Modelling the Phoneme: New Trends in East European Phonemic Theory 9783110900576, 9789027921093

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curat C. H . V A N

SCHOONEVELD

Indiana University

Series Maior

68

MODELLING THE PHONEME New trends in East European phonemic theory

by

F.H.H. KORTLANDT (University of Amsterdam)

1972

MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1972 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

PROEFSCHRIFT AMSTERDAM 1972

Printed in Belgium by N.I.C.I. Printers, Ghent.

Dedicated to the memory of N. S. Trubetzkoy

PREFACE

This study, which is submitted as a doctoral thesis at the University of Amsterdam, has been accomplished under the inspiring guidance of Professor C.L. Ebeling. The opportunity to work with him has enabled me to draw heavily upon his valuable insights and ample experience. I am most grateful to Professor A.H. Kuipers for his penetrating criticism of the manuscript. The stimulating discussions which we had together have greatly added to the value of this publication. I am also indebted to Professor S.C. Dik and Professor E.M. Uhlenbeck, and to my colleagues A.A. Barentsen, M.P.R. van den Broecke, N.S.H. Smith, H. Steinhauer and W.A.L. Stokhof for reading the manuscript and commenting upon it. I thank Mrs. C.G. Blomhert for the copy editing and Miss A. Pols for the proof reading. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. P. de Ridder for the quick publication of the book. F.H.H.K. February 8th, 1972

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

9

Abbreviations

14

Introduction

15 PART I THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS

1. Russian phonemic theory before 1962 1.1. Baudouin de Courtenay 1.2. Scerba 1.3. Jakovlev 1.4. Trubetzkoy 1.5. The Moscow school of phonology 1.6. The fifties

19 20 21 21 23 25

2. Saumjan's two-level model 2.1. Introduction 2.2. The antinomy of transposition 2.3. The identification antinomies 2.4. Saumjan's definition of the phoneme 2.5. The operator method of the paradigmatic identification of phonemes 2.6. Criticism 2.7. Social and individual variants 2.8. The operator method of the syntagmatic identification of phonemes 2.9. Criticism 2.10. Distinctive features 2.11. Prosodic features

28 29 31 33 35 37 39 40 41 43 44

3. Set-theoretical models 3.1. Introduction 3.2. The initial objects of Revzin's model 3.3. Revzin's definition of the phoneme

46 47 48

12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. 3.9. 3.10. 3.11. 3.12. 3.13.

A paradigmatic model Syntagmatic models Phonetic and phonemic systems A fundamental hypothesis Marcus' definition of the phoneme Criticism Nebesky's conception of relevant features Graphic models Kanger's model of the phoneme Relations between models

51 53 56 59 61 63 66 70 71 72

4. Identification models 4.1. Introduction 4.2. The initial objects of Uspenskij's model 4.3. Identification rules 4.4. Uspenskij's definition of the phoneme 4.5. Beloozerov's model of the phoneme 4.6. Peterson and Harary

76 77 78 82 83 87

5. Batog's logical model 5.1. Introduction 5.2. Logical preliminaries 5.3. The initial objects of Batôg's model 5.4. From phonetic chain to phonetic system 5.5. The distribution of sounds 5.6. Batog's definition of the phoneme 5.7. Criticism 5.8. The role of features

91 92 95 95 99 100 103 108

PART II FUNDAMENTALS OF PHONEMIC MODELLING

6. The 6.1. 6.2. 6.3.

use of mathematical methods in linguistics The dehumanization of the study of language Criticism Conclusion

7. Models and modelling 7.1. Revzin's conception of modelling 7.2. Saumjan's conception of modelling 7.3. Apresjan's conception of modelling 7.4. Staff's conception of modelling 7.5. Conclusion

113 116 118 120 122 124 126 129

TABLE OF CONTENTS

13

8. The phoneme 8.1. The motivation for taxonomic phonemics 8.2. Descriptive adequacy 8.3. Distinctiveness 8.4. Relevant features 8.5. Segmentation 8.6. Phonemic units 8.7. Identification 8.8. Uniqueness 8.9. Joint features 8.10. Conclusion. A characterization

131 133 135 137 140 143 144 147 148 150

9. Optional features and heavy phonemes 9.1. Phonemic overlapping 9.2. Phonemic interchange 9.3. Optional features and heavy phonemes 9.4. The proof 9.5. Optional phonemes 9.6. Junctures

152 154 157 161 162 163

10. A note on configurational features 10.1. Inherent and configurational features 10.2. Relations between features

165 166

List of references

167

ABBREVIATIONS

Am. Bu. Ch. Cz. Dan. Du. Eng. Fr. Ge. Gr. It. Jap. Li. Po. Ru. Rum. SCr. Skt. Sp. Sw. Tu.

