The Theory of Syntax in Modern Linguistics [Transl. from Russian, Reprint 2020 ed.] 9783112414668, 9783112414651

Citation preview

THE THEORY OF SYNTAX IN MODERN LINGUISTICS

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA M E M O R I A E 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 INDIANA

SCHOONEVELD UNIVERSITY

SERIES M I N O R 68

1969

MOUTON T H E H A G U E • PARIS

THE THEORY OF SYNTAX IN MODERN LINGUISTICS by

OLGA A K H M A N O V A and GALINA M I K A E L ' A N MOSCOW UNIVERSITY

Translated from Russian

1969

MOUTON THE H A G U E • PARIS

© Copyright 1969 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.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 69-13300

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

FOREWORD

This book was originally intended as a Guide to Modern Syntax for the Soviet student of linguistics, with special reference to nonSoviet publications not always readily available in the remoter parts of the USSR. It also included a brief statement of the authors' own views on Syntax. When the offer to translate the book into English came, the authors were foolhardy enough to accept it without qualification. It was only when the translation was already well under way and a large part of it was brought to them for approval that they realized what they were in for. 'Modern' syntactic theories in 1966 is something quite different from what it was in 1962, linguistics making great strides all along and new vistas opening at every turn. Besides, writing with the English-speaking world in mind is something quite different from addressing one's compatriots, with whose general linguistic background the authors are familiar and whose congenial understanding of crucial methodological problems can be relied on. The book, therefore, had to be completely revised. Many of its parts had to be curtailed (the theories in question having been dwarfed by new syntactic giants!); new names and approaches had to be fitted in. Needless to say, the authors' own views on many a point had changed in the meantime: new issues have been raised; with respect to the older ones the authors have either become convinced of the truth of their original statements (and therefore could not resist the temptation of expounding them more fully and categorically) or had to reject them' as hypotheses not corroborated by subsequently accumulated facts. It is a pleasure to acknowledge our indebtedness to Professor

6

FOREWORD

Dean Stoddard Worth, whose very interesting and thorough review of the Russian edition has been of great help in the preparation of the English version. We are deeply grateful to Professors V. V. Vinogradov, R. A. Budagov, A. B. Shapiro, T. P. Lomtev, and Val. Vas. Ivanov, who had read the Russian text in typescript and offered valuable suggestions. OLGA AKHMANOVA GALINA MIKAEL'AN

TABLE O F CONTENTS

Foreword

5

Introduction

9

1. "Text Signals Its Own Structure"

13

2. Not the Directly Observable 'Data', but the Underlying 'Facts'

24

3. Both the 'Data' and the 'Facts' Are Ever-present in the Linguist's Mind

43

4. Syntax and Syntagmatics

75

5. Some Outstanding Problems of Syntactic Theory: . A. The Problem of 'Content' B. The Problem of 'Grammaticality' . . . . C. The Problem of the'Syntactic Unit' . . . D. Formatting and Synthesis

.

.

95 95 101 109 133

Index of Names

141

Index of Terms

144

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps the most salient feature of 20th century linguistics is the following: long before the Advent of the Electronic Computer the search for an objective explication of linguistic phenomena was hailed as the harbinger of a new era — the age of scientific languagestudy. The 'formal' and later the 'mathematical' approach were steadily gaining ground. At the same time much eifort was wasted, with much shooting beside the mark, through lack of an intelligible definition of the adjective 'formal': what after all were the theoretical-linguistic premisses of the 'mechanistic' theory, the linguistic foundations of the new 'scientific' approach? Incidentally, one of the gravest misconceptions consisted in apprehending the 'formal' description as one which excludes 'meaning', is not concerned with the 'content' of linguistic forms. It is most gratifying that this point has now been cleared, the explicitation of the 'semantic component' of utterances going hand in hand with the endeavours to formalize their purely syntactic characteristics.1 Another epidemic infantile disorder of the current century was 1 The misunderstanding was especially flagrant in so far as Bloomfield was concerned. See Charles C. Fries, "The Bloomfield School", Trends in European and American Linguistics, 1930-60, Christine Mohrmann et al., editors (UtrechtAntwerp, MCMLXI). Especially enlightening is the excerpt from a private letter by Bloomfield on p. 215: "It has become painfully common to say that I or rather a whole group of language students of whom I am one, pay no attention to meaning or neglect it, or even that we undertake to study language without meaning, simply as meaningless sound ... It is not just a personal affair that is involved in the statements to which I have referred, but something which, if allowed to develop, will injure the progress of our science by setting up a fictitious contrast between students who consider meaning and students who neglect it or ignore it. The latter class, so far as I know, does not exist."

10

INTRODUCTION

the tendency to abandon altogether the concepts, terms and definitions of 'traditional' linguistics. There is a complete reversal of the tendency now with an almost exaggerated inclination on the part of some to turn for support to views and pronouncements of the remotest past. Whatever the excesses, one way or another, rejection of the 'ecliptic stand', of parochialism and better-thanthou partisanship should be hailed with enthusiasm. Although definitions of Syntax (its scope, aims, etc.) still throng and clash, in actual practice all 'talking about syntax' is more or less consistently centered on the Sentence as the main and universal unit of speech. Sentences could not, however, be produced and reproduced in speech if they were not based on certain units of language: the ability to form concrete sentences presupposes the existence of 'deep' structures and covert syntactic mechanisms as parts of the abstract 'langue'. This Janus-like character of the sentence, the fact that it is, at once, an avatar of a hidden generalized entity and a concrete individual event, should make it incumbent on the linguist to bear both aspects constantly in mind.2 This, however, is by no means a generally accepted view. Besides, the two basic concepts themselves, i.e., language and speech, still remain controversial, different scholars holding widely differing views on the dichotomy in question. Epistemologically, language is the abstract system, the generalized symbolism derived from the innumerable variations of actual speech events; a system of simultaneous, co-existing abstract elements. Speech is the concrete physical experience, a form of social consciousness and behaviour of individuals. The importance of the distinction is reflected, among other things, in the great number of different names the two members of the dichotomy have received: language - speech, system - process, code - message, institution act, type - token, intension - extension, constraint - choice, or — in terms of methods of research — set-theoretical vs. probabilistic. 2 Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky, Objektivnosl' suscestvovanija jazyka [The Objective Existence of Language] (Moscow, 1954); Alan H. Gardiner, "The Distinction of 'Speech' and 'Language'", Atti del III Congresso Internazionale dei Linguisti (Florence, 1935); P. S. Kuznetsov, "O jazyke i reci [Concerning language and speech]", Vestnik MGU, No. 4 (1961).

INTRODUCTION

11

The different approaches to the language - speech dichotomy reflect the basic differences in the general philosophic background of a linguistic theory. If the philosophy of a linguistic school is rooted in objective idealism, then 'language' will stand out as the primary, ideal entity, with its transcendental existence independent of its concrete realizations or manifestations. If the philosophy is positivistic, then linguistic communication becomes merely a form of behaviour to be studied as a natural phenomenon. We believe that the antinomy is resolved by dialectical materialism : language as 'the general' (obsceje) exists only in the particular (v otdernom i cerez otcTel'noje) and knows no other form of existence. The sum total of concrete utterances or 'speech events' (the proizv'edenja reci) may be compared to a rock, a matrix carrying the 'ore' — the language (to be extracted or distilled from it). But they are much more than that. They are also the source, the mainspring, the power responsible for the never ceasing processes of linguistic development and change. Language thrives on variety and versatility of speech, it grows and develops when the number of different spheres of human communication, its aims and forms become more varied and versatile. It shrinks if the scope and variety of its uses in speech is diminished. The mutual relation of language and speech being pivotal, it is but natural to use it as the basis of classification of syntactic theories. From a general philosophic and methodological point of view the different approaches to the language-speech problem can, schematically, be reduced to the following three: (1) Insofar as in the linguist's immediate experience nothing is given except so many concrete 'texts' (utterances, speech events), Syntax is virtually confined to the study of Speech. (2) Although the linguist's immediate experience is confined to speech (although nothing is directly apprehended by him except so many proizvedenija reci), the object of study becomes scientific only if the researcher succeeds in abstracting himself from those particular manifestations. As a scientist he is expected to conceive certain immanent entities, certain constructs, which, by deduction,

12

INTRODUCTION

will appear as prior to and independent of their concrete realisations. (3) Although there's nothing in the linguist's actual experience except 'texts' — certain kinds of historically unique activities forming part of the general behaviour of individuals — these must be simultaneously considered both as the product of the particular occasion, the momentary 'intention' or 'choice' of the speaker, and as the sum total of those qualifications that are permanently inherent in them and can be recognized apart from context — in the case of Syntax — as schemata or patterns.

1

" T E X T S I G N A L S ITS O W N

STRUCTURE"1

According to the founder of American descriptive linguistics, Leonard Bloomfield, the grammar of a language is constituted by meaningful arrangement of its forms. Each of the different ways of arranging linguistic forms is a simple feature of grammatical arrangement or a 'taxeme'. The taxemes are: order, modulation, phonetic modification and selection.2 (1) Order is the 'succession in which the constituents of a complex form are spoken', the mutual arrangement, the sequential relationship of the constituents or components of an utterance. It is exemplified by the expression of the subject-object relationship, which in Modern English relies entirely on order: John hit Bill vs. Bill hit John; 3 (2) Modulation is the use of secondary phonemes—i.e. sentencestress, juncture, pitch etc.; (3) Phonetic modification is the change in the primary phonemes of a form in the utterance; and (4) Selection is the choice of forms as belonging to certain 'form-classes', the latter term being a refinement of the traditional 'parts of speech'. It should be noted that Bloomfield's contribution to the theory of parts of speech consists not merely in opening the 1 Martin Joos, "Linguistic Prospects in the United States", Trends in European and American Linguistics 1930-60, p. 17, ed. Christine Mohrmann et al. (Utrecht and Antwerp, MCMLXI) and "A Chapter of Semology in the English verb", Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown Univ., Washington, USA, No. 17 (1964), 61. 2 Leonard Bloomfield, Language (New York, 1933), 163-165. It is interesting to note that the taxemes are so presented by Bloomfield as to give priority to the directly observable ones. 3 In addition to the purely syntactic function, order may also have 'connotative' value: away ran John is 'livelier' than John ran away.

14

"TEXT SIGNALS ITS OWN STRUCTURE"

way to its much needed refinement. His approach is consistently 'mechanistic', i.e., based entirely on positivistically observable phenomena, on the data of concrete speech-events. Thus, for example, drink milk and watch John name actions, while fresh milk and poor John name objects. The former are 'infinitive expressions', the latter 'substantive' ones, the difference depending upon the SELECTION of the first constituent. It is by virtue of this difference that the forms drink and fresh are said to belong to the form-classes of transitive verbs and adjectives, respectively. Also in actor-action constructions, for example, the forms in the actor position constitute the class of 'noun-expressions'. Each taxeme can be singled out and described independently of the others. Thus, for instance, in Run! the modulation feature of exclamatory final pitch is superimposed on the selective feature, consisting in the use of an infinitive verb (as against, for instance, the use of a noun: John!) A taxeme of order will signal the difference between actor-action and action-goal, as in John ran and catch John etc. Whatever the particular instances in different languages, the important point is that taxemes give the utterance its tactic form, are used as signalling units of the syntactic level. When the tactic form is considered together with its 'episememe' it becomes a 'tagmeme'. Thus the taxeme of exclamatory final pitch when considered together with the appropriate episememe — that of 'strong stimulus', becomes the tagmeme of exclamatory final pitch. In drink milk and fresh milk the taxemes of selection distinguish infinitive expressions from adjectives. The episememe which makes the infinitive expression into a tagmeme is the 'class meaning of action'. 4 Although selection comes last in the list of taxemes syntax consists largely in defining its results — in stating, for instance, under what circumstances (with what accompanying forms or, if the accompanying forms are the same, with what difference of meaning) various form-classes (as, say, indicative and subjunctive 4 For a very interesting discussion of the term 'tagmeme' see F. W. Householder, Jr., "On Linguistic Terms", Psycholinguistics, ed. Sol Saporta (New York, 1961), 24-25.

"TEXT SIGNALS ITS OWN STRUCTURE"

15

verbs, or dative and accusative nouns, and so on) appear in syntactic constructions. "... We shall see that the great form-classes of a language are most easily described in terms of word-classes (such as the traditional 'parts of speech'), because the form-class of a phrase is usually determined by one or more of the words which appear in it." 5 Syntax is concerned with only the free forms of a language — the ultimate constituents on the level of syntax being words. The difference between form-classes and parts-of-speech becomes apparent when the term 'expression' is introduced to include 'phrases'. Thus both the substantive John and the 'substantive phrase' poor John are 'substantive expressions'.6 A 'word' is a form which may be uttered alone (with meaning) but cannot be analyzed into parts that may (all of them) be uttered alone (with meaning); therefore a word is a 'minimum free form'. A phrase is a non-minimum free form. The Joos reprint of the postulates includes an extract from a letter by Bloomfield to John Kepke (April 17, 1934) which shows that Bloomfield's thinking developed in the direction of greater rigidity of border-lines. "... At that time I had not the courage to call the king-of-England's and the like 'one word'. Hence the possessive's' was here a bound form which was not part of a word.... Today I call the King-of-England's and the like 'one word'; hence every bound form will now be part of a word ...". When a linguistic form appears in absolute position, i.e. not as part of a larger construction in the given utterance, it constitutes a 6 Bloomfield, op. eit., 190: the term 'parts of speech' is traditionally applied to the most inclusive and fundamental word-classes (pp. 190, 196). These are subdivided into smaller ones. Surprisingly they turn out to be mostly 'slovoforms' (slovoformy), i.e., particular words in their particular grammatical allo-realisations. At the same time some of Bloomfield's more refined classifications put one in mind of B. L. Whorf's 'reactances' - see, for example, the classification of adjectives on p. 202 ff. 6 The definitions can be found in Bloomfield's famous "A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language", originally published in Language, 2 (1926), 153164, and reprinted in the collection of articles Readings in Linguistics, ed. Martin Joos (New York, 1958), and Psycholinguistics; A Book of Readings, ed. Sol Saporta (New York, 1961).

16

"TEXT SIGNALS ITS OWN STRUCTURE"

'sentence'. In many languages sentences are marked off by modulation. When a sentence consists of more than one minimum free form the taxeme of order comes to the fore. Especially important becomes the category of 'recurrent sames of order' or 'constructions'. The basic principles of inductive syntax, the "ways and means of objective explicitation of the analyst's intuitive research decisions", which were laid down by Bloomfield, were later elaborated and amplified by his followers. They have also been repeatedly criticised — more recently even rejected in toto. When all had been said and done, however, nearly 30 years later the inductive method in Syntax still holds ground and competes successfully with its would-be successors.7 Garvin's is perhaps the most thorough and up-to-date presentation of the approach in question. His poignant criticism of the 'as if model'8 is based on the contention that natural languages do lend themselves to direct investigation. They differ from other systems of signs.9 It is relevant to recall here, that in the closing lines of the theoretical introduction to Bloomfield's language an epistemologically identical approach is formulated with his usual straightforword clarity (Language, 20): "The only useful generalizations about language are inductive generalizations. ... When we have adequate data about many languages we shall have to return to the problem of general grammar and explain their similarities and 7

See, especially, Paul L. Garvin, On Linguistic Method (The Hague, 1964), 63 ff. Garvin is convinced that "linguistic data are in essence amenable to empirical treatment, and that the techniques necessary for this can be inferred from a commonsense consideration of some of the consistently observable characteristics of natural languages" (p. 7). 8 The 'as if' model in effect suggests: "Since we cannot deal with our object of cognition effectively or directly, let's look at it as if it were something else with which we can deal, and which is sufficiently similar to it so that we can generalize back" (op. cit., 7). 9 By possessing specific structural properties which form three sets of levels. The second and third of the three sets belong to the domain of Syntax and comprise two levels of organisation - selection and arrangement - and several levels of integration. See also Michael Zarechnak, "A Fourth Level of Linguistic Analysis", National Physics Laboratory, Teddington, England, 1962.

