Parametric linguistics 9783111729657, 9783110998245

Citation preview

PARAMETRIC L I N G U I S T I C S

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE N I C O L A I VAN W I J K D E D I C A T A edenda curai

C. H. V A N

SCHOONEVELD

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

SERIES

MINOR

N R . LVIII

1967

M O U T O N & CO. T H E H A G U E • PARIS

PARAMETRIC LINGUISTICS by

LOUIS G. H E L L E R THE CITY COLLEGE, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

and

JAMES MACRIS HUNTER COLLEGE, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

1967

M O U T O N & CO. T H E H A G U E • PARIS

© Copyright 1967 by Mouton & Co., Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands. 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.

Printed in the Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague

TO ANDRÉ MARTINET

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

11

1.1 Purpose

11

1.2 Definition of "Parameter"

12

1.3 Illustration of the Parametric Approach

13

2.0 Function-to-Manifesting-Mark Correlation

19

2.1 Typology

19

2.2 Function-to-Manifesting-Mark Dynamics: Diachronic Aspects 2.21 Type 2 Systems 2.22 Type 3 Systems 2.23 Type 4 Systems 2.24 Type 5 Systems

20 20 21 24 25

2.3 Function-to-Manifesting-Mark Dynamics: Synchronic Aspects

26 26

2.4 Types of Manifesting Marks: A Problem

28

3.0 Parametric Mathematics

31

3.1 Functional Yield: Intersectional Realization Versus Parametric Support

31 32

3.2 Langue-Based Versus Parole-Based Frequency . . .

31

4.0 Hierarchy of Parametric Structure 4.1 Hierarchy and Non-Intersecting Parameters . . . .

34 34

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.2 Hierarchical Shift of the Mark of Function as the Result of Neutralization: Phonological

34

4.3 Hierarchical Levels: A Semantic Parallel

36

4.4 Hierarchy at the Semantic Level 4.41 Problems in Rhetoric 4.42 Semantic Parametrics and Aphasia 4.43 Hierarchical Shift: Generalization and Specialization 4.44 Distinctive Versus Shared Parameters . . . . 4.45 Bipolar Oppositions 4.46 Emicization of Allovariants

38 38 39 41 42 42 43

5.0 Focus and Range of Parametric Variation

45

6.0 Single Versus Double Systems

47

6.1 General

47

6.2 Single Systems

47

6.3 Double Systems: Language Contact Problems . . . 6.31 Equilevel 6.311 Dislocation 6.312 Phonological displacement 6.32 Heterolevel 6.321 General 6.322 Displacement 6.323 Hierarchical chain dynamics 6.324 Parametric intersection 6.325 Combinatory heterolevel reaction: reorganization and fuller realization . . .

55 56 56 56 57 57 57 58 61 62

7.0 Graphemic Parametrics: Codebreaking

65

8.0 Literary Parametrics

69

8.1 Special Devices 8.11 Coupling: A Unifying Device

69 69

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8.12 Metaphor: A Foregrounding Device 8.13 Euphemism: A De-foregrounding and Optional Re-foregrounding Device 8.14 Characterization: A Structure-Bound Compositional Device 8.2 Typology of Evaluative Systems 9.0 General Conclusions

9

70 72 72 74 76

9.1 Basic Postulates in Retrospect

76

9.2 Perspective: Synchronic and Diachronic

77

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

Underlying this presentation is the recognition that thus far linguistic analysis has concentrated, at least in some of its developments, upon the constituents of the language system. The isolation and identification of those parameters which distinguish the particular constituents has been carried out as though it were simply a necessary but peripheral operation. The central focus has been on the constituents, not on the differentiating parameters. What has not been faced is the fact that these basic parameters are not simply units that have to be identified. Rather, they are the prime shapers and movers of the system; they cause the system to take the form that it does; they initiate the pressures that cause change and reorganization. Some types of structuralism may be characterized as incipient parametric analysis. The word incipient is used here because the emphasis of structuralists has been on the manifesting units of the system rather than on the organizational units of the system, the fundamental parameters. So far as we can determine, Louis Hjelmslev came closest to realizing the parametric principle when he stated that "the 'objects' of naive realism are ... nothing but intersections of bundles of ... dependences. ... objects can be described only with their help and can be defined and grasped scientifically only in this way. The dependences, which naive realism regards as secondary, presupposing the objects, become from this point of view primary, presupposed by their intersections."1 Hjelmslev, however, was concerned with setting up a general theory of language, and his focus was on the nature of the dependences. 1 Louis Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, trans. Francis J. Whitfield, rev. English ed. (Madison, 1961), p. 23.