American Bulgarian Chinese Czech Danish Dutch English French German Greek Italian Japanese Lithuanian Polish Russian Rumanian Serbo-Croatian Sanskrit Spanish Swedish Turkish

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the present study is twofold. Firstly, I will try to give a survey of the recent developments in phonemic theory that took place in Eastern Europe during the sixties. Emphasis is laid upon mathematical and semi-mathematical models of the phoneme. Since I am only concerned with theoretical phonemics in the present study, phonetic investigations remain out of the picture. Secondly, I will give an account of the problems which I regard as fundamental in any consistent theory of phonemics. Special attention will be paid to the important but often neglected fact that a definition of the phoneme as a class of speech sounds is incompatible with the principle of distinctiveness. Mathematical methods in linguistics fall into two classes, quantitative and nonquantitative. Quantitative methods are not discussed in the present theory-oriented study. This is a consequence of the fact that no linguistically relevant features are of the continuous-scale type (cf. Hockett 1955: 17). The mathematical disciplines that are relevant for THEORETICAL linguistics are, above all, algebra, set theory, and logic. However, only the most elementary notions from these disciplines play a part at the present stage in the development of linguistics. Mathematical concepts are introduced gradually in the course of this book in order to make the topics under discussion accessible to scholars without any previous training in mathematics. Formal definitions of basic mathematical concepts have been deferred to section 5.2. The only parts of the book where more mathematical sophistication than ordinary common sense is required are sections 3.10 and 5.4-5.6.1 have purposely minimized the number of formulas in the second part of the book. In the first chapter I give a brief survey of Russian phonemic theory before 1962. The only aim of this chapter is to outline the background of the new developments in Soviet linguistics during the sixties. It is shown how all of the three main trends in phonemic thought, represented in Russian linguistics by Scerba, Jakovlev, and Trubetskoy, essentially go back to Baudouin de Courtenay, and how they finally stood with regard to each other. The second chapter is an exposition and discussion of S.K. Saumjan's two-level theory, which has hitherto found hardly any response outside the Soviet Union. Attention is focused on the paradigmatic and syntagmatic identification of phonemes, which I regard as the main problem in phonemic theory.

16

INTRODUCTION

In the third chapter I give an account of the set-theoretical models that have been proposed for various aspects of phonemic analysis. The main part of the chapter is devoted to the theories that have been put forward by I.I. Revzin and S. Marcus, who are the leading theoreticians on language models in Eastern Europe. Among the other models that are discussed in this chapter are some important contributions by L. Nebesky and S. Kanger. Here, as well as in the subsequent chapters, considerable attention is paid to the initial objects of the models under discussion and to the formal definitions of the phoneme. The models discussed in the third chapter are characterized by a lack of interest in and explicitness about the identification problem. This is why I have devoted the fourth chapter to models that are primarily concerned with the identification of phonemic units. This chapter contains an explicit statement of identification rules and their logical implications. It is shown that different relative priorities of the identification rules lead to different phonemic solutions. In the fifth chapter I give an exposition of the formally most elaborate model of phonemic analysis, which is the one that has been presented by T. Batog. The exposition is preceded by a short account of basic mathematical notions. The last two sections of this chapter are a review of my objections to the model put forward by Bat6g as well as, more generally, to any predilection for criteria other than the principle of distinctiveness. Chapter 6 deals with the possibilities and limitations of the application of mathematical methods in linguistic investigations, and Chapter 7 with the definition of the concept of 'model'. These chapters are not concerned with phonemic theory but only with general issues of linguistic methodology. Various standpoints are set up against each other, and a tentative conclusion is drawn. In Chapter 8 I defend the thesis that a grammar lacking a taxonomic phonemic level cannot achieve descriptive adequacy because it cannot account for lexical innovations that do not conform to existing phonemic patterns. The existence of linguistically relevant units on the phonemic level derives from the fact that not only the presence vs. absence of features but also their relative ordering plays a part in the distinguishability of linguistic forms. As a criterion for both the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic delimitation of phonemic units I adhere to the principle of distinctiveness. The impossibility of assigning certain features to a single phonemic unit leads to the postulation of 'joint features'. In Chapter 9 the optional character of certain distinctive oppositions is discussed. This phenomenon, which in theoretical linguistics has not yet received the attention which it deserves, is illustrated with a considerable number of examples from different languages. Chapter 10 is a small excursus on configurational features.

PART ONE

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS

1 RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1962

1.1. BAUDOUIN DE COURTENAY

Russian phonemic theory goes back to pre-revolutionary days. The first phonologist on the Russian scene was the famous Polish linguist J. Baudouin de Courtenay, who can be viewed as the predecessor of both the Moscow and Leningrad schools of phonology. 1 As early as 1881 he wrote (1963: 122): The concept 'phoneme' is decomposed into two essentially different notions: 1) the mere generalization of anthropophonic [i.e., phonetic] properties, 2) the mobile [i.e., variable] component of a morpheme and the mark of a certain morphological category. This coincides with two categories of correlates. In the course of the further development of these ideas it will be necessary to make a strict distinction between the two aspects of the concept of a phoneme and at the same time to set up separate terms for them.