"TEXT SIGNALS ITS OWN STRUCTURE"

17

divergences, but this study, when it comes, will be not speculative but inductive." Form-classes and taxemes, though basic in descriptive syntax and adequate in so far as the ultimate constituents of utterances were concerned could not, however, account for the more complex syntactic relationships inherent in human speech. There were also innumerable ambiguities to be resolved. How did one know, for instance, that the king of England opened parliament consisted, on some higher level of syntactic analysis, of the king of England and opened parliament and not of the king | of England opened parliament etc., etc.? Because of what would 'traditionally' be described as 'the juncture of predication' after England? Strangely enough Bloomfield did not turn to 'completely objective' criteria of this kind. 10 Instead he falls back on the mythical 'informant', the generalized and inconceivable 'any English-speaking person' ...: "Any English-speaking person, who concerns himself with this matter is sure to tell us that the immediate constituents of Poor John ran away are the two forms Poor John and ran away. ... Only in this will a proper analysis (that is, one which takes account of the meanings) lead to the ultimately constituent morphemes." Bloomfield's 'antimentalist', positivist approach to linguistic analysis was fully expounded as far back as 1933; as late as 1952 it was still unreservedly regarded by Ch. C. Fries as an example of "modern scientific study ... (providing) ... new principles and new assumptions which underlie new methods of analysis and verification". 11 At the same time Fries is quite prepared to sacrifice 10 In direct contrast with B. Bloch and G. L. Trager, An Outline of English Structure (Oklahoma, 1951), who neatly distinguish between 'phonemic' and 'morphemic' units by means of rigorously applied microlinguistic criteria: the 'phonemic' word, phrase and sentence are marked off by internal and terminal junctures; the 'morphemic* ones are classified according to their constituent 'bases' and intonation contours. 11 Ch. C. Fries, The Structure of English (London, 1961), 1. Very instructive to compare these with pp. 2ff. below: how eloquently Fries speaks of 'the new approach' which rests upon a fundamentally different view of the nature of 'grammar', "a view that has given tremendous enthusiasm to students of the new grammar and fresh hope that the results of their study will become increasingly useful for insight into the nature and functioning of language", etc., etc.

18

"TEXT SIGNALS ITS OWN STRUCTURE"

methodological rigour to practicability. He seeks to elaborate a system of syntactic description which is both acceptable to the practising linguist and applicable in language teaching. Fries' 'new Syntax' explicitly rejects the traditional analysis into 'parts of the sentence'. The grammar of a language is the sum total "of the devices that signal structural meaning" (p. 56). The constituents of the English sentence are not words, but form classes or parts-of-speech. A form-class consists of all the units which occupy the same syntactic positions, in the same kind of syntactic environment. The four main form-classes are established by means of substitution procedures. These four classes are: (1) words of class I, i.e., units like concert, food, taste, container, privacy, family, etc.; (2) words of class II, i.e., units like is, was, seem, become, remember, want, etc.; (3) words of class III, i.e., units like good, large, new, etc.; and (4) words of class IV, i.e., units like there, always, suddenly, etc. The different 'positions' in which a part of speech can stand constitute its functions or uses, the positions being indicated in minimum 'frames'. Thus for instance, in the clerk remembered the tax, clerk can be substituted for by husband, supervisor, etc. (with due attention to 'subgroups' as in a footnote to p. 79: a member of class I words for which her or she can be substituted, etc.). The difference between 'words' and parts of speech or formclasses is clearly shown in nonsense-sentences. If, for instance, it is assumed that woggles ugged diggles, uggs woggled diggs and woggs diggled uggles contain overt 'structural signals', then there is nothing to prevent speakers of English from making such new utterances as A woggle ugged a diggle, an ugg woggles diggs, A digged woggle ugged a woggled diggle, etc. etc. "We would know that woggles and uggs and woggs are 'thing words' because they are treated as English treats 'thing' words ... by the 'positions', they occupy in the utterances and the forms they have in contrast with other positions and forms" (pp. 71-72), the same reasoning obtaining for all the rest of the imaginary slovoforms. From this example it also becomes apparent that "An English sentence is not a group of words as words but rather a structure made up of form

"TEXT SIGNALS ITS OWN STRUCTURE"

19

classes or parts of speech. In order to know the structural meanings signalled by the formal arrangements of our sentences one need not know the lexical meanings of the words but he must know (in the sense of'respond to') the form-classes to which the words belong." (p. 64). The main fourfold taxonomy is supplemented by 15 groups of 'function words': modal and auxiliary verbs, prepositions, conjunctions, some kinds of adverbs, etc. "Function words differ from the four main classes in many ways, but most important ... and the basis for separating the 15 from the 4 and for calling them 'function words' is the fact that in order to respond to certain structural signals one must know these words as items" (p. 106); for the four main classes identification rests upon a different basis (p. 109). The basic structure of the English sentence depends on a combination of words of the first and second of the main classes. The members of the four main classes also possess certain intrinsic properties — they are formally distinguished by morphological or form markers. But position markers in particular sentences always supercede the morphological ones (p. 141). Thus, for instance, in a sentence like the poorest are always with us, poorest, although morphologically marked as a member of class III (-est being the inflection of the superlative degree of adjectives) by its functions is a word of class I (also preceded by the which is proper to units of class I, i.e., nouns). Thus 'function' in syntax always prevails over 'form'. Form-classes are functional units. It may well be asked: what after all is the difference between 'form-classes' on the one hand and 'parts of speech' and 'parts of the sentence' on the other? In so far as descriptive syntax is confined to speech it does not concern itself with the relationship between speech and language: parts of the sentence as constituents of concrete speech events (utterances) and 'parts of speech' as invariant elements of language (la langue). The circularity of explicating the structure of the utterance in terms of form classes which are discoverable mainly in terms of their positions in the utterance becomes evident: if the members of one and the same

20

"TEXT SIGNALS ITS OWN STRUCTURE"

form-class can occur in different positions the latter cannot be regarded as reliable criteria. Fries has not remained blind to this flaw in the reasoning and tried to find a solution by further developing the concept of 'sameness': two or more class I words (i.e., words belonging to the same form-class) may have different 'referents' (!); unfortunately no scientific methods of identifying 'referents' are proposed, the term itself appearing in inverted commas (see p. 189). Nevertheless it is on the specific character of the referent that the researcher is invited to rely when deciding what exactly the particular class I word signals in this or that utterance.12 It was only natural that the idea of 'texts signalling their own structure' (with 'texts' in the literal sense, as written speech) should be hailed by those who had hoped speedily to construct 'sentence-interpreting' and 'sentence-producing' grammars: the ambitious dream of automatic (machine) translation could then be immediately realized.13 There was even a short-lived period of time when the form-class approach to syntactic arrangement (with, of course, all the necessary refinements and sub-groupings) seemed not only to be completely reliable, but also exhaustive and adequate. In some extreme cases the researcher was fain to by-pass the more complex syntactic problems — even when descriptive linguistics had already put its finger on them, when it had already been pointed out by the leading representatives of the Trend that descriptive syntax is far from being completely explicit. A case in point is the theory of 'Immediate Constituents'. On page 17 above mention has already been made of this all-important aspect of Syntactic analysis. But Bloomfield did not go beyond explaining this syntactic category in a general way. R. S. Wells was therefore quite right in assuming that all the methods offered before 194714 were "heterogeneous and incomplete". Following " The 'referents' are by no means the only ground for subgrouping; cf. p. 00 above. 13 Cf. H. A. Gleason, Jr., An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics (New York, 1961), 205-207 and 210. 14 Rulon S. Wells, "Immediate Constituents", Language, 23,81-117; reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, I, ed. M. Joos (New York, 1958), 186-207.

"TEXT SIGNALS ITS OWN STRUCTURE"

21

Zellig S. Harris, Wells sought to work out a unified systematic theory, with the concept of patterning serving as the unifying basis. 'Heterogeneous' terms like 'word' etc. were jettisoned. All constituents, including single morphemes, are 'sequences'. AH sequences are assigned to certain sequence-classes, which, in their turn, are based on the assignment of all morphemes to morpheme-classes, always on the basis of the environments in which they occur. One sequence of morphemes can be substituted for another (provided that one of the sequences contains at least as many morphemes as the other and is structurally diverse from it). This specific substitutability of a sequence belonging to one sequence-class for a sequence, belonging to an entirely different sequence class (or 'expansion') becomes the most significant point of the whole theory.15 In this way Wells hopes to work out objective methods of IC analysis instead of relying on the reactions of "any Englishspeaking person", or "the automatic response of those who know the language".16 The sentence the King of England opened Parliament is now segmented into King of England and opened Parliament on the completely objective grounds that the King of England is an EXPANSION of a shorter sequence, while of England opened etc. is not. The preferred sequences are those that appear in the greater number of environments. The class of all sequences substitutable for a given focus in a given environment is the focus-class relative to that environment. The concept of 'parts of the sentence' as well as their intricate and involved relationship with 'parts of speech' becomes irrelevant to syntactic analysis: the structure of the sentence is fully accounted for by the structure of the morpheme sequences plus their positions in the utterance. In his work on immediate constituents Wells has also made a profound analysis of what he called the juncture, stress, and pitch 'morphemes'. The latter had already been investigated by K. L. Pike. As far back as 1943 in his "Taxemes and Immediate con16 The original sequence is a model: if A is an expansion of B, B is a model of A (p. 187). 16 Fries, op. cit., 272.

22

"TEXT SIGNALS ITS OWN STRUCTURE"

tituents"17 Pike refined the method of IC analysis by showing that in endocentric constructions immediate constituents are discovered by separating the definiens and the definiendum, as in very fresh milk. He also drew attention to the fact that IC analysis is affected both by junctures and the general semantic context, f.ex. /QasAnzreizmi:t/, analysable both as the sons | raise meat and the sun's rays \ meet, the man paid for a bench in the park - (1) paid for a bench \ in the park and (2) paid / for a bench in the park. In contrast with Pike, Wells may then be said to belong to the 'left' wing of the Trend, which is most brilliantly represented by Z. S. Harris.18 Dialectically it is to the latter that the reverse Trend discussed in Part II can be traced: all along Harris has attempted to give mathematical formulation to his statements and has been instrumental in deepening "the cleavage between mathematical linguists, or metalinguists, and the physical linguists, whom I shall call just plain linguists".19 It should be emphasized in this connection, that the divisions adopted in the present book are not based on 'schools' or groups of persons brought together by common territories or allegiances. The main purpose here is to explain the different approaches, the different points of view as such.20 17

Language, 19, 2, 66-82. Zellig S. Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1951); "From Morpheme to Utterance", Language, 22, 161-183, reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, ed. M. Joos (New York, 1958). Another classic is Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, "A Quasi-Arithmetical Notation for Syntactic Description", Language, 29 (1953), 47-58. 19 Einar Haugen, "Directions in Modern Linguistics", Language 27, 211222, reprinted in above-quoted Readings in Linguistics. 20 It seems worth-while to quote in this connection three pronouncements by outstanding representatives of the respective 'schools': (1) "... I do not use the term 'the Copenhagen school' ... because I doubt very much whether such a school exists. It has not been customary in Denmark to form linguistic 'schools'" (Eli Fischer-Jargensen, Glossematics, Lecture at Washington Linguistic Club, 26 March 1952); (2) ... Bloomfield ... despised 'schools', insisting that the usual attitude of the adherents of a 'school' strikes at the very foundation of all sound science. ... To Bloomfield one of the most important outcomes of the first 21 years of the Linguistic Society of America was that it had saved us from the blight of the odium theologicum and the postulation of 'schools'" (Ch. C. Fries, "The Bloomfield 'School'", Trends in European and 18

"TEXT SIGNALS ITS OWN STRUCTURE"

23

The IC analysis is one of the particular methods evolved by the 'antimentalist orientation of research'. Like most other particular methods it has undergone all kinds of modifications in the hands of different students of Syntax. But, whether 'traditional' concepts are completely rejected or not; whether an author attains positivistic purity or is eclectic; whether a proper balance is achieved between the main postulates or one of them is hypertrophied at the expense of the others — all these and similar varieties are by no means decisive. What really matters is the search for formal criteria, OBJECTIVE EXPLICATION OF DATA AS AMENABLE TO EMPIRICAL TREATMENT AND OPEN TO DIRECT OBSERVATION.

American Linguistics 1930-60, ed. Christine Mohrmann et al, MCMLXI (Utrecht-Antwerp, MCMLXI); (3) "... Jesté jedna v è c je v autorcinè pojeti alespon spornà. Termin 'prazska Skolà' ..." (Josef Vachek, "Sovetsky sbornik o jazykovedném strukturalismu", Slovo a Slovesnost XXVII, 1966).

2

N O T T H E DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE 'DATA' BUT T H E U N D E R L Y I N G 'FACTS'

The 'immanent' approach is quite explicit in the panchronistic methods of 'Glossematics',1 according to which the object of linguistic study is the 'abstract linguistic state', the ideal (transcendent) linguistic system; the factual natural languages being but particular instances of its 'realisation' or 'manifestation'. From this point of view the superior aim of linguistic research is to discover the most universal and immutable laws which govern 'language in general'. The categories of linguistics must be created and described a priori and based on the inner logic of abstract semiological systems conceived as calculi. In this serene universal algebra it would be vain to look for such 'traditional', vague, and ill-defined concepts as 'morphology' and 'syntax'. Nevertheless the distinction is in some way provided for by the opposition: paradigmatic dependences ('functions in the system') and syntagmatic ones ('functions in the text or process') (forfob). In traditional linguistic terms it would amount to the following: every fact of syntax is simultaneously morphologic, for it is concerned with grammatical form, while every fact of morphology is simultaneously syntactic, being always based on the syntagmatic connection between the grammatical elements in question. The 'object' (emne) of study, then, is a 'class' and is divisible into 'class-segments', or 'components' (Klassensafsnit). Thus it appears as a class of classes (a class with its derivates), i.e., as a special hierarchy, which is either correlational (the paradigmatic depen1

See L. Hjelmslev, Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlaeggelse (K0benhavn, 1943); translated into English by J. Whitfield, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (Madison, 1961); translated into Russian by J. K. Lekomtsev, "Prolegomeny k teorii jazyka", Novoj'e v lingvistike, I (Moscow, 1960).

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

25

dences, the system) or relational (the syntagmatic dependences, the process the text, forlob). The classes in the process are called chains whose segments (components) are 'parts' (dele). The classes in the system are called paradigms, while their segments (or components) are members (led). The analysis of a text is called 'partition' (Deling), the analysis of a system is called 'articulation' (Leddeling). Partition proceeds as a series of consecutive steps: text is divided into periods, periods into sentences, sentences into words, words into syllables. In this way the periods are derivates of texts, sentences are derivates of periods, words — of sentences, and syllables are derivates of words. Conversely syllables are components of words (not of sentences), words are components of sentences (not of periods or texts), and, finally, periods are components of texts. Preoccupation with universal logical Grammar in Denmark goes back to Viggo Brandal,2 who explained its basic principles in the following way. In spite of the great variety of languages and language-types, i.e., different languages possessing specific systems of specific word-classes, all languages must be endowed with elements, representing the four basic logical categories (which correspond to the four basic categories of Aristotle): substance, relation, quantity, quality (or relatum (R), relator (r), descriptum (D), descriptor (d), respectively). In its purest form each of these categories is discoverable in the following parts of speech: the relatum (R), which denotes the substance or object - in the proper noun; the relator (r), which denotes relationship — in the prepositions; the descriptum (D), which denotes quantity — in numerals, and the descriptor (d), which denotes quality — in adverbs. The remaining parts of speech appear as combinations of the four basic categories. Thus, for instance, the appelative noun is a combination of substance and quality and is therefore Rd; the verb — of relationship and quality, that is rd; the pronoun — of substance and quantity — RD; etc. A sentence is a specific ensemble of the basic categories in which all 2

Ordklasserne

(Kebenhavn, 1928).