12

INTRODUCTION

He did not quite reach the stage at which attention to the parameters themselves reveals the dynamics of the system, the cause of different kinds of change and reaction. What is lacking in linguistic analysis is an over-all picture of the internal dynamics of language, an integrated field theory which accounts for the final realization of counterbalancing structural pressures. This monograph attempts to provide central direction for such a theory. 1.2 DEFINITION OF "PARAMETER"

A linguistic parameter, as defined in this monograph, is any variable which differentiates any two categories in a language either (1) on the functional plane (such a parameter would be a functional distinction) or (2) on the signaling plane (such a parameter would be a manifesting distinction). We avoid the term distinctive feature because recent usage has generally restricted its meaning to the phonological, and occasionally to the morphological, level. The parameter is the demarcative variable at any level. Thus, observe the following system: p t k b d g The basic parameters in this system are voice (i.e., voicing or voicelessness) and point of articulation (i.e., labiality, apicality, or dorsality), and the system may be represented as in Table 1. !H H J•< O

£


Greek or Early Italic

s tn

VOICELESS

VOICED

Indo-European

17

Q uy o>

t

UNASPIRATED

(Unstable System 1)

£

d

t h

t

ASPIRATED

—>

W u

(Unstable System 2)

Germanic, too, was faced with a new pattern once aspiration was lost, forcing a chain reaction, with all the developments subsumed under Grimm's Law. Yet this pattern was one which had the same type of structural instability built into it, although the specific parameters had changed. Once /d h / had become /d/, /d/ had become /t/, and /t/ had become /9/, the parameters then were voicing and its lack, and stop articulation versus fricative articulation. The pattern may be depicted in Table 7, again using only the apical order for illustrative purposes. TABLE 7

UNASPIRATED ASPIRATED

d dn

Germanic

VOICELESS

VOICED

Indo-European

t

VOICELESS VOICED

»1 o H W5

w > l-i -< U K n,

t

6

d

The intersection of the fricative parameter with the voiced parameter created a slot which had not been realized, that is, /8/. The changes subsumed under Verner's Law were nothing more, then, than one of the two general solutions imposed by the parametric pressure. This solution is schematized in Table 8.2 2

We do not indicate here the intermediate stages involved in the Verner's Law and post-Verner's Law developments, since they embody certain advanced

18

INTRODUCTION

Early Germanic S H

è

H M VOICELESS VOICED

*

u g

t 0 d (ô)*

Later Germanic after undergoing Verner's Law h VOICELESS VOICED

= allophone of /8/ or /d/

Concomitant labiality was another disturbing parameter in the system, that is, one which had not been manifested to the fullest extent dictated by the system. Either Indo-European had to develop realizations of the intersections of concomitant labiality with every other parameter or it had to eliminate the former. Every Indo-European language did eliminate that parameter by one means or another. Clearly, the phonological developments involving the labiodorsals (in most handbooks on Indo-European languages usually called labiovelars) are not unmotivated; they are not simply chance developments with no causative factors. They are solutions to a general problem, a problem solvable in many specific ways but theoretically only in two generalized ways, that is, by the filling of the intersections or by the elimination of the parameters.

parametric concepts which were not fully worked out until this book was already in the final stages of preparation. In a paper entitled, "Multilateral Allovariance: Verner's Law and Other Phenomena Reconsidered", Presented on March 13, 1966, at the Eleventh Annual National Conference on Linguistics sponsored by the Linguistic Circle of New York, we outlined the whole general theory of multilateral allovariance, which applies at all hierarchical levels of a language and handles a variety of problems. This theory accounts in a precise way for some of the Verner's Law developments which have never before been explained, such as why z had to evolve to r (and to nothing else), and shows that many phonological changes not traditionally connected with Verner's Law are all part of the same pattern. A fuller version of the theory is now being readied for publication.

2

FUNCTION-TO-MANIFESTING-MARK CORRELATION

2.1 TYPOLOGY

On the basis of a function-to-manifesting-mark correlation, we may demarcate five fundamental types of systems, of which one (Type 5) is vestigial and in a sense, perhaps, more hypothetical than real: Type Type Type Type Type

1: 2: 3: 4: 5:

A single function manifested by a single mark; A single function manifested by no mark; A single function manifested by more than one mark; More than one function manifested by a single mark; No function manifested by a single mark.