It took Russian linguistics 75 years before the necessary distinction was finally established (Avanesov 1956). Particularly during the last twenty years of this period a great amount of unproductive discussion was wasted on the question of whether a phoneme should be regarded as a family of phonetically related sounds, which was essentially the view held by the Leningrad school, or as a family of automatically alternating sounds, as the Moscow school maintained. It is remarkable that not only the first opinion goes back directly to Baudouin de Courtenay, but that the second opinion does as well, for it corresponds rather closely to the same author's earlier views. On the one hand the principal object of Baudouin de Courtenay's studies was the determination of strictly synchronic laws. On the other, his phonological theory required the comparison of morphemes for the investigation of synchronic relations in the sound system of a language. But relations between morphemes had not yet been touched upon by synchronic analysis. Baudouin de Courtenay regarded the establishment of morphemic correspondences as being justified only historically, etymologically. There were two ways out of this profound contradiction. One could either give up morphological criteria in phonology or rebuild the description of 1

Cf. Jakobson 1960, Leont'ev 1959, 1961, Schogt 1966, Hausler 1968.

20

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS

morphemic structure on a synchronic base. Baudouin de Courtenay went both ways. But if the comparison of morpheme alternants in phonemic identification is rejected and morphemic units cannot be identified on etymological grounds, a new criterion is needed for each problem. The criterion chosen by Baudouin de Courtenay, under the influence of psychologism in the linguistics of his day, was the feeling of the native speakers.2 This notion, which is not present in his 1881 publication, became the cornerstone of his later work. His new ideas are most fully expounded in Pròba teorji alternacyj fonetycznych (1894), which appeared in a revised German translation the next year. His definitions of the phoneme and the morpheme now ran as follows (1895: 9f.): Das Phonem = eine einheitliche, der phonetischen Welt angehörende Vorstellung, welche mittelst psychischer Verschmelzung der durch die Aussprache eines und desselben Lautes erhaltenen Eindrücke in der Seele entsteht = psychischer Aequivalent des Sprachlautes. Mit der einheitlichen Vorstellung des Phonems verknüpft sich (associiert sich) eine gewisse Summe einzelner anthropophonischer Vorstellungen, welche einerseits Articulations-Vorstellungen, d.h. Vorstellungen vollgezogener oder in Vollziehung begriffener physiologischer Articulationsarbeiten, anderererseits [sfc] aber akustische Vorstellungen, d.h. Vorstellungen gehörter oder im Gehörtwerden begriffener Resultate jener physiologischer Arbeiten, sind. [...] Morphem = jeder, mit dem selbstständigen psychischen Leben versehene und von diesem Standpunkte (d.h. von dem Standpunkte eines selbstständigen psychischen Lebens) aus weiter unteilbare Wortteil. Dieser Begriff umfasst also: Wurzel (radix), alle möglichen Affixe, wie Suffixe, Praefixe, als Exponenten syntaktischer Beziehungen dienende Endungen, u.s.w.

1.2. SCERBA

These were the foundations of the Petersburg/Leningrad school in linguistics. During the twenties and thirties of the present century Baudouin de Courtenay's most prominent pupil, L.V. Scerba, dominated the linguistic scene in the Soviet Union. The inherited phonological theory remained basically unchanged in these years though the stress laid on the psychological interpretation of the phoneme varied considerably. In 1912 Scerba emphasized the word-differentiating function of the phoneme, which Baudouin de Courtenay had stated as early as 1869 (Ivic 1965: 133). This criterion is a sufficient one for establishing the number of phonemes in a given position but not for the assignment of variants in different positions to the respective phonemes. Following Söerba, sounds in complementary distribution should be identified according to their resemblance. This can mean two different things. Firstly, the feeling of the speakers can be resorted to : this was Baudouin de Courtenay's solution, which came to be known in Soviet linguistics as the 'subjective method'. It met with sharp criticism in the young Soviet state because it was regarded as a manifestation of subjective idealism. Besides, it did not yield a solution in many instances. Some of Scerba's disciples considered the first vowel of Ru. *

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

RUSSIAN PHONEMIC THEORY BEFORE 1 9 6 2

21

golova [gal av a] 'head' a variant of /a/, others identified it with /i/ (which has an unrounded back variant after hard consonants in both stressed and unstressed positions). And, as Panov puts it (1967: 376), "if the first solution of the problem turns out to be more widespread, then it is only because it is supported by Scerba himself, the very authority on 'linguistic feeling' ". The charge of idealism made §£erba stop referring to the feeling of the speakers, but it did not basically affect his ideas (1958: llOff.). The only criterion left for the identification of phonemes in different environments was phonetic resemblance. This criterion, characteristic of the so-called 'objective method', did not solve the problem just mentioned either, because [a] resembles any unrounded full vowel equally well. So there was simply a change of labels. However, it made linguistic theory less vulnerable from the Marxist methodological point of view. At the same time it opened a way back to traditional phoneticism, and this largely explains the popularity of S&rba's ideas among phoneticians after the elimination of psychological formulations.