26

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

the necessary relationships have been established and all the required 'descriptions' effected. In spite of its consistently logical character, Brendal's model was not applied in the study of concrete linguistic facts. Nor was it elaborated any further — presumably owing to the obvious incompatibility of its precepts with the realities of natural languages in which e.g. adverbs are often formed from nouns, numerals are not found in 'primitive' systems, while prepositions have come into being so recently, that they are not fully developed not only, for instance, in Homer, but also in Anglo-Saxon. Brondal himself took no further steps to work out his system in greater detail or to establish it more firmly. And although in theory he continued to uphold the thesis of the purely abstract, supraindividual nature of language,3 in his subsequent writings he was more concerned with the actual realisations of the abstract schemata. Incidentally, he not only remained faithful to his conception of 'morphology' and syntax,4 but also developed it by introducing the notion of 'morphosyntax' to cover such phenomena as the functioning of words in sentences, the semantic modification of words in context, the order (arrangement) of words, etc. From what has just been said it will become clear that Brondal's contribution to the creation of a purely abstract, 'immanent' theory of language was much less outstanding than that of the author of Glossematics, Louis Hjelmslev, who sought to establish a deductive linguistic theory, a sort of mathematical model which, in principle, was to be independent of experience.5 According to Hjelmslev linguistics will become an exact science only if its object, 3 Cf. his article in Acta Linguistica, I (1940), 5, where language is described as "entité purement abstraite, norme supérieure aux individus, ensemble de types essentiels", etc. 4 See pp. 43 ff. below. 6 Although volumes have already been written both to criticize and extol Hjelmslev's doctrine, perhaps the best and most concise exposition is found in Eli Fisher-Jorgensen's article "Louis Hjelmslev", Acta Linguistica Hafnensia, IX, No. 1 (Copenhagen, 1965). The paper is an excellent example of Jorgensen's wonderful gift of clarity with enormous scholarship compressed into something very brief, very readable, almost casual. N o better obituary was ever written - with so much learning, knowledge, precision and warmth!

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

27

language, is envisaged as an a priori abstract system permanently pervading the world of Man; what is actually found in everyday experience is an avatar, a secondary phenomenon, a realisation (manifestation), a variant of the primary and self-sufficient entity. The realisations are powerless to modify the self-sufficient immanent system, to affect it in any way. It can materialize in various 'substances of expression' — sounds, letters, etc., without being modified to any extent. As far as the 'substance of content' is concerned, far from being, in any way, influenced by it, the immanent 'language' moulds and organizes the extra-linguistic world in its own image, after its own likeness: by casting a 'net' of dependences over the 'substance of content' it gives shape to the formless and primaeval chaos of the material world. Glossematics is so clearly and overtly the methodological antithesis of descriptive linguistics that it was found convenient for the purposes of the present book to begin Chapter 2 with an exposition of its basic principles. Again and again Hjelmslev drives it home to his readers that the general categories of glossematics are not derived from actual natural language but that, conversely, it is the natural languages which, as a secondary process, should be explored in the light of the universal, a priori deductive system. More than that: natural languages can, in general, be dispensed with, the main ideas of glossematics being much more clearly demonstrable when manifested in simpler semiotic systems like, e.g., traffic lights, automatic telephones, etc. In this way the principles of general semiology can be fully explored and vindicated before they are applied to the more complicated and inconsistent semiological systems. Of the basic principles of the new approach most important is the idea that an ensemble or system is constituted not by so many 'objects' (units or components), but by their mutual relationships, the 'internal' function. To postulate the existence of 'objects' as primary and conceivable outside the specific terms of relationship is to hold a metaphysical hypothesis, to be a proponent of naive and unscientific realism. The universally applicable functions or relationships are: (1)

28

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

interdependence (function between two constants), (2) determination (function between a constant and a variable), and (3) constellation (function between two variables). It has already been mentioned that, in the light of glossematic theory, the traditional division of grammar into morphology and syntax loses its point: the universial internal functions are discoverable both between morphemes within words and between constituents of sentences. Thus, for instance, 'selection' (a special kind of determination between terms in a process when two members show an irreversible relation — the constant member determining the variable but not being determined by the latter) is found both in government and the affix-stem relationship: just in the same way as a sine in a Latin sentence presupposes an ablative in the same text (the ablative being also abundantly employed without sine) an affix presupposes the 'implementation' in the same 'chain' of a stem (the latter, in its turn, not being conditioned by the presence of an affix). Glossematics has been criticised time and again — mainly for not proving helpful in the study of 'actual', 'real', 'natural' etc. languages. One aspect of the problem, however, has not, so far, received all the attention it deserves. Among the multifarious concerns of'applied' linguistics the domain of'mediator-languages' looms especially large.6 Now a mediator language is usually conceived as a system of correspondences, as an abstract mathematical code. The 'mechano-linguistic' is the only way to encode the information as processed for the Machine (the Automaton). The elements of the mediator language for electronic computers do not carry the burden of a natural — extra-linguistically and historically conditioned 'substance of expression': in contrast with natural languages the mediator language has nothing to do with the accidental and unpredictable twists and turns of the historical development and social functioning of the former. It is, therefore, a 6 A very clear and up-to-date presentation of the subject can be found in J. C. R. Licklider, "Man-Computer Interaction Languages", Psixologiceskije problemy sistemy 'celovek-maSina\ XVIII International Congress of Psychologists, Symposium 27 (Moscow, 1966). Cf. also D. Ju. Panov, "O vzaimodejstvii celov'eka i masiny", Voprosy filosofii, 1, 1967.

OBSERVABLE ' D A T A ' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

29

logical and necessary conclusion that without an underlying abstract theory of semiological systems in general, the still outstanding problem of mediator (intermediate, machine, etc.) languages can not find a satisfactory solution. Without a sound general theory it will be difficult to work out the systems of specific semiologic coordinates of the alphabet of logical languages or to establish the appropriate sets of deduction rules. In this specific branch of semiotics, language "as a calculus, as a special kind of algebra" is a case in point. For modern 'interlinguistics' to become a Science, the study of concrete, individual facts and acts of communication must give way to an investigation of the most general and universal semiological relationships. In contrast with linguistics (whether 'traditional' or 'modern') which proceeds from the particular to the general (e.g., from sounds to phonemes, from individual phonemes to phonological categories etc. in terms of the generally accepted relationship between induction and deduction), modern interlinguistics is based on logicalmathematical deduction. Logical systematization in mathematics is axiomatic, i.e. the basic premisses of a theory are accepted without proof: mathematical deduction consists in the application of a given set of logical rules to a set of basic premisses. It is, therefore, fully applicable to 'interlinguistics' — that special branch of semiology which is concerned with the study of auxiliary, intermediate, mediator, machine, and other 'abstract', 'logical', 'aprioristic', etc. 'languages'. As far as mathematical methods in general are concerned it should be borne in mind that Modern mathematics can no longer be thought of, even by the unsophisticated layman, as merely a device for the quantitative treatment of empiric data, as only a means of making statements about phenomenologically discoverable quantitative regularities inherent in physical objects. At the 'modelling' stage of their development mathematical methods seek to establish new sets of theoretical concepts for the particular sciences, to specify the hierarchical relations of the different concepts, and to explain the less fundamental by reference to the higher ranking ones. It is believed that this is the only way in

30

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' A N D UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

which the contrasting properties — constancy and stability VJ. variability and convertibility — can be reconciled. The 'modelling' stage leads to the construction of a complete mathematical theory. This becomes possible when the model has been successfully selected, i.e., the elementary object of the science in question and the mathematical space required to account for its possible states. It may be added, that for general semiotics it is, of course, the non-quantitative, non-metric mathematical methodology that is of especial importance. It is now time for the all-important question to be asked: could not the methodology of logical semiotics be extrapolated to include the 'natural', the concrete the 'human' language — linguistics in the usual or proper sense of the word? The answer to this question is an emphatic No! 7 Language in education, language as the vehicle of belles lettres and oratory, as object of philological study could never be reduced to a set of structural relationships, a relatsionnyj karkas. In contrast with 'machine languages', the human language is an ensemble of physical units, each of which separately (and all of them together) are not only mutually correlated, but are also in a specific and historically conditioned relationship with 'extralinguistic reality' — part and parcel of a greater, broader ensemble known as culture and society. Linguistics in its proper sense (one wearies of massing epithets - human, 'natural', etc.) cannot be based on a priori speculation. Its main object is the concrete and specific properties of particular languages, as social phenomena, permanently in a state of flux and reflecting in their progress and modifications the changes in the life and culture of the different speech communities. 8 ' The answer would be "yes" for those particular and specific 'slices' of natural languages which are used to pass on highly formalised information of very limited scope, as e.g. in the case of military commands, stock exchange reports etc. Concerning the limitations that should be imposed on natural speech in man—machine intercourse as a likely general solution see Licklider, op. cit. 8 What has just been said does not include, of course, quantitative mathematics, the 'quantitative treatment of empiric data', etc., see above, p. 29. The earliest concordances date from the 13th century A.D., while frequency counts for various linguistic units (more recently based on theory of probability etc.)

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' A N D UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

31

Those preliminary general remarks were deemed necessary in order that the second of the main approaches listed above9 might be made plain. It would now be useful to try and see what happens when an attempt is made to apply glossematic methods in concrete linguistic research. This, however, is not easy. The trouble with the deductivehypothetical approach to language, in general, is that there is a great gap, a glaring disproportion between the volume of theoretical disquisition, on the one hand, and the amount of concrete linguistic materials, concrete instances and illustrations — on the other. It has often been pointed out that works on glossematics (particularly Hjelmslev's own writings) postulate and declare in a general way without stooping to demonstrate the advantages and possibilities of the new method by analysing concrete linguistic materials. One has to depend, therefore, on the glimpses of syntactic analysis one gets from the papers of such linguists as have sought to apply — one way or another — the idea (or ideals?) of glossematics. In his article "On the Neutralisation of Syntactic Oppositions"10 C. E. Bazell gives a number of well-chosen and interesting examples of structural analysis demonstrating the ways and means of applying glossematic principles to linguistic facts. The chief aim is to bring out clearly (1) the relations in a given chain, i.e. in praesentia, and (2) the relations in the system which are manifested in (1): to distinguish the two is of paramount methodological importance. The syntactic example adduced to bring out the point is the German word-combination: wird kommen können. Despite the ostensible sequence (the sequence in the chain) the syntactic system of German forces the language-user to apprehend wird können as an immediate constituent of the construction (not have been regarded as routine work within the longest of present day living memories. • Page 11. 10 Originally published in Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague, 5 (1949), 77-86; reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, 2, ed. E. Hamp, F. W. Householder, R. Austerlitz (Chicago, 1966).

32

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

wird kommen), i.e. analyse the whole construction as wird können / kommen. Aage Hansen, in an article published in the same volume,11 sets himself the task of applying the glossematic concept of selection to the analysis of what was formely described as 'indirect object'. Thus, for instance, in the English sentence / gave him the book him and the book are traditionally regarded as objects 'governed' by the verb to give. This approach is easily accounted for by the general tendency to focus attention on the 'head word' and to regard the remaining parts of the utterance as 'governed', 'auxiliary', 'subsidiary', etc. In contrast with the traditional approach Glossematics bases its analysis on the concepts of the 'selecting' and 'selected' members within the syntactic relationship of 'selection'. In the sentence he wrote a book it is book which selects wrote (is the selecting member) and not the other way round. Also in he loved her, her selects loved, this being conclusively proved by the fact that he loved can be 'spoken alone', while her cannot. But what about 'indirect objects' and similar concepts of 'traditional' grammar? The following line of reasoning is recommended. By applying 'permutation' (mutation between the parts of a chain) 'indirect object' can be shown to exist in Danish and to be expressed by word-order: placing it immediately after the predicate verb. This is proved by the fact that a change on the expression plane will regularly entail a change on the plane of content; cf. f.ex. han skaenkede malerisamlingen legatet and *han skaenkede legatet malerisamlingen; the permutated second variant resulting in nonsense (because of the particular relationship of the two words on the lexical level). Hansen sees no objection to retaining both terms 'indirect object' and 'direct object' provided, of course, that a consistent interpretation is proposed. This is what Hansen successfully achieves: an object is called 'indirect' (in spite of its coming next to the verb) because it can be left out without destroy11

On the so-called indirect object in Danish. Cf. also Y. Olsson, On the Syntax of the English Verb (Göteborg, 1961), where the analysis of complex verbal expressions of the have a look type is based on much the same theoretical premisses.

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

33

ing the sentence, while the direct one cannot. Thus both he gave the girl (or her) a kiss and merely he gave a kiss are permissible modifications of the same sentence, while he gave the girl or he gave her are either not sentences at all or a very specific and strange kind of sentence-like formation. The order of traditional analysis is thus convincingly reversed: instead of verbs 'governing' objects, objects 'select' verbs. In the case of the indirect object the selection spreads to or embraces a verb-group — in our case give + kiss which is globally selected by such 'forms' as the girl and kiss. A more detailed syntactic analysis results in the following statement: give stands to kiss in the same relation as give a kiss to her. In verbal circumlocution the relationship can be described as follows: the indirect object in languages like English and Danish is the 'object' of a verb-phrase already comprising a (direct) object, i.e., already containing within itself an object in included position. If the verb-phrase contains no included object then the selecting word (the noun-like word which selects the verb-phrase in question) is bound to be a direct object. The following Danish sentences serve as illustrations: han korte sin vogn i stykke, han slog ham ihjel, and, especially, han spyttede ham i ansigtet, where ham selects spytte i ansigtet, and is a direct object because the slovoform ham cannot, generally speaking, select verbs like spytte. In the case of objective predicatives the situation is still further complicated by the fact that the inflection of the adjective selects the inflection of the selected word: in the case of han malede bordet hvidt bordet selects not only the predicate verb malede (as was the case above), but also the inflection of the subsequent element, i.e., hvidt.12 Generally speaking, there is nothing in those principles that could be considered as completely unacceptable: quite a few would appear to possess unquestionable validity. One is exhorted to emancipate oneself from the categories of 'traditional' grammar, 12 Perhaps one of the most interesting attempts to apply glossematic principles in syntactic analysis is L'ekomtsev's work on the Vietnamese simple sentence. See Ju. K. L'ekomtsev, Struktura Vjetnamskogo prostogopredloienia (Moscow, 1964).

34

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

to make an altogether fresh start; one must forget the accustomed preconceptions of one's vernacular and shun the 'translations' of exotic languages into the 'cultural' European ones; one must remember, that the morphology-syntax dichotomy is based on a 'premature generalization':13 instead, one must be careful to distinguish between: (1) the content and expression planes, and (2) the two 'disciplines': syntagmatics and systematics. But what are the working methods of analysis? All kinds — mainly IC, information theory and code systems based on generative mechanisms. The latter involves a still more complicated set of syntactic hypotheses to be considered in greater detail further on.