From a certain point of view, Type 1 represents the most stable and efficient communicative system (or, if hierarchy is considered, possibly subsystem). Types 2 to 5 are unstable and inevitably change; the directions of change are explored below. In essence, all unstable systems by their very nature are subject to change. As will be shown, the general direction of change is regularly towards the Type 1 system (i.e., the only type which makes systemic stability possible). However, this change may pass through intermediate and essentially non-stabilitative (see 2.2) stages, to be discussed below. As will also be shown, this stability is a relative, or closed-system, stability, since evolution on some other hierarchical level (one which may represent a system of Types 2 to 5) may upset the one-function-to-one-mark relationship of the Type 1 system, with the subsequent loss of this stability. Thus, there is a continual interplay between different hierarchical levels (see 4.1) and constant evolution in language. All unstable systems have synchronic impact, and all participate in diachronic change, since

20

FUNCTION-TO-MANIFESTING-MARK CORRELATION

it is this synchronic instability which is the cause of the evolution. However, Type 4 has special aesthetic import and use in noncasual discourse, and the general theory of this Type 4 relationship has important implications for the analysis of literature, usage, and style (see 2.3). 2.2 FUNCTION-TO-MANIFESTING-MARK DYNAMICS: DIACHRONIC ASPECTS

The ideal system is the realization of the slots (on both the function plane and the manifesting-mark plane) which result from the combination of every parameter in the system with every other parameter. Two generalized kinds of evolution may take place in reaction to any instability: (1) the primary kind, one through which every system eventually passes and which may be characterized as stabilitative, and (2) a simple non-stabilitative (hence only a temporary) variation within the boundaries allowed by the system. The latter results in a new system, one with the parameters changed but with the original instabilities retained. Ultimately such a system takes the stabilitative direction, with its consequent result, namely, greater economy of that subsystem. The stabilitative evolution always takes either of two directions, additive or subtractive. These directions are explored below. 2.21 Type 2 Systems When every hole in the pattern (i.e., unrealized intersection of parameters) is not filled by a manifesting unit, either of the following developments always occurs: (1) Addition: the hole in the pattern is filled (see 6.324). (2) Subtraction: one or more of the parameters causing the intersection is removed from the system or changed in some way (see 2.23). Two factors which influence what change will take place are: (1) The availability of combinations which can be utilized to fill slots, or the degree of integration of the parameters in the sys-

FUNCTION-TO-MANIFESTING-MARK CORRELATION

21

tem, that is, the number of units which are kept discrete as a result of those parameters. (2) The frequency and importance of the units which are kept discrete as a result of the existence of the parameters. In generalizing at a higher level, we might say that in such a system the basic problem is the elimination of holes in the pattern (defined as the non-realization of intersections of parameters). A hole may be eliminated by filling it, thus keeping the slot but eliminating the hole in the pattern, or by eliminating the parameter and consequently the intersection of parameters which constitutes the slots. Both processes may be seen at work in the alternative solutions of the problems dealt with later. 2.22 Type 3 Systems When a single function (whatever that function may be) is manifested by more than one mark (i.e., by allovariants), either of the following possibilities occurs, possibilities which reflect in a very precise fashion the same generalized solutions to the central historical problem seen in Type 2 solutions: addition or subtraction. Here the addition occurs via the expansion of the number of functions (representing a manifestation of the potentialized function imposed by the parameters) and the subtraction via the elimination of one or more of the marks. At a certain stage in the history of the English language, there existed two past tense forms of the verb hang, namely, hanged and hung (ironically, as indicated in 4.46, the rise of the alternatives was occasioned by parametric pressure). At this particular time, because of factors within the culture itself, there existed two contextdetermined allosememes of the single verb hang, with one representing the special application of the verb to the punishment of criminals. The presence in the system of two marks for the same function projected the potential double function to the actual correlate with the double mark. The chance existence of the allosememes (i.e., semantic functions) provided the maximal realization

