de base de Curry que sont le compositeur B, le permutateur C, le duplicateur W, l’identifiateur I et l’e´liminateur K (ainsi que des combinateurs qui, tels que S, sont obtenus par composition de combinateurs e´le´mentaires). Ainsi, une possibilite´ explore´e par Steedman (1988 in Oehrle et al.) fut de proposer une grammaire comprenant (en plus des re`gles de concate´nation d’Ajdukiewicz et de Bar-Hillel) trois familles de re`gles combinatiores (la composition, la monte´e et la substitution) reposant respectivement sur les combinateurs B, T, S. Afin de rendre compte du passif, Bach (1979) puis Dowty (1988) choisirent d’adjoindre aux combina-

219. Les de´veloppements de la grammaire cate´gorielle et de la grammaire applicative

teurs B et T, le permutateur C qui leur permit de formuler la re`gle dite du wrapping. La force de ces grammaires combinatoires est qu’elles re´alisent un ve´ritable isomorphisme entre les cate´gories syntaxiques et les types se´mantiques, car l’application des re`gles combinatoires a pour effet que les constituants grammaticaux peuvent eˆtre directement interpre´te´s dans une se´mantique compositionnelle. Pour ne prendre qu’un exemple, la re`gle de composition dite en avant (note´e >B): X/Y Y/Z ⇒ X/Z et dont la se´mantique est donne´e par l’identite´: BFG = lx[F(Gx)] signifie qu’un foncteur de cate´gorie syntaxique X/Y et d’interpre´tation F peut se combiner avec un foncteur adjacent Y/Z d’interpre´tation G et produire une fonction de cate´gorie X/Z dont l’interpre´tion sera BFG, c’est-a`dire la composition de F et de G. Le formalisme meˆme garantit donc que l’ope´ration re´alise´e par la re`gle de composition assemble non seulement les cate´gories syntaxiques mais allie aussi leur interpre´tation. En faisant intervenir a` chaque e´tape de la de´rivation une des re`gles de la famille exprimant l’ope´ration de composition (par exemple (>B2): X/Y(Y/ Z)/W ⇒ (X/Z)/W ou (B) S/NP (Bx), (Sx), (Tx) et (B), () et (