The methods of Glossematics and descriptive linguistics have often been discussed together under the common title of 'linguistic structuralism'.14 And not without reason, for both to decriptive linguistics and glossematics the natural human language is primarily a 'structure', a system of relationships, a micro-linguistic ensemble of mutually conditioned elements to be investigated by 'formal' 15 means, without reference to psychology, culture, social history, etc., with isomorphism of levels, disregard of the different 'articulations', etc. etc. On the Syntactic level, however, the methodology of the two trends is quite different. If in the discussion of phonological and morphological problems the difference between them is mainly one of terminology, is practically a metalinguistic proposition, in the domains of semantics and especially Syntax the differences become very far reaching, affecting the basic principles of the two methodological systems. For descriptive linguistics the only useful generalizations about language are inductive generalizations. What the linguist is after is descriptive data about as many languages as possible for in "the very next language that becomes accessible" specific, unforeseeable features are bound to occur. 13

L'ekomtzev, op. cit., 108. E.g. Einar Haugen, op. cit. (Russian translation: "Napravlenja v sovremennom jazykoznaniji", Novoje v lingvistike, I, 244ff. 15 Cf. p. 9ff. above. 14

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

35

"General" grammar if at all attainable will be "not speculative, but inductive".16 The converse, even diametrically opposed approach consists in claiming that 'texts' are shadows, secondary manifestations, partial realisations etc. of certain 'facts' or immanent structures to be contemplated transcendentally, built up by means of hypothetical deductive speculations. The first step is 'language in general', the abstract semiotic system, achronistic, ideal, immanent in the philosophical sense. The 'language' of modern mathematical (theoretical, symbolic) logic puts into the researcher's hands a powerful weapon, which he must learn to wield. The linguist is then completely emancipated from painstaking descriptions of the vagaries and whimsicalities of innumerable and heterogeneous speech-events in the thousands of already inventorized 'human' languages. All he needs is as sophisticated a formulation as possible of the 'general' universal structures, the abstract universal relations without, of course, stooping to explanations as to why certain languages comply with the universal laws, while others do not. The algebra, the calculus, statements in terms of theoretical logic and not in terms of the innumerable concrete 'idiotikons'! If the latter refuse to comply — tant pis pour eux! Although discussion of different approaches in terms of linguistic 'schools' has above been pronounced impracticable, some remarks concerning the rise and development of the various directions in Syntax may not be quite irrelevant. It may be useful to bring back to memory the fanfares announcing the Advent of New Linguistics—the antimentalistic, really 'scientific' and rational, empiric and positivist descriptive-linguistic Science of the nineteen thirties! (In the Soviet Union hailed even by such remarkable students of language as G. O. Vinokur.) Is the Modern reversal complete? Must we believe, with so many linguists that it is only now, at long last, that linguistics is finally seeing the Light in good earnest?1' That only now, in the ninteen16

Cf. p. 16 above. " Perhaps especially deplorable is the tendency to generalize, to make out as if the whole world was now rising from the dark age of descriptivism to

36

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

sixties have we come to enjoy the fruits of a truly 'modern' (meaning 'good', 'scientific', etc.) Linguistics? The new attitude is, perhaps, most succinctly presented by Emmon Bach in "Linguistique structurelle et philosophic des sciences", 18 written with talent and dramatic force. The historical background of the revolution caused by the publication of Chomsky's slender booklet Syntactic Structures is very vividly depicted. The reader can easily figure to himself the acme of descriptive linguistics: there were hardly any more worlds to conquer; it could repose on its laurels and contemplate with pride its wonderful achievements which nobody would ever call in question again. In terms of impressive professions de foi there was Joos's Readings in Linguistics, the comprehensive monographs of Gleason, Hockett, Hill. ... Pike had just come out with the first variant of his fundamental research opening up new vistas, and holding forth promise of still greater comprehensiveness. And then Syntactic Structures came out and, at once, every single tenet, all the basic principles and working hypotheses of descriptive linguistics were called in question! The controversy is still in full swing. What is particularly interest'generative' renaissance. What the present authors are mainly concerned with here is, however, not a detailed contrastive analysis of the two outlooks, but the mere fact of their being mutually opposed. It is, therefore, very important to quote at large the following extract from a recent article by Ch. C. Hockett (Current Trends in Linguistics, ed. T. Sebeok, III, The Hague, 1966, 156, footnote 3): "Chomsky's outlook ... is so radically different from Bloomfield's and from my own that there is, at present, no available frame of reference external to both within which they can be compared. Chomsky's own attempts to evaluate Bloomfieldian and Post-Bloomfieldian (but pre- or non-Chomskyan) linguistics stem from within his own philosophy, and are about as meaningful as would be an attempt to measure, say, electrical voltage with a ruler. At present the same would be true of any effort of mine to pass detailed judgement of Chomsky's frame of reference; but let the record show that I reject that frame of reference in almost every detail." - Also interesting to note that, while for Z. S. Harris distribution is the basic concept, which enables the researcher to discover the units, classes and categories on which grammatical description depends, for Chomsky it is the final result to be attained by the theory of grammar in the long run, a problem, whose solution is pending. 18 See the French edition of Diogène 51: Problèmes du language (Paris, 1965).

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

37

ing, however, is the general methodological background of the two conflicting outlooks, to which Bach, among others, drew attention so emphatically. Briefly it can be summed up as follows: descriptive linguistics was based on the Baconian methodology of science, the inductive system of Philosophy. All epistemology must be based on observation, direct experience. Induction is cautiously applied to empirically collected data and only after its validity had been carefully verified can the more general conclusions be attempted. General statements are, therefore, valid only in so far as they are firmly established, based on a detailed inductive procedure, exact, empirical proof. All speculation, all and any meta-physical statements, all assumptions or a priori hypotheses are excluded from Science by definition. In direct contrast to descriptive linguistics the philosophy of Generative Grammar is 'Keplerian'. Creative thinking given full swing from the very start. Only general, a priori, deductive hypotheses, whose value is assessed by the degree of inner immanent logic, simplicity and elegance are the real basis of Science. The clumsy and unwieldy inductive 'pyramid' is doomed: it will crumble under its own weight, because its lesser axioms are derived from 'protocol' sentences, while the upper storeys (erected so painstakingly and laboriously!) are much too limited in scope to deserve the name of scientific generalization. Even if it is assumed that 'sentences' on the 'protocol' or empirical level actually 'exist' in what sense are generalisations 'derived' from them? What is the difference between stating, for ex., that "there exists a language in which the categories of noun and verb are kept clearly apart" and stating that "it cannot be claimed for all languages that they do not possess categories of noun and verb". In the same way as the fact of Socrates' demise is not verified in the speaker's personal experience by registering the deaths of so many different persons, inductive generalisations with their scope of application not extending beyond a given ensemble of particular data are superfluous, redundant: they merely repeat in a more concise form what had already been fully disclosed. It should be noted that the

38

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

metaphor of the 'pyramid' which begins to crumble from the outset etc. puts one immediately in mind of the 'levels' of linguistic analysis — the cornerstone of American descriptive linguistics! What, then, is the procedure to be adopted if the 'Keplerian' methodology is to come into force? The 'description' must be theoretical in the sense that it will make for reliable prediction, with respect to a particular linguistic ensemble. Chomsky's 'Copernican' revolution in linguistics has opened the way to predictive grammar, a 'new' kind of grammar which will enable the researcher to forecast, to formulate beforehand, statements which can then be verified with respect to particular languages. With the imposing accoutrements of mathematics at its disposal, modern algebraic linguistics no longer concerns itself with the structure of this or that particular language. Its real subject is Grammatical systems in general. Its main purpose is to discover what are the properties of completely abstract semiological systems, the general properties of these systems, which enable them to generate particular forms. In this way a theory which came into being in connection with the study of natural human languages is now in closest touch with the two rapidly developing branches of mathematics — the theory of calculi and the theory of abstract automata. The most promising outcome of these contacts is the elaboration of the hierarchy of grammatical systems and the 'corresponding languages' from the simplest to the most complicated ones, the latter being equivalents of the Turing machines. If linguistics is to profit from it all in the end, then the problem would appear to consist in discovering which of the abstract systems would be best suited for the particular patterns required in the description of natural languages. Remarkable how fashionable it has become for modern linguists to present exclusive claims to 'Copernican' revolutions and to belittle the methodological achievements of competitors!

For

instance, the Chomskyan transformational grammar which had just been presented as a Nemesis descending on the descriptive hubris, is regarded by S. K. Saumjan as merely the next step in the development of descriptive models.

According to Saumjan

Chomsky's grammar is concerned only with the syntagmatic axis to

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

39

the detriment of the paradigmatic one. Besides, its rules involve confusion of the two main levels of abstraction: (1) the immanent syntactic relationships within the language, and (2) the particular linguistic means employed for their realisation on the expression plane. In other words 'transformational grammar' fails to keep properly apart what Saussure called langue and what he dubbed parole. The 'applicative' generative model according to Saumjan19 differs from all previous linguistic theories by the clearly drawn line of demarcation between the phenotype and the genotype levels of linguistic investigation and description. The generative process is divided into two steps, the first step being the GENOTYPE one. At this stage of the process ideal objects are constructed — immanent patterns as analogs of words and sentences of natural languages. The second step consists in working out a set of rules which establish 'correspondences' between the objects of the genotype level and those of the PHENOTYPE one, i.e., the actual words and sentences of a given concrete language. The generative mechanism of the applicative model in constructing the ideal objects is unaffected by the 'correspondence' rules. The genotype level is not concerned with grammatical categories which come into being only on the level of a given concrete language. In other words categories like tense, mood, person, number, gender etc. are discoverable only on the phenotype level. In the genotype language only two kinds of ideal linguistic objects are distinguished : words and complexes, i.e. word-combinations. Accordingly the applicative model is supplied with two generative mechanisms : one for generating words and one for generating complexes consisting of words. The former represents the paradigmatic axis, the latter — the syntagmatic one. The applicative generative model could, generally speaking, do without the concept of transformation. Nevertheless transformation 19 "La cybernétique et la langue", Diogène, see footnote to p. 36, and S. K. Saumjan and P. A. Soboleva, "Applikativnaja porozdajuscaja model i iscislenije transformacij v Russkom jazyke", Reports of the Soviet Delegation to the Vth International Congress of Slavists, Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Moscow, 1963).

40

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

is found useful for the purpose of establishing invariant relations between sentences. Thus, for instance, 'application' alone is quite adequate to the task of generating a pair of sentences like a boy is writing a letter and a letter is being written by a boy. To reveal the invariant relationship (by which these two sentences are bound together), to show that the former can be converted into the latter, transformation is obviously called for: when the invariant relationships of this kind are disclosed, the deep structure of language is penetrated into most fully and the explanatory force of the applicative model is greatly increased. 20 This aspect of the approach in question, as a whole, is of particular significance. It should be emphasized that, according to Saumjan, the transformational model, as proposed by Chomsky and his followers is not really explanatory, being based not on a calculus, but on a list or inventory of 'well-formed' sentences. Saumjan's main objective is to emancipate the researcher from the controversial concept of'well-formedness' ('grammaticality', 'grammaticalness'). By carefully distinguishing between the overt relationships of the phenotype level and the covert ones of the genotype and by establishing the latter as the basis, the fons et origo of the whole process, 'application' becomes "the operation of setting up relations between symbols in the shape of a two-argument function, correlating with two elements X and Y, a third element Z, i.e. Z = XY". 21 The applicative model is non-commutative and nonlinear. It dispenses with the concept of 'chains' of word classes as well as with that of spatial relationships in general. As has already been stated above, it rests exclusively on two generative devices: (1) the morphonological submodel (matrix) generating words, and (2) the syntactical submodel (matrix) generating complexes of word-classes. By interaction of these sub-models are realized the two successive calculi — the calculus of derivation of word classes and the calculus of syntactic structures, the latter 20 It should be noted that each sentence is generated directly and independently (no hierarchies!). The sole purpose of transformation is to establish an 'explanatory network of invariant relationships', and to formalize 'the rules of grammatical synonymy'. 21 "Applikativnaja porozdajuscaja model", 9-10.

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

41

providing both for formation and transformation of sentences. The constructs of the 'genotype' level, being completely abstract, immanent, and ideal, can only be denoted by means of a specially devised symbolic notation. The symbols are: (1) R — the abstract 'affix', the often (morphologically) latent unexpressed something that distinguishes a root-morpheme from a word, the four different kinds of R being R, ('verb'), R 2 ('noun'), R 3 ('adjective'), R 4 ('adverb'); (2) the initial letters of the names of traditional parts of speech — Y N A also used in the formulas. Thus, for example, R 3 X R 2 X, which symbolizes in abstracto a 'substantival syntagm', when 'applied' to a concrete language, e.g. Russian, will appear in the following 'realisations': R 3 A R 2 N (vysokaja trava 'tall grass'), R 3 V R 2 N (razbitaja caska 'broken cup'), R 3 R 4 A R 2 R t V {bystrij beg 'quick running'), and R 3 R 2 N R 2 R, V (Vubov otca 'father's love'). In this way the variety of 'realisations' in different concrete languages is provided for. Thus, for instance, R 2 V when 'applied' to English can be 'realised' (or 'interpreted') as 'verbal noun', 'infinitive' or 'gerund', whereas for Russian the interpretation would have to be confined to the first two. R 3 N when 'applied' to Russian can stand only for 'genetive case of noun', 'denominal adjective', and 'nominal stem of compounds words', while for English the 'interpretation' would also include combinations of the 'stone wall' type. Following up what was said about the difference between linguistics and interlinguistics above,22 grave doubts must be expressed as to the applicability of the 'applicative' model to natural human languages. Chomsky has failed so far to cope with the problem of 'well-formedness', but he, at least, is acutely aware of its importance. Saumjan and his coworkers ignore it altogether and, taking no notice of criticisms, go on proliferating sentences which flagrantly violate the idiom in question. They have remained deaf to the reactions of squirming 'informants': the fact that celovek b'ezal iz plena is Russian by no means proves that the same can be said in the imperfective or that bezal can be 'nominalized' into begletz; zizn' kip it kljucom can not be 'transformed' into zizrC kak kip'ascij 2i

P

29.

42

OBSERVABLE 'DATA' AND UNDERLYING 'FACTS'

kVuc; vse smejutsa is Russian, while vseobscij sm'ex ('universal laughter') is not; trava kositsa na s'eno is not a 'synonym' of the non-extant seno kositsa iz travy, etc. When questions of well-formedness, transformation, 'application', etc. are raised one WILL side-track into unavailing controversy! — To return to the main theme: the 'Keplerian' outlook; the hypothetic deductive a priori model; the genotype and the underlying 'facts' which are not directly revealed to the senses — ALL THESE ARE IN DIRECT CONTRAST WITH EMPIRICISM AND INDUCTION.

3

B O T H T H E 'DATA' A N D T H E ' F A C T S ' ARE EVER-PRESENT IN THE LINGUIST'S M I N D

That is to say that all the basic problems of syntax such as its object, its relation to morphology, form and function, parts of the sentence, etc. etc., are simultaneously considered both from the point of view of language and that of speech. This is a considerable step forward as compared with both the 'unilateral' approaches. It does not mean to say, of course, that the language-speech relationship is always clearly understood or that its interpretation is always adequate. Among other things it would appear to be quite wrong to consider 'language' as purely psychic, relegating the whole of the 'expression plane' to Speech. 1 One of the most consistent attempts to solve the form-function problem in terms of the language-speech antithesis is Brondal's Morphology and Syntax,2 He also concerns himself with this problem in other publications, particularly in the posthumous Essais de linguistique genérale.3 Brandal attaches great importance to the morphology-syntax division. In Brandal's view morphology and syntax are mutually independent, because they are concerned with two completely different units — the word and the sentence. Morphology is the theory of the word, of the inner form; syntax is the theory of the 1 For the ontology of the language-speech relationship see Karl Bühler, Sprachteorie (Jena, 1933): a word is simultaneously part of the Zeichenand the Zeig-Felder. This is what makes human language different from 'codes' and enables speakers to create an endless variety of 'messages'. See also I. A. Smirnitsky, Objektivnost' suscestvovanija jazyka (Moscow, 1954); O. S. Akhmanova, Ocerki po obscej i russkoj leksikologii (Moscow, 1957), Part One. 2 Viggo Brandal, Morfologi og Syntax: Nye Bidrag til Sprogets Theori (K0benhavn, 1932). 3 Copenhague, 1943.

44

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

sentence, of 'logical dynamism'. Morphology investigates words and their forms; syntax — the rhythm of the sentence (as abstracted from its verbal components), the particular and specific, 'movement of thought'. The systems of words and their forms are proper to each particular language, fixed and stable, different for different speech communities. Sentences — although their main characteristics are universal like human thinking in general — are mobile and dynamic, a pliable mould for individual self-expression. The autonomy of morphology and syntax is also reflected in the words possessing no fixed or unique syntactic function. Therefore words as parts of speech cannot be determined or defined in terms of their syntactic function. 4 Syntax, too, is independent of the morphological system, for the same syntactic function can be fulfilled by different parts of speech. Syntactic definitions, should, therefore, never be polluted by contact with morphological concepts. It should also be borne in mind that the word remains identical to itself (invariant) irrespective of what its syntactic function in a particular sentence may be. These basic ideas were elaborated by Brendal in the form of a systematic contrast of the two aspects as follows: (1) The morphological system (within a given language) is the norm. It is constant and immutable, identical for both participants of the speech-act (i.e. both for the speaker and the listener, the writer and the reader). The 'syntactic rhythm', on the contrary, is not normative or obligatory, as compared with the constant 'norm', but variable. It is therefore quite possible to use different kinds of syntax while speaking the same language. Syntax is also the source of linguistic change: the modifications which manifest themselves in the particular utterances can later penetrate into the language and become one of its established constituent parts. (2) Being normative, morphology is supra-individual: it reigns supreme and commands complete obedience to its rules. Whatever is said or written in a language can be apprehended (understood) only on condition that it is kept strictly within the bounds of admissible morphological variation. In contrast with the morpholog4

Cf. Fries, p. 18 above.