22

FUNCTION-TO-MANIFESTING-MARK CORRELATION

of the potentialized system, namely, the emicization by the splitting of the single function into two contrastive units, with the total realignment of the system as a dichotomous function-to-manifesting-mark contrast. Conversely, the coexistence of more than one mark for a single function often results in the elimination of one of the marks in favor of its statistically predominant form. Thus, in the competition between shoon and shoes, the latter, utilizing the -s plural mark which was well embedded in the system, ousted the former, which utilized the by-then infrequent -n plural mark. Various scholars deal with the matter of analogy, working out complex breakdowns of the subtypes thereof. For example, Carl Darling Buck, in his Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin,1 lists among other types functional analogy (which he also calls external grammatical analogy), internal grammatical analogy, congeneric analogy, and analogy between words of contrastive meaning. Every one of these types may be seen from the parametric poiut of view as a special instance of the Type 3 function-to-manifestingmark correlational problem. In each of these instances, the function happens to be different, but where more than one manifesting unit occurs for a single function, the system strives (as one solution to the parametric pressure) for a simple one-mark-to-one-function correlation, with the consequent elimination of alternative marks. In other words, the Type 3 system, which we have characterized as inherently unstable, tends to develop toward a Type 1 system, which we have described as fundamentally stable. However, the Type 3 instability allows two solutions, both of which eventuate in a Type 1 resultant. In one solution, the multiple marks are reduced to a single mark, resulting in a single-function, single-mark relationship (i.e., Type 1); in the other, the single function is split so that each mark has a correlative function which it manifests, again restoring the one-to-one relationship found in Type 1 systems. The latter solution is dealt with in 4.46. Buck defines functional analogy as "analogy between forms of 1

Chicago, 1948.

FUNCTION-TO-MANIFESTING-MARK CORRELATION

23

corresponding function, as like cases, tenses, etc.", 2 and he cites see'd and teached as potential past tense forms of see and teach. English, of course, has a number of past tense marks, with its many subvarieties of strong verbs which manifest this past tense function by internal vowel change as opposed to the now statistically predominant weak verbs, which manifest the same function by the {-ed} suffix. What is relevant here is the fact that, whether the verb be strong or weak, the past tense function is still a past tense function, regardless of the mark which manifests it, and the system is achieving an over-all economy by utilizing a single mark for this single function. Thus, as in the distant past other strong verbs have passed to the weak conjugation and in the recent past dove has started to switch to dived, so too see'd is currently used by some speakers instead of saw. Internal analogy Buck defines as "analogy between different inflectional forms of the same word [italics ours]. Thus, roofs, hoofs have their /after the analogy of the singular, in contrast to the inherited relationship in wife, wives, shelf, shelves-, ,.." 3 Here Buck was differentiating his types of analogy according to whether he had one word with different inflectional forms or two words. The principle, nevertheless, remains precisely the same. Both the hoof of the singular and the hoov- of the plural manifest exactly the same function (whatever that may be). The additional function of marking plurality is manifested by an {-5} suffix. Since both hoof and hoovmanifest the same function, the system restores the one-mark-toone-function correlation by eliminating one of the allomarks. Fundamentally, this type of analogy differs in no way from external grammatical analogy, since a single function is still a single function, whether at the intra- or the inter-word level. Buck defines congeneric analogy as "the association between words of the same semantic group, such as numerals, words of relationship, of color, etc. ..." 4 He cites the development of Late Latin Octember on the analogy of September, November, and 2 3 4

Ibid., p. 45. Ibid., p. 46. Loc. cit.

24

FUNCTION-TO-MANIFESTING-MARK CORRELATION

December. Such semantic groups are classified together because of the underlying parameter or parameters which they share in common. But the specification of such meaning(s) is, after all, just another type of function, and one which must be manifested by some kind of mark. In the instance of the terms for the months, all of the units shared the -ber mark, but September, November, and December all had -ember in their make-up; consequently, the -ober of October seemed to be a nondistinctive variant marking the same function (i.e., the name of a month), whence, in accordance with the one-mark-to-one-function principle, the analogical extension to the attested Octember. Buck sets up "analogy between words of contrasted meaning" as distinct from congeneric analogy, and cites Vulgar Latin grevis for gravis on the analogy of levis, and Modern English female for femell ( < OFr. femelle [ < L. *feminla]) on the analogy of male.5 What seems relevant here is not the fact that such words contrast in meaning but rather that they share certain underlying semantic parameters, just as other congenerics do. The partial similarity of form suggests that these forms represent allovariants marking the same function (a weight-marking signification in the case of grevis and levis, and of human in the case of female/male). With the general pressure toward the one-mark-to-one-function relationship, there is a move toward closer phonological identity (i.e., reduction of the variant marks to a single manifesting mark of the single function). Clearly, all of the foregoing types of analogy may be seen as the same type of solution to a Type 3 function-to-manifesting-mark pressure. The only difference between them is the nature of the function and the particular marks used to manifest the function. The dynamics of each, however, is the same. 2.23 Type 4 Systems The Type 4 system, which manifests more than one function by a single mark, also leads to either of the two types of change: the 5

Ibid., p. 47.