1.3. JAKOVLEV

There were two ways of avoiding the Scylla of psychologism and the Charybdis of phoneticism. The first possibility was to return to Baudouin de Courtenay's earlier views and to take into account the alternations that morphemes show in juxtaposition with other morphemes. This was the standpoint of the eminent Caucasist N.F. Jakovlev, who as a result became the forerunner of the Moscow school of phonology. As early as the beginning of the twenties he remarked that the individual feeling of the speaker can hardly serve as a particularly reliable basis for phonemological [sic] investigations, and in fact it is no such basis in the works of the followers of phoneme theory [...] one should regard [the phoneme] as wholly conditioned by a definite correlation of phonetic and semantic elements with the lexicon and morphology of a given language (1923:66f.)

and a few years later he actually defined the phoneme as a set of alternating sounds in different positions (1928).3 Thus, the first vowel of Ru. voda [vada] 'water' is to be identified with /o/ because of the plural vody [vodi], not with /a/ as in Scerba's theory. He clearly realized the consequences of this approach: "physically absolutely identical sounds are sometimes different grammatical sounds, different phonemes" (Jakovlev and ASxamaf 1941: 407). One cannot but wonder why the Moscow school of phonology did not come into existence ten years earlier than it actually did. 1.4. TRUBETZKOY

The other way was found by the outstanding Russian linguist, N.S. Trubetzkoy (Trubeckoj), a member of the Prague Circle, who in Western Europe is generally »

Reformatskij 1970:129f., cf. Zinder 1968; 196,

22

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS IN PHONEMICS

regarded as the founder of phonology. In his opinion, the final consonant of Ru. prud 'prut] should neither be identified with /t/ on the basis of phonetic resemblance nor with /d/ on account of its alternation with [d] before case endings, because neither phonetic nor morphological criteria should be decisive in the identification of phonemic units. Word-final [t] is in fact not identical with prevocalic [t] because it is not opposed to [d], so from the functional point of view it lacks a feature which is inherent in /t/. On the other hand, prud is homophonous with prut, so these words cannot be phonologically distinct : the opposition between /t/ and /d/ is 'neutralized' in wordfinal position. This insight, which was fundamentally inspired by de Saussure, necessarily leads to the postulation of a new unit, the 'archiphoneme' (Trubetzkoy 1939: 70f.).4 The notions of 'neutralization' and 'archiphoneme' have given rise to a lot of confusion and misunderstanding which eventually prevented them from gaining general acceptance. At least three interpretations have to be distinguished. The most widespread misconception is stated by Panov in the following words (1967: 397): "N.S. Trubetzkoy and his fellow-Praguists were the founders of syntagmatic phonology". This was NOT what Trubetzkoy was primarily interested in, however. The cornerstone of his whole theory is the concept of distinctiveness, which is a paradigmatic relationship (in the sense of Hjelmslev 1943: 36) and has nothing to do with tactics. If Ru. word-final [t] cannot be identified with /t/, this is not because [d] does not occur in the same position (which is a tactical characteristic) but because the substitution of the latter sound for the former cannot yield a change of meaning. Consonants are always hard before unstressed [a] in Russian, but it does not follow that the opposition hard ~ soft is neutralized in this position, as Panov suggests (1967: 400). The non-occurrence of soft consonants before unstressed [a] is a necessary but insufficient condition for the phonemic identification of the sequence C + [a]. In the present instance, the vowel is an archiphoneme, not the consonant, as is clear from the fact that [v'azu] is interpreted as vjazu '(I) knit', not vozu '(I) carry, conduct', and [nan'asu] as nanesu '(I) shall inflict', not na nosu 'on the nose'. The second common misconception regards the notion of neutralization. Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to say that the opposition between the final consonants of the words prud and prut is neutralized. These words are homonyms ending in [t]. The fact that this sound alternates with [d] and [t] respectively before case endings is irrelevant as to its phonemic identification. Neutralization is non-distinctiveness of phonemes in a certain environment and cannot be established merely on the basis of morphemic alternations. Trubetzkoy's interpretation of tense o in Ru. [spnca] 'sun' as /ol/ is not based on morphemic alternation, as Panov suggests, but on the non-distinctiveness between [