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

45

ical system the Syntactic Rhythm is freely selected by the speaker or writer who is quite free to choose whatever constructions and sentence-patterns he likes. Whatever is said or written is always the result of the physical and psychic activity of the individual in a concrete specific situation. If restrictions are placed on his linguistic activity, it is never because of the nature of the particular language, but only because of the logical incompatibility of certain concepts. (3) The morphological system is by nature ideal or potential. It does not require all individuals 'to realize' a particular form, word or meaning in exactly the same way: there are always different variants and subsystems which are favoured in some dialects or styles and avoided in others. It is, nevertheless, normative and constant because it possesses an 'inner form' which is a specific synthesis of logical and symbolic concepts. The syntactic rhythm is real and actual, for in it is brought to life the language system, which without it would remain a lifeless abstraction. Words 'live' only in sentences, as parts of the 'syntactic rhythm' for only then are they able to denote real or imaginary experiences in actual situations. (4) The elements of the morphological system are reversible — the relation between, f.ex., A and B as members of the paradigm is always identical with that between B and A. Thought travels with equal ease in all directions within the system. The elements or components of the latter are not ordered sequences. Thus, for instance, the nominative case can equally well be placed both at the head and the foot of the paradigm (Rask, e.g., is known to have reversed the traditional order of case-forms). Also, for instance, prepositions and adverbs can equally well be treated first or last in a description of the different word-classes of a language. In contrast with the morphological system, the units (the constituents) of the 'syntactic rhythm' are irreversible. One part of the sentence cannot change places with another without effecting a change in the syntactic structure. The syntactic relation A-»B is the direct, the relation B A the inverse one. In the sentence, as well as in any other syntactic unit, the beginning, the middle and

'data' and 'facts' in the linguist's mind

46

the end are radically different stages of the 'syntactic process'. The place (position) of a part of the sentence is always an important factor in its identification. For instance the different positions a subject may occupy in the sentence will have a direct bearing on the way it is assigned to one or another type in the classification. Syntactic analysis is not conducive to a description of the structure of a linguistic system; more than that, syntax has simply nothing to do with such a description^). Another important contribution to the study of the languagespeech dichotomy is Gardiner's well-known book. 5 Like Brandal, Gardiner insists on clearly distinguishing between language and speech but (in contrast with the Danish scholar) he is always stressing their mutual dependence and interaction. A language is a "collection of linguistic material" — a vocabulary plus a totality of syntactic patterns. Speech is a historically unique activity which makes use of this material, which employs the words and patterns in concrete situations. Speech always presupposes: a situation, a listener, and a thingmeant. If has a purpose, it is motivated by the volition of the speaker who refers the linguistic signs to extralinguistic realities. A sentence, therefore, as a concrete unit, is a unit of speech. It is synchronic and the product of the individual's creative effort. In contrast with the sentence the word is diachronic. It is a mechanized unit "which is constantly reproduced by different speakers and handed down from generation to generation". Language is "the stock-in-trade" of linguistic material with words as ready-made units. But language in the final account, is derived from speech, the latter being its sole begetter, its fans et origo.

Syntax is "the study of the forms both of the sentence itself 5

Sir Alan Gardiner, The Theory of Speech and Language, 2nd edition (Oxford, 1951). Other important publications by Gardiner on the subject are "A Grammarian's Thoughts on a Recent Philosophical Work", Transactions of the Philosophical Society, 1951, 47-68, and "The Distinction between 'Speech' and 'Language'", Atti del 3 Congresso Internazionale dei linguisti (Firenze, 1935).

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

47

and of all the free word-combinations which enter into it",6 the epithet 'free' being introduced to exclude the mechanized phrases, which, according to Gardiner, are indistinguishable from words. The so-called parts-of-speech' are, in reality 'parts-of-language' (the real 'parts of speech' being the Subject and the Predicate). Both the semantic aspect of words and their 'outer' form are facts of language. They belong to a word permanently and are not merely "temporary qualifications which become attached to them in the course of speaking".7 When used in speech words have a certain function, i.e., play a certain part in achieving the aim the speaker had set himself. Word-form and word-function are correlated facts. When they agree, the function is said to be 'congruent', and 'incongruent' when they do not. Thus, f.ex., in the boy king boy (a noun) functions incongruently as an adjective. Grammar, properly speaking, should concern itself only with the congruent functions, the incongruent ones being accepted as part of its object only when they had been generally recognised and so admitted into the language. Habitual incongruence of functioning is a sign of labile or transitional state in that part of the system. 'Form' is one of the most overworked linguistic terms. Gardiner does well to distinguish several kinds of 'form': (1) the WORDFORM — "a special kind of meaning which attaches to words over and above their radical meaning"; 8 (2) SYNTACTIC FORM, which "like all linguistic form is a fact of language, built up out of countless syntactic functionings of words in single acts of speech. Like word-form syntactic form is a kind of meaning heard as an overtone above the stem meanings and wordform-meanings imparted by the component words"; 9 (3) INTONATIONAL FORM, i.e., "the name given to those differences of tone, pitch, stress, etc., with which combinations of words having a certain syntactic overmeaning are habitually spoken" ;10 and (4) SENTENCE-FORM, which, ' Theory of Speech and Language, ' Op. cit., 134. 8 Op. cit., 130. 9 Op. cit., 159. 10 Op. cit., 160.

158.

48

' d a t a ' a n d ' f a c t s ' in the l i n g u i s t ' s mind

too, "is a fact of language, not a fact of speech — like all other linguistic forms: e.g. he is well has sentence-form — on its 'inner' side — that of a statement, but evidenced outwardly by the presence of subject and predicate."11 There is no cut and dried definition of 'sentence form' in the book. It is probably what would nowadays be described as 'sentence-patterns'. The antithesis of speech and language, the importance of drawing a clear distinction between the two being ever-present in Gardiner's mind, he discusses 'sentence-form' mainly in the aspect of its two varieties: 'locutional' and 'elocutional' sentence form. Locutional sentence form is "the variety which depends solely upon words"; 12 "elocutional sentence form depends principally on intonation". A sentence can do without locutional form while elocutional form is a must. Ries was wrong when he refused to recognize as 'sentences' utterances like Rain! Yes! Alas! etc. on the ground of their being devoid of locutional sentence-form. Gardiner is convinced that any word or word-combination may serve as a sentence provided it is purposeful and has elocutional form. The locutional and elocutional sentence-forms may become mutually 'incongruent'. When this happens elocutional form gets the upper hand. In other words, the elocutional sentence-form is always 'congruent'. From the fact that the 'parts of speech' are the subject and the predicate it does not follow that a sentence must always contain both or be always overtly divisible into two distinct parts. 'Subject' and 'predicate' are "temporary qualifications attached to words in the course of speaking".13 Their 'locutional' form may be incongruent, while the elocutional one is always congruent. Thus, for example, in Henry has arrived'locutionally' Henry is the subject; 'elocutionally', however (because it carries the 'vocal stress') Henry is the predicate. It is not, in this utterance "the part referring to the thing spoken about", but "what is said of the subject, 11 12 13

Op. cit., 184. Op. cit., 201. Cf. op. cit., 134.

'data' and 'facts' in the linguist's mind

49

namely the Predicate":14 the question answered by Henry has arrived is who has arrived? and consequently Henry here is the logical predicate. This latter term is preferred by Gardiner to Paul's 'psychological' predicate because he believes that "between the emergence in consciousness of a topic to speak about and the actual utterance, a whole series of psychical events has usually taken place".15 In this way to the language-speech antithesis is first added the formfunction one and then that of 'logic' vs. 'grammar'. The logical subject and predicate are a word or phrase which function in speech as subject and predicate, respectively. The grammatical subject and predicate are a word or phrase which have the locutional form of the subject and the predicate, respectively. 'Subject' and 'predicate' are used without further qualification when grammar and logic, or form and function are in agreement.16 In the "Retrospect" attached to the second edition of his brilliant book Gardiner speaks of "the distinction of speech and language first proposed by de Saussure and further developed by myself".17 It should, however, be observed in all fairness, that de Saussure's distinction was trichotomic — he spoke of langue, langage, and parole.18 In the present chapter, however, attention will be confined 14

Pp. 255-256; a more comprehensive definition is given on p. 261: "The word or group of words called the predicate is presented as in course of being said of the underlying subject-matter; this subject-matter, instead of remaining unexpressed outside speech, is brought conveniently to the listener's notice in a locutional description known as the Subject." 16 The illustration is Mary has a toothache. "Imagine an employer usually so absorbed in his newspaper at breakfast-time that Mary's ministrations are wont to pass unobserved. To-day by way of exception, her swollen cheek attracts his attention. Waiting until she has left the room, he syas to his wife, "Mary has toothache." In this case, if we can fairly say that either Mary or the toothache first attracted his attention assuredly it must be the toothache." (p. 281). " P. 273. 17 Op. cit., 328. 18 A very interesting and detailed discussion both of the original trichotomy and the innumerable subsequent elaborations of the scheme and disquisitions on the subject can be found in E. Coseriu, "Sistema, norma y habla", Revista de la Facultad de humanidades y ciencias, Urtiversidad de la republica, Montevideo Octubre 1952, Ano VI, No. 9. As a result of a detailed analysis of the

50

'data' and 'facts' in the linguist's mind

to the simplified twofold division, in keeping with what was said above19 concerning the overall classification in terms of the three main approaches. An important contribution to the speech-language approach to syntactic theory is de Groot's valuable monograph, 20 which seeks to take into account all the different views found both in the West European and the American litterature on the subject. By 'Syntax' de Groot understands the theory of the sentence as opposed to the theory of the word. 21 The sentence is a phonetic entity, which serves as a frame for the use of words. 22 It is a (phonetic) unit of a particular shape and consists either of one word or a word-combination ("combinatie van woorden"). A word-combination' (de Groot prefers the term originally introduced by Ries, Wortgruppe, in Dutch woordgroep) is a syntactic unity consisting of more than one element. If a word is used to denote "an object of thought, a thing meant", 23 then a 'wordgroup' is used to denote (or name) a combination of things-meant. The word-group is marked oif by phonological and structural means, as well as by those depending on peculiarities of its uses. The phonological characteristics are not obligatory. The structural ones are always based either on coordination or subordination. Thus, for instance, in a sentence like The little children could go for a walk24 little determines children, the determines little children, while the little children is determined as a whole by could go for problem Coseriu arrives at a fourfold division: (1) Sistema, (2) norma, (3) norma individual, and (4) hablar concreto (p. 170). 18 See p. 19 above. 20 A. W. de Groot, Structurele Syntaxis (Den Haag, 1949). 21 "de leer van de zin, zulks in tegenstelling tot de leer van het woord", op. cit., 7. 22 "de klankeenheid voor de gebruik van woorden", op. cit., 13. 28 lets or zaak. All these, however, do not exhaust the list of 'entities'. The linguistic units are: woord, constructie, zinsdeel, zinsstuk and zin. In her review of de Groot's Inleiding tot de algemene taalwetenschap tevens Inleiding tot de grammatica van het hedendaagse Nederlands (Groningen, 1962), Milka Ivi£ suggests the term 'attitudinal units' to cover the last three the 'sentence', the 'segment of a sentence' (the English for zinsstuk) and part of a sentence (traditional for zinsdeel). The word (woord) is a 'referential unit'. 24 The Dutch sentence is de kleine kleuters konden naar huis gaan.

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

51

a walk. The latter part has the following structure: could go is determined by for a walk, while a walk determines for. In this way a series of subordinating word-groups ("onderschikkende groepen") is formed. Subordinating word-groups, then, will include not only combinations of the type of the port of Rotterdam ("de haven van Rotterdam") or little children, but also he eats fish — hij eet vis in ... omdat hij vis eet. A word may represent the whole of a sentence's verbal content or be a member of a larger subordinating or coordinating word-group. The different kinds of 'attributes' in a complex syntactic whole are not on an equal footing: there is a hierarchy, which must be reflected in the stepwise analysis (description). The number of ranks varies from five to ten (?); whatever the exact number the general idea is made quite clear. First the 'semantically' and the 'syntactically' completive attributes. Then the basic five: (1) the qualificative, (2) the numerative, (3) the deictic, (4) the finite verb, and (5) the modal word, 25 (the latter two being generalized as 'subjective' in contrast with the former three — the objective 'determiners' or attributes). 26 Example: (5) Happily (4) barked (3) the (2) two (1) red dogs. Syntactic means' or 'devices' are the means employed by a concrete language to bring words together within the framework of a syntactic structure. The syntactic means in their functioning do not depend on the text as a whole or the situation; they are DISTINCTIVE features. They serve several specific purposes: (1) to delimit the group, to indicate its extent as in Mary came, John left vs. Mary came. John left, i.e., one group (one sentence) vs. two groups (two sentences); (2) to distinguish the different members of the groups; (3) to distinguish a coordinative group from a subordinative one; and (4) to bring out within a subordinative group the Kernel (or head word) of subordination. On the expression plane Paul's well-known seven syntactic devices are 25 (1) semantisch completieve, (2) syntactisch completieve, (3) qualitatieve, (4) numeratieve, (5) deiktische, (6) subjectieve (niet praedicatieve), and (7) praedicatieve. 28 'Objective' means referred to extra-linguistic reality; 'subjective' means expressing the attitude of the speaker.

52

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

reduced to just one: the elements of the sound-forms of the wordgroups realized within the sound-form of the sentence. The Syntactic theory expounded in Structurele syntaxis is supplemented by a number of articles, among which the one entitled "Structural Linguistics and Syntactic Laws"27 stands out. It is especially important because it contains de Groot's answer to the basic question: what is a sentence in terms of the languagespeech antithesis? According to de Groot language as a system of signs is the object of grammar, while speech, the employment of these signs, is the object of phonetics and stylistics. De Groot criticizes Gardiner's view according to which a sentence is a unit of speech, for this would imply that the sentence is the object of phonetics and stylistics only, and not of grammar. Following Sechehaye, de Groot distinguishes between the sentences of the language and the sentences of speech. The sentence as the manifestation of a concrete act of speech is a unit of speech, A sentence. But the sentence as a syntactic pattern, as a sentence type, proper to a particular language is an element of the latter, THE sentence.28 It is, therefore, possible to formulate the following syntactic laws: (1) The law of the two strata of the sentence, (a) the stratum of reference (the 'objective' stratum) and (b) the stratum of expression, the 'subjective' stratum which expresses the speaker's subjective attitudes etc. The former consists of words, the latter of intonation contours (the trouble with traditional parsing as practised in schools is that it is confined to the word-groups of the orthographic text). The two strata may not be in agreement. (2) The law of prevalence of the second stratum over the first. The real purpose of communication and, therefore, the actual content of the sentence is passed on, conveyed by means of intonation, which is different in different languages. The classification of 27

Lingua, April 1949, Vol. 5, No. 1. "A sentence is a concrete fact, the result of an actual act of speech, THE sentence is an abstraction. A sentence is always a unit of speech; THE sentence of a definite language is an element of that language." 28

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

53

sentences must, therefore, be based on the different kinds of intonation. As far as the first stratum is concerned, the sentence may consist of either one (a single) word or a word-group, the latter being either coordinative or subordinative. De Groot disagrees with Trubetzkoy who recognized a third kind of word-group, the predicative one. According to de Groot the difference between a non-predicative and a predicative group is very great and important, but it belongs to an altogether different plane than the difference between the coordinative and the subordinative groups. The second division may be said to cut across the division into subordinative and coordinative groups: irrespective of the original dichotomy they can be both predicative and non-predicative, i.e., a subordinative group can be both predicative and non-predicative, the same applying to the coordinative one. It follows that wordgroups in all languages should first be classified as subordinative VJ. coordinative and only then as predicative vs. non-predicative. In this way the dogma of the subject-predicate dichotomy is shown to be invalid; it is clearly demonstrated that the sentence is not at all bound always and overtly to consist of the two 'parts'. A book which applies the language-speech antithesis to an analysis of French, following de Saussure more closely than did de Groot, is de Boer's Syntax of Modem French.29 In a short introduction to the book de Boer presents the main principles of synchronic Syntactic analysis. These are based on a number of oppositions: (1) the synchronic description as distinct from the diachronic one; (2) the style, the individual act, speech as against the grammar, the ensemble of means of expression at the disposal of the entire speech-community, the language; (3) the potential (virtuel) sign as against the actualized one; (4) the

29

C. Leiden, ex., G. vol. 44,

de Boer, Syntaxe du français moderne (first ed., Leiden, 1947; 2nd ed., 1954). The book has had a number of very favourable reviews; see, f. Gougenheim, Bull, de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 1947, 1948, No. 2, 129, and Albert Dauzat, Français Moderne, 1955, No. 1.