FUNCTION-TO-MANIFESTING-MARK CORRELATION

25

additive or the subtractive. The additive solution may be illustrated by a development during the Middle English period. At that time the semantic-level functions of signaling both the meaning 'gate' and the meaning 'way, manner' were manifested by the single form gate. Eventually, the French loanword manière was used as an alternative manifesting mark of the second function, with the subsequent obsolescence of one use of the homophone gate, except in restricted dialectal occurrences.6 The subtractive solution, by way of elimination of a function, is comparatively rare, since, as is shown elsewhere, the function (if it is important to the system) is manifested by some means, whether on the same hierarchical level or on some other. However, the elimination of the Old English dual category exemplified by the word wit 'we two' may be the result of its homophony with wit 'reason, understanding'.

2.24 Type 5 Systems

As stated above, the Type 5 system, which has a no-function-toone-manifesting-mark relationship, is really a vestigial system which represents a transitional stage. Hypothetically, we might also see additive or subtractive solutions with the acquisition of a function to correlate with the unassigned manifesting mark or with the loss of that mark. Thus, the Latin -tion-, a complex suffix used to form verbal abstracts, represents an original -ti- suffix + a nasal suffix. Since the -ti- variant was used uncompounded to form verbal abstracts, the nasal suffix, whatever its original function, no longer manifested that function at a certain period in Latin but remained an unassigned manifesting unit with no correlative function. In this instance, then, the evolution toward stability actually passes through an intermediate stage, that is, Type 3 - an unstable type, but one which, as indicated, eventually evolves toward the Type 1 stable system. 8 For a thorough treatment of this type of system, see Edna Rees Williams, The Conflict of Homonyms in English (= Yale Studies in English, Vol. 100) (New Haven, 1944).

26

FUNCTION-TO-MANIFESTING-MARK CORRELATION 2.3 FUNCTION-TO-MANIFESTING-MARK D Y N A M I C S : SYNCHRONIC ASPECTS

We have already specified (in 2.1) that all unstable systems have some synchronic impact; in fact, it is this very impact which results in change. We must point out, however, that Type 4 correlations have special synchronic dimensions, in contrast to the other types, since they have a particular foregrounding impact. Any device which forces the audience to give greater attention to the decoding process may serve a foregrounding function. The Type 4 relationship manifests more than one function by a single unit. Hence, the audience is forced to consider which of the functions is being signaled in any given communication, or indeed whether both are being signaled at the same time, whence the attempt to maintain both patterns simultaneously with consequent greater attention to the decoding. All types of double-entendre and ambiguity, as well as the various types of puns, rely upon the Type 4 relationship. Consider, for example, the following pun in James Joyce's Ulysses: " - I am the resurrection and the life... u

... Come forth, Lazarus! And he came fifth and lost the job." 7 As a lexical item, /for8/ fits two separate patterns (i.e., manifests two underlying functions); it is a realization of items belonging to two different lexical sets.8 One is a locative set, such that back might be another lexical item. The other is a sequential set, such that second, third, or fifth would be co-members. In the two clauses, the items forth and fifth occur in postverbal position. When the verb is come or came, the most likely choice of a lexical set would be the locative-directional type. Consequently, when the audience reads "Come forth", this particular potential locative correlates with other locatives, such as back, and the forth is identified as a '

James Joyce, Ulysses (New York, The Modern Library, 1961), p. 105. A lexical set is a group of words which share one or more underlying semantic parameters. For example, all words pertaining to males share one semantic parameter. Jack and Jill belong to the same lexical set, that is, names of human beings. See 2.4 and 4.3. 8

Diachronic change Emicization of the allovariant of the function (see 2.22 and 4.46) Diachronic change, Acquisition of manibut synchronicfesting units for each aesthetic reaction function (see 2.23) (see 2.3)

Unstable

Unstable

-

s - s V ^

> 1 (= more than 1)

-

-

-

> 1 (= more than 1)