54

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

psychological automatism vs. the grammatical one. But over and above them all comes the distinction between the primary and secondary functions of syntactic signs and the difference between the subject-predicate and the definiens-definiendum groups. The crucial concept, however, is that of the syntactic function of linguistic units, the valeur of the syntactic sign30 which, as has just been stated, possesses two kinds of function — the primary and the secondary ones. The primary function is inherent to every sign, it is always the same irrespective of the special conditions of employment or functioning, (in Gardiner's terminology it could be said that the primary function is always 'congruent'). The secondary function is the particular meanings which the syntactic signs acquire only under special conditions (cf. Gardiner's 'incongruent' function) and only in combination with other linguistic (or extralinguistic) elements. Thus, for instance, the primary function of the French preposition de is to express a relationship etc. ; the concrete shade of meaning, the special semantic content of the relationship is its secondary function, being conditioned by the particular lexical environment as well as the context. A syntactic sign has only one primary function, which, being invariant, is revealed in its FORM. The number of its secondary functions depends on the variety of its uses, the SPECIFIC or INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENTS of the sign. The secondary function may be 'incongruent', it may disagree with the primary one not only in 30 The problem was discussed by de Boer in detail in a special article: "Morphologie et Syntaxe", Cahiers F. de Saussure, 1946-47, No. 6. Syntactic research is too often hindered by abuse of morphology, 'form' still reigning where it should be a submissive hand-maiden. The reason why comparativehistorical syntax has made so little progress is the morphologically oriented mental equipment of the comparatists : the all important aspects of the syntactic systems remain unrevealed, hidden from view by the 'form'. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between, f.ex., the morphological cases and the syntactic ones. All this does not mean to say that morphology should be ignored altoghether. An instance of this fallacy is found, f.ex., in Ferdinand Brunot's La Pensée et la Langue (Paris, 1950). Brunot speaks of the expression of different notions but he does not discuss the function of the different signs, for he is convinced that a method, which proceeds from form in the analysis of functions is doomed to failure.

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

55

terms of 'speech vs. language' but also in terms of 'grammar vs. logic'.31 Thus, for instance, in a pair of connected sentences like why doesn't he go out? Because it is raining, the second sentence is logically the basic one, for it expresses the main idea, contains the information proper. But it is grammatically subservient to the first for the simple (formal) reason that it begins with BECAUSE. A sentence — or is it 'utterance'? — (in de Boer's terminology la phrase) is defined as an act of communication. Phrases are called 'monorhemes' when they consist of a single element, and 'dirhemes' when the number of elements is two. The dirhemes comprise not only the phrases which contain, overtly, a subject and a predicate (the subject plus predicate type), but also those which consist of the definiens-definiendum groups. In the latter case both members together are the predicate, while the subject is not part of the linguistic expression and is to be sought outside it. Not all the ingredients of a sentence belong to syntax. Thus, for instance, the use of specific expressions and special intonation contours in exclamatory sentences belongs to style. To syntax proper belong the differences in formal expression — inversion in the exclamatory sentence, the use of the subjunctive mood, of the infinitive, etc. A complete analysis of the sentence requires a threefold distinction of types of subject: (1) the subject of the verb (including the formal subject of impersonal constructions) i.e., the grammatical aspect; (2) the logical subject of impersonal verbs; and (3) the subject of the 'phrase', or the point of departure in the deployment of the thought. 32 Like Gardiner, de Boer distinguishes between mechanized expressions and free ones ('fixed' vs. 'mobile' syntax). But, following de Saussure (and in contrast with Gardiner) he sees no difference between mechanized combinations of words (for example avoir idée, faire impression, etc.) and compound words, constructed according to productive wordbuilding patterns. 31

Cf. Gardiner, p. 49 above. In his review of de Boer's book Godei writes that syntagmatics is fettered by semi-logical—semi-psychological terminology. He is, therefore, very pleased to find that de Boer is considering the problem in all its complexity and seeks to single out the purely syntactic aspect of the phenomenon under investigation. 32

56

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

The language-speech dichotomy as manifested in syntax occupies a prominent place in the syntactic theories of H. Glintz and I. Erben.33 Glintz sees the object of linguistics in the systematic-functional content of a given linguistic state: it is revealed both in itself, i.e., in its inner systemic structure and in its functioning. To penetrate into the systematic-functional nature of a language one must approach it 'naively', without preconceived notions. But this does not imply a denial of the past experience, accumulated by the science of linguistics. There can be no question of renouncing the 'traditional' categories or minimizing the outstanding achievements of 'traditional linguistics'. What he had set out to do was to verify, with the help of a new criterion, what, for decades, was uncritically accepted as the Complete Truth. Concepts and terminology are not the same thing: the 'old' terminology which confounded grammar and logic is unacceptable to the new linguistics. That is why Glintz had thought it lit to create an original system of 'terms' (a metalanguage of his own) to denote both the parts-of-speech and the parts-of-the-sentence. The new methodology is based on the language-speech distinction. Following de Saussure, Glintz regards 'language' as a completely psychic phenomenon: both aspects of the linguistic sign — the signans and the signatum — are part of the human psyche. The 'signifying' (le signifiant) is not a phenomenon of physical sound, but its psychic (mental?) image; the signified (le signifie) is also a mental picture, the Abbildung of the actual concept (of the object, the phenomenon of real life). As far as the material or physical sound-envelope is concerned it is merely the outer caul, the capsule, while language is the essence, the spirit, the soul. At the same time Glintz insists on the mutual dependence, the interaction of language and speech. The units and relationships 33 H. Glintz, "Das Verhältnis der Sprachwissenschaft zur Philosophie", Akademische Antrittsrede, Jahrb. d. Schweiz philos. Gesellschaft, IX (Basel, 1949); Die innere Form des Deutschen: Eine neue deutsche Grammatik (— Bibliotheca Germanica vol. 4) (Bern, 1952); I. Erben, "Prinzipielles zur Syntaxforschung mit dem besonderen Blick auf Grundfragen der deutschen Syntax", Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Halle, 1954).

'data' a n d ' f a c t s ' in t h e linguist's mind

57

which constitute language become fully and truly significant only in speech, i.e., when functioning in connection with other linguistic signs and in a concrete extralinguistic situation. Language as an ideal system does not lend itself to direct observation. All the researcher actually possesses is a number of concrete employments of the system, i.e., speech and, first and foremost, speech as a phenomenon of sound. Analysis should therefore begin with observation of the phonetic side, speech as sound. This is the first step in the analysis and segmentation of speech. But soundunits are units of speech and, as such, by themselves, are unavailing if the aim is to single out the units of language. It is, therefore, necessary to go on to the second step — the analysis of the content, of the signifié. The analysis of content, however, tends to be 'subjective', impressionistic. To verify the results on this level and to make sure that observation of speech events will really lead the researcher to a correct understanding of the underlying system (the language), all the particular signs and means of arrangement found in various speech events have to be checked upon as parts of the system. This can be achieved by means of experimental analysis of texts, the method consisting in different kinds of segmentations, substitutions, etc. All along the researcher must register as carefully as possible: (1) the changes in the meaning of the text effected by the various manipulations and (2) in how far the results of substitutions etc. are acceptable to the genius of the language in question. When speech is studied as speech, for its own sake, it becomes apparent that it is articulated, i.e., divided into parts or segments, by changes in pitch, breath force, intensity, etc. This shows that the larger blocks can be singled out without having recourse to meaning; but to segment them any further, that is to draw boundaries within the primary segments, one is bound to turn to meaning. Now it is these primary segments of speech, these large parts of the corpus (which can objectively be singled out by means of phonetic analysis alone) that are what is usually described as 'sentences'. A sentence, therefore, is, primarily, a phonetic unit, a phenomenon of sound, a Hervorbringungseinheit, a unit of ex-

58

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

pression. This does not, of course, mean to say that the sentence has nothing to do with content, with the signifié. On the contrary, the sentence is an important means of shaping the signifié, of bringing together, of presenting as one complex whole the different 'signifieds', normally expressed by different and unconnected signs. In this way the sentence becomes also a unit of content. This property of the sentence is, however, less important or constitutive, than the first. It follows naturally that it is quite impossible to give a brief definition of the sentence, for all its three aspects must simultaneously be taken into account. The sentence, then, is (1) a Hervorbringungseinheit, a unit of enunciation, (2) a unit of segmentation of 'process' (in the sense of Hjelmslev's forlob), and (3) a unit of content. The most extreme, the polar opposite of the sentence is the word. It can be singled out in the sound flow of the spoken chain only on the basis of meaning. It is, therefore, first and foremost, a unit of the signifié, a unit of content. There is interaction between the word and the sentence; and it is their mutual dependence which creates the real unit of language. The only form of existence, the only way for language to come into being is by the 'coupling' (Spannung)3* of the two polar opposites — the sentence and the word. It is the 'interplay' of the two units — their interaction, mutual influence, superposition, etc. that Grammar is called upon to describe and explain. As to the generally accepted division of grammar into morphology and syntax, Glintz thinks it to be irrelevant to scientific analysis. The next step in the experimental analysis of a text shows that the sentence consists of 'blocks' (Blocke), which can be separated from their immediate environment and classified according to the different roles they play in the sentence. These blocks are neither units of the expression plane (for they are not 'phonetic') nor ultimate units of the content plane, for they are often composed of several words. They occupy an intermediate position between a word and a sentence, i.e., they are no longer words, but they u It will be seen that Spannung as used by Glintz is quite different from the signification assigned to it by Boost (see p. 66 below).

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

59

have not yet attained the status of sentences. They are named by Glintz Hauptglieder ('main parts or members') and Stellungsglieder ('positional members'). The 'main members' are the immediate constituents of the sentence. A clear distinction must be drawn between the main members and the Unterglieder ('the submembers'); the latter being 'members of members', i.e., constituent parts of the former. In actual practice the only 'submember' is the attribute. Theoretically speaking, however, the distinction is certainly worthwhile and a great improvement on the traditional classification of parts of the sentence which equates the attribute with the rest of the parts of the sentence in spite of the obvious fact that it normally functions as part of the more extended 'immediate constituents'. The 'main' members are classified as follows: (1) Vorgangsglieder — those parts of the sentence which are 'expressed' by finite forms of the Verb; (2) Größen — the ones, expressed by declinable parts of speech; (3) Angaben — the parts expressed by the uninfected parts of speech; and (4) Fügteile — words which do not occur in the function of parts of the sentence, which only serve to connect sentences and their parts etc. The main division outlined above is subjected to further subdivisions. What results is a system which greatly resembles the traditional one: under the guise of the new metalanguage one easily recognizes the familiar subject, predicate, different kinds of objects, and adverbial modifiers. Glintz himself makes no secret of this obvious fact, but insists that to him it is entirely a question of METHOD, of HOW the categories are discovered. He claims that his method ensures complete emancipation of syntactic theory from psychological or logical interpretations. At the same time he makes it quite plain that a non-contradictory, harmonious, simple and concise system of parts of speech and parts of the sentence is unattainable in principle. This would be completely out of keeping with the nature of language, for language is in a state of constant change, it is forever developing and growing but never attains perfection. Glintz does not merely claim this to be the case; he actually demonstrates in his writings the system of language in all its real

60

'data' and 'facts' in the linguist's mind

complexity, in all its endless variety — the multiplicity of its means, the transitions and incompatibilities of form and function. His research in the field of the language-speech antithesis has certainly been very useful, for it has enabled him to show what enormous possibilities for a forever more adequate and refined expression of Thought are contained in the arsenals of Language. The work of Erben stems from a profound dissatisfaction with all existing syntactic theories, including the one proposed by Glintz. Erben thinks that the chief cause of the unsatisfactory state of affairs lies in the fact that the object itself of syntax has not so far been clearly delineated, there being no generally accepted explanation of the connection between the theory of the sentence and the theory of word-classes and their forms. Equally unsatisfactory is the metalinguistic situation. Glintz did well to make a fresh start, but his research has resulted in a mere change of names while retaining essentially the same categorization (taxonomy). A serious shortcoming of the system can also be seen in the fact that the problem of function is regarded as a less important one. Erben's own views can be summed up as follows: the theory of the sentence should concern itself primarily with the formal aspect, i.e., the structure of the sentence and the word-combinations of which it is composed (denoted together as Wortgruppenbau). A sentence is the total or summary expression (Gesamtausdruck) of an event or state, regarded as either actually taking place, or probable, desirable, etc. The linguistic means used to denote the event or state as expressed in a sentence are words or lexemes (Wortkorper). Their functions in speech are studied by the theory of meaning and function of word-classes and their forms. The theory of the sentence concentrates on its formal structure (in contrast with its inner functional structure, which is studied by the theory of the wordclasses). These two theories are complementary and taken together they constitute the theory of Syntax. The sentence is created in the process of speaking, in the single act of speech, and in this sense it is a Redeeinheit, a unit of speech. It should, however, be borne in mind, that, when investigating the speech of the individual speaker

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

61

the researcher cannot help being concerned with the entire potential linguistic system — the joint product of creative efforts of the whole speech community and the results of many centuries of linguistic development. The aim of syntactic research consists, therefore, in extracting from the concrete speech material at its disposal those levels of sentence structure (Satzbauplane) which are potentially at the disposal of the entire community; although realised in concrete acts of speech (Einzelreden) these can be shown to belong not to the single concrete individual speech events, but to language as the overall potential system. In actual fact, of course, the concrete unit of speech, as created by the individual speaker, remains the only directly accessible object of study. The functional analysis of speech discloses the four main functions of words in speech: (1) Aussage, (2) Benennung, (3) Charakterisierung, and (4) Fiigung. The four functions find their counterparts in the four word-classes (Wortarten) which are distinguished by formal markers or functional indices (Funktionskennzeichen). The word-classes are: (1) das zustand- oder vorgangschildernde Aussagewort — the Verb; (2) das Nennwort — the Noun; (3) das characterisierende Beiwort — the adjective and the adverb; and (4) das Fugewort — the Proposition and the Conjunction. The formal markers of the first three classes in accordance with their functions are: conjugation, declension, degrees of comparison. In addition to the basic four classes Erben sets up a fifth: the Pronouns. The classes, however, are functionally labile and subject to 'stylistic competition'. The same applies to the different morphological categories. Among the earlier applications of de Saussure's ideas to syntactic research a prominent place is occupied by Sergei Karcevskij's "Sur la Phonologie de la Phrase". 35 Here, too, the basic distinction is drawn between the potential, unrealised sign (le signe virtuel), the sign in the system of the language, and the 'actualized' one (actua-

35

Travaux du Cercle Linguistique

de Prague,

1931, N o . 4.

62

'data' and 'facts' in the linguist's mind

lise) — the sign as realized in speech, in concrete use, as part of a given speech-event. The signs of the Language (langue) have only potential 'value' (valeur). In the act of speech they have to be adapted to the concrete requirements of communication. Actualisation of the sign consists in referring it to reality. There are different ways of achieving this, and predication is one of them. But the most important of them all is intonation, by means of which is expressed the attitude of the speaker towards what is being said (or stated); in this way the potential semiological values acquire concrete individual realization and therefore actual existence. Karcevsky's 'phrase' should probably be translated into English as 'utterance', surely not as 'sentence', for the 'phrase' has no grammatical structure of its own. It is a unit of communication and can consist of any amount or quality of lexical material — so long as it fulfils its purpose. But it does possess a phonic structure, the 'intonation', which constitutes it, which 'actualizes the communication' and makes a single word (or any 'assemblage' of words) into a 'unit of actualized communication' — la phrase,36 From the point of view of the language-speech antithesis Karcevsky's 'phrase' is a unit of speech, for it is a unit in which are actualised the linguistic signs. Intonation itself would also appear to belong 38 This mode of 'talking about talking' is fairly typical of 'post-saussurean West-European' linguistics. Cf., for example, Mario Lucidi, Saggi Linguistici (Napoli, 1966), 38. (originally an article in Cultura neolatina, 6-7, 1946-47, 81-91, entitled "La lingua è ..."): "Nè questa precisazione è superflua, che troppo spesso, per non dire sempre, la forza della tradizione porta a considerare parole, morfemi ecc., gli ingredienti, insomma, dell'atto linguistico ..., corno segni, come entità significative (e di conseguenza implicitamente l'atto medesimo come il complesso da essi risultante). Si pensi, ad es., all'espressione tanto usuale: "la parola è l'unità significativa per eccellenza." Questo è un errore. È vero, attività linguistica è attività espressiva; in questa attività creatrice, primaria, propria dell' uomo in quanto uomo, si risolve sempre un qualsiasi atto linguistico ; ma ... un atto linguistico, non una o più parole, mai una o più parole come tali; non in quanto proferisce delle parole, ma in quanto proferendole realizza nella sua compiutezza un atto linguistico, chi parla si esprime; e non nelle singole parole proferite in sè e per sè, ma nella sua compiutezza l'atto linguistico realizzato è un segno che significa ciò che è stato espresso. Dunque, l'atto linguistico, e solo esso, è l'unita significativa per eccelenza consti di una o più parole, è quando in una sola parola viene realizzato, questa cessa di essere una parola."

'data' a n d 'facts' in t h e linguist's mind

63

to speech. No such clear-cut distinction is, however, drawn by Karcevskij, for the 'phrase' as well as 'intonation' are treated as elements of language — together with the 'word' and the 'syntagm'. On the one hand it might appear that Karcevskij's analysis is at a disadvantage as compared with the explicit and consistent division and assignment to either language or speech found in the works of Brandal and Gardiner. If, however, what has been said in part One37 is taken into consideration, Karcevskij's work will be seen to make for a deeper understanding of the relationship. In this respect his theory of the syntagm is most instructive. The syntagm is a binomial structure,whose members are correlated as the definiendum (T) and the definiens (T1). According to Karcevskij, the sentence is also a syntagm. It differs from other syntagms by being predicative: in the case of the sentence (in contrast with other syntagms) the correlation of T and T 1 is effected by the speaker on the basis of referring the content of the relationship to a certain mood, tense and person. In so far as predication is one of the means of actualisation, the sentence becomes similar to the phrase and the language-speech antithesis is thus resolved. The 'syntagm' becomes the corner-stone of the entire theory in the syntactic system proposed by F. Mikus. Following de Saussure Mikus uses the term to denote not only the binomial combinations of words, but the combinations of morphemes within words as well.38 Seeking support in the opinions of Bally and Karcevskij, Mikus claims that syntagms in general can only be binomial. He criticises Marouzeau, who introduced into the definition of the syntagm the words, "or several": "the combination or synthesis of two or several signs, forming a single syntactic complex".39 37

P. 13-23 above. F. MikuS, "En marge du Sixième Congrès International des Linguistes, Paris 1948", Misceláneo Homenaje a André Martinet (Madrid, 1957), and "Obsuzdenije voprosov strukturalizma i sintagmatiieskaja teoria", Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 1957, No. I, 28-34. 39 Mikus's theory of the syntagm was criticized by Frei (H. Frei, "Note sur l'analyse des syntagmes", Word, 1948, vol. 4, No. 2). Mikus's reply was published in "Quelle est en fin de compte la structure-type du language", Lingua, 1953, III, No. 4. 38

64

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

The syntagm according to Mikus is the main structural type (structure-type) of language in general. The only reality that is directly apprehended by the student of language is the 'spoken chain', la chaîne parlée. The main object of the user of language is to adapt the linearity of language to the polydimensionality of the surrounding world. 40 To do this he is compelled to turn to complex structures, which, however, are not built up by adding-on minute ultimate elements one by one. These structures are composed of large prefabricated blocks — syntagms. Thus, for instance, the sentence To-morrow \ our school \ will celebrate | its centenary consists of four blocks (marked off here by vertical lines). There are three main types of syntagms: (1) the pre-predicative ones, subservient to the predicative syntagms; these are part of MiCROsyntagmatics {la microsyntagmatique); (2) the predicative syntagms — PREDICATIVE syntagmatics (syntagmatique predicative) ; and (3) the suprapredicative ones, which comprise predicative syntagms and are part of MACROsyntagmatics (macrosyntagmatique). This principal division is supplemented by more minute ones, based on different kinds of 'transposition'. Transposition is a means of actualisation, a way to endow the linguistic sign with a syntagmatic function. All transpositions are based on the T - T 1 relationship described above. Thus, for example, the syntagm article + noun consists of the definiendum (the noun) and the definiens (the article). Thus, the language-speech antithesis is resolved in terms of transposition of elements of language into the linear segmentation of speech. The concept of 'actualization', which plays such an important part in Karcevskij's interpretation of the language-speech dichotomy, is basic to one more syntactic trend, which was also greatly influenced by de Saussure, and the main representative of which was Vilem Mathesius. Mathesius is the creator of the theory of the actual articulation (or segmentation) of the sentence (aktuâlni cleneni vetne) which is drastically different from the formal one. 40 Cf. Tadeusz Milewski: "... nazywania, wskazywania i konkretnych zjawisk otaczajqcego nas swiata", Jezykoznawstwo 1965), 93.

szerçgowania (Warszawa,

'data' and 'facts' in the linguist's mind

65

By concentrating on the 'actual' articulation (segmentation) of the sentence the researcher can discover its semantic structure (or, in the terminology of Jan Fir'bas, explore its functional perspective).41 Functional perspective is the main factor in the realization by language of its main, i.e. communicative function. The actual segmentation, according to Mathesius, consists in distinguishing between the basis, the initial or starting point, the thema of the utterance (zâklad, thema vypovedi), i.e., that part of the utterance which denotes (points to) something that is assumed to be known, understood, familiar to the listener, etc., and the 'kernel' of communication (jâdro vypovedi) apprehended as the most 'dynamic' the most informative part of the utterance. 42 In contrast with the formal (grammatical) segmentation of the sentence, the division into its 'parts', the subject, the predicate, the attribute, the object, the adverbial modifier — its actual segmentation is based on its semantic structure: it reveals the mutual dependence of the sentence's elements from the point of view of the information conveyed in a particular situation. The theme and the 'kernel' are connected by different kinds of 'transitional elements', which bridge the gap between the least dynamic and the most dynamic parts of the utterance: between the 'zero' dynamism of the theme and the

41 See J. Fir'bas, "Some thoughts on the Function of WORD ORDER in Old and Modern English", Sb. pracifilos.fakulty Brnënské University, 1950, VI; "Thoughts on the communicative function of the verb in English, German and Czech", Brno Studies in English, I (Praha, 1959), c. 55. An extremely wellinformed, clear and concise exposition of the approach is found in Paul L. Garvin, "Czechoslovakia", Current Trends in Linguistics I, 501 if. He also suggests tests for thematic and rhematic function "... the formulation of the question to which the utterance under investigation would be an appropriate answer. It might then turn out that the theme is that portion of the utterance which is held in common by both question and answer, and the rheme is that portion of the utterance which constitutes the actual answer to the question." ibid., 503, fn. 42 Similar views were expressed by H. Weil, "De l'ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes", Questions de Grammaire générale (Paris, 1944). Weil believed that the order of words is determined by the 'movement of the thought', in the case of the neutral, non-emotional utterance the direction of the movement being from the known to the unknown.

66

'data' and 'facts' in the linguist's mind

maximal dynamism of the kernel different stages and degrees of dynamism can be discovered.43 Similar ideas of the 'given' and the 'new' as a basis for the semantic segmentation of the sentence, to determine its communicative functioning, were formulated by Karl Boost.44 Boost does not, however, set as much store by the language-speech, ergon-energeia, virtuel-actualise, etc. distinction as, for example, Karcevskij. He regards as his special contribution to syntactic theory the approach to the sentence from the point of view of the situation that engenders it, the speaker's motivation (purposeful intention)—in other words, from the point of view of meaning, nomination, sense, purpose. As far as the listener is concerned the sentence is apprehended in the following way. Its very first word creates in the listener a state of tension (Spannung), an expectation of communicative resolution (Lösung), which puts an end to the state of tension by means of an adequate consummation. The initial part of the sentence (together with Amman)45 Boost calls the 'theme'. The theme is the object of the sentence (Satzgegenstand), the point of departure in the linear deployment of the sentence. The choice of the theme is conditioned by the particular 43 Mathesius' works on the subject can be found in Cestina a obecny jazykospyt (Praha, 1947), especially "O tak zvanem aktualnim cleneni vetnem", first published in Slovo a slovesnost, 1939, No. 5; see also his Obsahovy rozbor soucasne anglictiny na zaklade obecne lingvistickem, ed. by Josef Vachek (Praha, 1961), and Ree a sloh (Praha, 1966). The 'actual articulation of the sentence' in terms of functional sentence perspective has been successfully investigated by Jan Fir'bas: "Ze srovnävacich studii slovoslednych (k Mathesiovu pojeti slovosledni soustavy)", Slovo a Slovesnost, i . 3/XXIII (1962); "On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis", Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, I (1964); "K otäzce tzv. vychodiska vypovedi", Sb. praci filosoficke fakulty Brnenske University, 1965, A 13; "A note on transition proper in functional sentence anälysis", Philologica pragensia, VIII, Cislo 2-3 (1965), et al. 44 Karl Boost, "Neue Untersuchungen zum Wesen und zur Struktur des deutschen Satzes", Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für deutsche Sprache und Literatur, Lieferung 4 (Berlin, 1956). A critical analysis of Boost's approach to the problem with special reference to Mathesius, as well as the works on the subjects of some Soviet linguists can be found in Jan Fir'bas, "Bemerkungen über einen deutschen Beitrag zum Problem der Satzperspektive", Philologica Pragensia, I (Philologica, X), Cislo 2, 49-54. 45 H. Amman, Die menschliche Rede, II (1928), 3.

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

67

situation, the given relationship between speaker and listener. The 'new', the content proper of the act of cummunication, what the speaker wants to impart to the listener is called the rheme (Rheme; the term was employed by the ancient Greek philologists to denote what in Modern Grammar is termed the 'predicate'). The new term (Rhema) is called for because it is desired to denote a larger part of the sentence than the grammatical predicate, a part comprising all that is 'predicated' of the 'theme'. The semantic articulation (segmentation), according to Boost, is based on the fact that the motive force which creates the sentence is put into action by the speaker's 'possessing knowledge' (das Wisseri) and the 'not-yetpossesing-it' (das Nochnichtwisseri) of the listener. The theory of 'actual articulation' and functional sentence perspective is only one part of the very important contribution of Czechoslovak linguists to the theory of syntax. Before some more details are presented, it may not be without interest to give an exposition of the succinct account of the main lines of the Trend in its approach to Syntax as contained in a summary paper by leading representatives of the Prague school.46 "A word is a minimal meaningful unit capable of transposition in sentences" (that is 'permutable'). The parts of speech (partes orationis) are the great word-classes into which all the words of a language fall. The choice of class is conditioned by the specific "bundle of morphological oppositions" in which a given word is constrained to take part (the class of verbs in English, for example, comprises all the words which participate in the opposition of (1) tense forms (categorial forms of tense); (2) aspect forms (continuous-

M See Philologica Pragensia, 1958, No. 2, where under the title "Prague Structural Linguistics" is an English adaptation of the Russian paper published in Voprosy Jazykoznanija, No. 3, 1957, 44-52. It represents the view of Piague linguists associated in a special section of the "Kruh modernich filologü" (B. Trnka, J. Vachek, P. Trost, S. Lyer, V. Polák, O. Ducháóek, J. Krámsky, J. Nosek, M. Renskjí, V. HofejSi, Z. Wittoch, and L. Dusková). Only the part devoted to morphology and syntax (pp. 36-38) has here been retold or copied out.

68

'data' a n d 'facts' in t h e linguist's mind

noncontinous); forms of voice (categorial forms of active vs passive voice), etc. The division into parts of speech on semantic or phonetic grounds is unacceptable. The views of the Prague school on the Morphology-syntax division are substantially different from those of both the Geneva School (Karcevskij, Brendal, Gardiner) and the American structuralists. The distinction between Morphology and Syntax cannot be equated with that between langue and parole or paradigmatics and syntagmatics. Morphology and syntax are merely two levels of grammatical abstraction in the analysis of linguistic facts. If a sentence is cut up into its constituent word-forms (e.g., father |u| ill) the resulting segments are not units of the morphological level. Conversely, a mere adding up of morphological units will not result in a sentence, for the latter is something qualitatively different from a string of slovoforms. At the same time both morphology and syntax have each a paradigmatics and syntagmatics of their own: morphological paradigmatics deals with the separate words, while morphological syntagmatics is concerned with the combination of words into sentences; syntactic paradigmatics is concerned with "the analysis of sentences into their consituent syntactic oppositions as well as their implementation by morphological oppositions", while the object of syntactic syntagmatics is "the analysis of the combination of sentences". The doctrine of'immediate constituents', derived by some American linguists from de Saussure's conception of 'syntagma', has never become a starting-point for any scientific enquiry of the Prague linguists (if we leave aside the studies of Karcevskij who was associated with the School of Geneva rather than with that of Prague). As another point of the Genevan 'Syntagmatics' questioned by the Prague School may be mentioned the reduction of all speech elements including the relation subject-predicate, to the relation determinant-determined. It is clear from the foregoing exposition that the sharp dichotomy langue-parole is no longer held to be a realistic basis of linguistic investigation by the Prague School. What de Saussure describes as parole is regarded by the Prague linguists as utterances (or

'data' and 'facts' in the linguist's mind

69

parts of utterances) in which a code of inherent structural rules is to be detected.47 The above succinct profession de foi gives a fair picture of the main points of agreement between those linguists who are or have been, in some way, connected with the Prague School. Thus, for instance, in an article entitled "The Word and the Sentence" A. V. Isacenko48 gives the following definition of the main distinction between the two categories: the word names, the sentence communicates. Although a sentence normally consists of words it is not a mechanical concatenation of the latter. Within a sentence words enter into different very complex relations with one another owing to which their latent (potential) lexical meanings are greatly extended. It is also very important to note that modern syntactic theory has devised methods of studying syntactic relationships not only in terms of the sentence as a global whole, but also in terms of 'syntagms' or 'word-combinations', which are viewed as a kind of 'prefabricated blocks' within the structure of the sentence. The role of word-combination as part of syntax is very important also owing to the following: when syntactic phenomena are being classified, the starting point may be found in the special requirements of the individual speaker — his desire to express, e.g. probability, possibility or some other modality. The same syntactic meaning, however, may be expressed by completely different syntagms because syntactic 'meanings' are not purely logical, but are always connected with (and modified by) specific forms of syntactic expression. A word as a unit of the vocabulary (the lexis) is a semanteme, devoid of grammatical form in the proper sense. "As part of a sentence the word ceases to be an abstract semanteme and becomes a grammatical form. In this way, on different levels the word displays its different properties. When used as a means of nomination its grammatical characteristics may be irrelevant; while on the syntactic level it is its grammatical features which come to the fore." 47

Op. cit., 38. A. V. Isacenko, "Slovo a veta", Sb. O vedeckem poznani soudobych jazyku (Praha, 1958). 48

70

'data' and 'facts' in the linguist's mind

This is how V. Skalicka sums up his paper on the mutual relationship of morphology and syntax. 49 "Morphology and Syntax are kept distinct on the one hand, by the difference between the onomatological and the syntactic function and on the other, by the fact that the word is a border-line unit which keeps the two apart. This role of words is especially prominent in the case of 'lexical' elements (for ex. prepositions) which fulfil syntactic functions and serve to differentiate syntactic relationships." With still greater clarity the morphology-syntax relationship is explained by E. Pauliny. 50 When a person apprehends (cognosces) the realities of the surrounding world he (or she) forms concepts. But the different objects are not apprehended in isolation; the relations between them, their similarities and dissimilarities are inalienable from the process of cognition. The concepts are denoted by words, the relations between them are expressed in syntagms. The vocabulary and grammar of a language are gradually evolved by means of generalization and abstraction. The vocabulary and the grammar of a language are often considered separately, as two different linguistic planes or levels. Such a separation would be acceptable (even admissible) only on condition that their interconnectedness and mutual dependence should always be borne in mind. The meaning of a word always includes, over and above an 'isolated' concept (the word's 'individual reference'), all the supplementary semantic and morphological features which make it a certain part of speech. It is because a word is always a member of a word class, a part-of-speech, that it can enter into a particular set of syntactic relations with other words — those of attribution, coordination, predication, etc. Syntactic relations are abstracted from the actual relationships between the objects of the real world. It is therefore wrong to believe that any word in any speech event can establish, with other words, all the relationships which, in the abstract, are proper to 49

V. Skalicka, "Vztah morfologie a syntaxe", Slovo a slovesnost, 1957, N o . 2, 71. 60 Eugen Pauliny, "System v jazyku", Sb. o vedeckem poznani soudobych jazyku (Praha, 1958).

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

71

words of the class it belongs to. Thus, for instance, the oak is a tree is correct, while a tree is the oak is not, for the simple reason that a predicative syntagm with the subject possessing a more general meaning than the predicate is a contradictio in adjecto. Although the irreversibility of the relationship may here be said to be determined by the sense, it is at the same time formally syntagmatic. The 'utterance' (promluva, prehovor) and its formal realisation, the sentence, can be approached from two points of view: on the one hand, as a semiological (or sense-) unit, which is created by the application of an ensemble of different linguistic means; on the other, simply as a complex system of linguistic means. These two approaches are mutually dependent and complementary, one of them tends toward the individual and concrete, the other toward the general and the abstract.51 If the starting point is the concrete act of speech, i.e., the individual and concrete reality of the utterance, the researcher will view the linguistic system as supra-individual and abstract, deduced from concrete utterances. This approach is the opposite of the one that regards the concrete utterances as instances of realization of an abstract linguistic system, an ensemble of immanent means used to produce statements concerning the concrete objects of the material world.52 According to B. Havranek53 syntax cannot be reduced to the relationship between the expressive means of language and the syntactic grammatical categories. Syntax also includes the problem of the relationship between the realized grammatical structure of 51 The problem of the utterance (wypowedzenie) is also investigated by Klemensiewicz both from the point of view of its ability to render a certain 'content' individual and concrete, and, at the same time, to abstract and generalize; see Z. Klemensiewicz, Zarys skladni polskiej (Warszawa, 1953). An utterance is first and foremost a unit of communication, something produced by the speaker in such a way as to enable the listener to apprehend a message under certain conditions of linguistic intercourse. 52 E. Pauliny, "La phrase et l'enonciation", Recueil Linguistique de Bratislava, 1949, No. 1. 63 B. Hdvranek, "Metodicka problematika historickosrovnavaciho studia slovanske syntaxe", Ceskosl. prednasky pro IV mezinar. sjezd slavistu v Moskve (Praha, 1958).

72

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

the sentence and its semantic structure. Traditional syntax did not know how to keep these two structures apart, i.e., it confounded the grammatical and the semantic structures of the sentence. True, in the case of a concrete (written or uttered) sentence in natural linguistic intercourse, the semantic structure of the sentence comes first, stands out. The linguistic scientist, however, must concentrate, first of all, on the GRAMMATICAL structure of the sentence, but he, too, cannot leave out its semantic structure altogether. He must also, and this is especially important, make sure that a detailed philological investigation of the linguistic material on hand has been effected. Very much the same view is held by Smilauer. 54 By producing a sentence the speaker expresses his attitude to, and his points of view on the objects, denoted by the words as its ultimate constituents. From the 'dynamic' point of view three aspects have to be distinguished : (1) the act of creating the sentence, the global, dynamic approach to speech production ; (2) the 'actual' syntax or structure of the sentence; and (3) its grammatical syntax or inner structure. 55 Mathesius's basic ideas have inspired the work of M. Dokulil, K. Hausenblas, and F. Danes. 56 Their theory of three levels of analysis holds considerable promise. On the first level the sentence is "a singular and individual speech-event" (vëta jako udâlost) ; on the second it appears as one of all possible different minimal 64

V. Smilauer, Novoceska Skladba (Praha, 1947). The number of linguists whose approach is fundamentally the same (that is with the sentence ranking highest and the main preoccupation being with the syntactic structures of the 'communicative plane') is very great indeed. This does not mean to say, of course, that the syntactic theory of the Prague School is immutable. Cf., for example, an interesting review by Milka Ivic of Fr. Kopecny's Zâklady ceské skladby (Praha, 1962) in Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku, VI. M. Ivic compares Kopecny's book with V. Smilauer's Novoceska skladba (Praha, 1947) to show what has been done in the course of the five years by way of applying new methods of syntactic research in the field of Slavic linguistics. 68 M. Dokulil, "K povaze vztahu slova a pojmu, vëty a myslenky", O védeckem poznàni soudobych jazyku (Praha, 1958); F. Danes, M. Dokulil, "K tak zvany vyznamové a mluvnické stavbë vëty" (in the same collection of articles); F. DaneS, "A three-level approach to Syntax", Travaux linguistiques de Prague, I; L'école de Prague d'aujourd' hui (Praha, 1964) K. Hausenblas, "On the Characterisation and Classification of Discourses" (ibid.). 65

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

73

communicative units (utterance, vypovéd) of the particular language; on the third as an abstract structure or configuration, i.e., as a pattern of distinctive features; the set of such patterns represents a subsystem of the overall grammatical system of the language in question. In brief: (1) the 'utterance-event', (2) the utterance, and (3) the sentence pattern. 57 The first level of abstraction, the utterance (vypoved'), is a conconcrete realization of an abstract syntactic formula. But this is by no means the whole story, for it also includes the nongrammatical means of its 'dynamic' organisation: rhythm, intonation, the 'actual' articulation (segmentation), the functional perspective. The term 'sentence' is therefore restricted to the third level, the grammatical pattern. On the first two levels the entity is the 'utterance'. It is most instructive to compare this trichotomy with the one proposed by E. Coseriu.58 Speech (el hablar), which Coseriu translates into German as wirkliches Sprechen, Gesprách, is the concrete acts of speech as apprehended at the moment of their actual enunciation (or 'production', producción). The first level of abstraction is the 'norm' (Sprachnorm) which includes only those features of the concrete individual utterance, which are a reproduction of pre-existing models (repetición de modeles anteriores). The second level of abstraction, the system (sistema, Sprachsystem), contains only those features which, within the norm, are part of the indispensable form, of the functional oposition. The second level of abstraction eliminates from the norm all that is "connected with custom, tradition, all the features that although common to the speech of all the members of a given speech community, has no functional value — which are, in final analysis, merely a kind of accompaniment always present in speech, but inessential from the point of view of the basic significative oppositions on which depends the functioning of speech as an instrument of cognoscence and communication". 59 67 68 68

F. Danes, op. cit., 229. Eugenio Coseriu, "Sistema, Norma y Habla" (see fn. p. 49 above). Coseriu, loc. cit.: ... Asi, por ejemplo, en español es normal la frase se

74

'DATA' AND 'FACTS' IN THE LINGUIST'S MIND

Among the numerous reviews of trends and approaches now available special mention should be made of P. L. Garvin's discussion of different syntactic methodologies. By comparing a Czech and an American paper on word-order he explains in detail the authors' different techniques and arrives at the well-grounded conclusion that the American paper "treats as incidental the problem which to the Czech linguist is central, namely, the relation of a particular feature of word-order to the manifestation of the communicative function of language".60 This does not mean to say that the 'deep', microlinguistic, underlying structure is neglected. No: BOTH the 'data' and the 'facts' are ever present in the researcher's mind, like "the recto and the verso of a sheet of paper".

me ha dado, pero no lo es la frase me se ha dado, que, sin embargo, mantiene todas las distinciones requeridas por el sistema y que es, en cambio, normal en italiano (mi si è dató). En español hay que decir no voy más, como en italiano {non vado piü), mientras en rumano se dice nu mai merg ("no más voy"), y en alemán ich gehe nicht mehr ("yo voy no más") ; es decir que, aquí también, las realizaciones normales caracterizan una lengua más allá de las oposiciones funcionales", op. cit., 160. Coseriu returns to the subject in a recent report: " L a norme comprend tout ce que, dans la 'technique du discours', n'est pas nécessairement fonctionnel (distinctif), mais qui est tout de même traditionnellement (socialement) fixé, qui est usage commun et courant de la communauté linguistique. Le système, par contre, comprend tout ce qui est objectivement fonctionnel (distinctif)." (Structure lexicale et enseignement du vocabulaire, Actes du premier colloque international de linguistique appliquée, Nancy, 1966, Session II, 1). Current Trends in Linguistics, I : Soviet and East European Linguistics (The Hague, Mouton, 1963), 507-508.

4

SYNTAX A N D

SYNTAGMATICS

The preceding three parts of the present book may be assumed to have proved the validity of the distinction between, on the one hand, the sum total, the ensemble, the inventory of units (that is the paradigmatic or associative plane), and on the other, the arrangement of these units in the chaîne parlée, the natural flow of speech (the syntagmatic plane). Irrespectively of whether only one of the two planes was given serious consideration, or both have simultaneously been subjected to close scrutiny, the dichotomy, the antithesis, the distinction as the cornerstone of syntactic theory has certainly been vindicated in innumerable books and papers by linguistic scientists from different parts of the world. There is also little doubt that even when an author makes no overt statements to the effect, does not put his linguistic credo into so many words, he would not be able really to contribute to the study of syntax unless his investigation was firmly based on the distinction in question. The present part of the book will be devoted to a different problem, but, nevertheless, one that is very closely connected with what has already been said and done before. If formulated as a question it could be presented in the following way: is the linguistic scientist justified in claiming the existence of a separate linguistic discipline, traditionally called 'syntax', or is the problem of 'arrangement', of mutual relations of units in the flow of speech, quite conveniently, adequately and scientifically described (or 'accounted for') in terms of 'syntagmatics'? 1 There are two distinct answers to this question: "Yes" and "No". In other words, the linguist is again confronted with a 'dichotomy', 1

In its more extreme forms based on the idea of 'isomorphism of levels'.

76

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

but an altogether different one — one that cuts a cross the languagespeech antithesis. Whichever of the three main approaches to syntactic analysis is chosen, the above-mentioned question is sure to crop up: is Syntax to be equated with Syntagmatics or acknowledged as a separate and specific linguistic discipline? To take descriptive linguistics first. The 'direct manipulation of observable morphemes', of the 'simplest observables', requires no concepts other than morphemes and sequences of morphemes, and no operations other than substitution, repeated time and again. 2 A very important feature of the procedure consists in "extending the technique of substitution from single morphemes (e.g. man) to sequences of morphemes (e.g. intense young man)". This means, that the same methods of research are recommended both for 'free' and 'bound' forms. Essentially the same method is assumed to be valid for all levels of linguistic analysis at which the description of the 'distributional structure' of language can be effected. 3 Such essentially different units as the morpheme, the word, the word-combination (word-group), the sentence are treated fundamentally in the same way — in terms of a generalised and indiscriminate 'tactics'. Distribution as the sum total of all the environments of a form, as the 'existing array of its co-occurents' is 2 See Z. S. Harris, "From Morpheme to Utterance", Language, 22 (1946) (quoted from Readings in Linguistics, ed. Martin Joos, 142). See also his Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1951). 3 See Z. S. Harris, "Distributional Structure", Word, 10 (1954), No. 2-3.— Distributional analysis is closely connected with the broader question of 'binary oppositions', the latter being also convenient from the point of view of preparing texts for the Machine. It is also favourably viewed because of its universality, its applicability to different levels of language. The underlying principle is the opposition 'same' v.s. 'different'. Thus, for example, on the lexemic level, [i:ka'nomik] and [eka'nomik] are 'same'; they are said to be in 'free variation', while per- in persists, performs, etc. and per- in person, peroxide are 'different'. They are in 'contrastive distribution', because only the first two can occur in the environment of he, etc. as in he, she, the man, etc. persists, performs, etc. — It is interesting to observe that for Harris distribution is the basic concept, which enables the researcher to discover the units (the classes, the categories) on which grammatical description wholly depends; for Chomsky it is the final result to be attained by the theory of grammar in the long run, the problem whose solution is still pending.

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

77

regarded as the only reliable (and universal) method of discourse analysis — a method which does away with "the use of diverse and undefined terms and a reliance on semantic rather than formal differentiation" on which 'traditional' syntax normally depends. 4 Insofar as syntagmatics concerns itself with 'arrangement' in the widest sense of the word, i.e. with its most general and universal principles it is not interested in differentiation of units and levels of analysis. It shuts its eyes to the variety of linguistic 'entities', the inapplicability of the same methods of research to such widely different 'objects' as, for example, syllables and sentences. From the point of view of syntagmatics the more isomorphic the description the better, i.e., the simpler and more uniform the approach to the sequences of the different levels, the easier to find confirmation of the basic theoretical hypotheses. It is most desirable for syntagmatics to regard all the different units of language as identical, as far as 'arrangement' is concerned. If, however, it is found that they do differ, the main object is to abstract oneself from these differences and concentrate on points of general similarity. Syntagmatic analysis, in its descriptivist variant is, practically, confined to speech. True, when certain conclusions are reached from an analysis of a given 'corpus', the descriptive linguist will assume that they hold good also for other utterances, naturally produced by speakers of the same language. 5 But, as has already been claimed above, the primary concern is with the syntagmatic 4 The purely 'distributionalist', i.e., syntagmatic approach to 'discourse analysis' is in general applicable only to languages with a very limited and directly observable repertoire. In the case of 'great' languages, like English or Russian, to find out whether an 'utterance' actually 'occurs in the culture' one has to turn to the 'informant' (see p. 17 above). — As 'syntax' the above syntagmatic devices are inapplicable for more comprehensive reasons, which will be considered in detail below. Cf., also the critical remarks by M. Joos, attached to the reprint of "From Morpheme to Utterance" in Readings in Linguistics, I, 153. 6 Thus, for instance, if a selective difference between book and that piece of junk has been established for a given corpus, there is every reason to believe that it will hold good for sufficiently large other corpuses as well. Examples: This book of my mother's and that piece of junk of my mother's; have you brought the book? Have you brought that piece of junk?, etc., cf. Harris, "From Mopheme to utterance", 147.

78

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

axis, the paradigmatic one is practically left to take care of itself.6 Although the Glossematic approach (in contrast with the distributionalist one) relies for its conclusions on a diametrically opposed view of language — as a self-sufficient, immanent system, indifferent to its realizations and unaffected by them; although its main object consists in so arranging the facts of natural languages, as to bring out the a priori schemas, created by means of axiomatic deduction, etc. — insofar as the syntax-syntagmatics dichotomy is concerned it falls in the same class as descriptive linguistics: Glossematics aims not merely at a strictly isomorphic analysis of the different levels, but also at a simplified description of the different means and devices used in different languages for the expression of 'constructional relationships'. 7 In a certain sense the same may be said to apply to the theory of 'generative models'. If it is true that "a generative model is one of a collection of statements, (rules or axioms) which defines (describes or generates) in a language a sub-set of well-formed utterances and only those"; 8 "the system of rules that in some explicit and well-defined way assigns structural descriptions to sentences"; 9 if these statements are shown to refer to sequences from both the 'feature' and the 'semantic' levels of language 10 (Chomsky by the way usually speaks of 'sentences', without, however, explaining what exactly he means by the term), then the syntagmatic approach to 'arrangement' is fully represented. Although the proponents of the 'generative' approach have just been accused of failing to keep syntax and syntagmatics properly 6 Cf. R. Jakobson, "Results of the Congress", Proc. of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, ed. Horace Lunt (The Hague, 1962): "One of these cardinal features (of the Congress, O.A.) is the primary concern with the Paradigmatic axis, in contradistinction to the exclusive care for the Syntagmatic axis in the distributionalists' approach of the recent past" (1140). 7 Cf. p. 35 above. 8 Cf. Morris Halle, "Phonology in Generative Grammar", Word, 18, Nos 12 (1962), 54-72. 9 N. Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass., MITPress, 1965). 10 E.g., "a back vowel is to be rewritten as a front vowel in the environment /i/. OE. birep, beripi, etc."

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

79

apart, as a contribution to the theory of SYNTAX Chomsky's approach is infinitely more interesting and helpful than that of Glossematics. The elaborate and instructive investigations which already resulted in assigning distinct and permanent places within the system to almost all the ingredients of actual utterances — the 'formatives', the 'semantic component', the 'syntactic component', etc.; 11 the clearcut distinction between competence and performance and many other refinements besides, are a great step forward. Very much remains to be done, however, before the proper object of syntax as distinct from phraseology ('collocation'), phonological arrangement, hyperlexemic structures, etc., etc. is firmly established. Part 3 of this book was devoted to instances of the approach whose representatives concern themselves, simultaneously, with both 'language' and 'speech'. Even in this case not all researchers have succeeded in delineating the object of syntax with sufficient clarity : quite often here, too, attention is focussed on combinations of diverse elements, indiscriminately described as 'syntagms'. Perhaps one of the most illustrative examples here is the work of F. Mikus, 12 in whose 'syntagmatic structuralism' the 'syntagm' quite naturally appears as the alpha and omega of the whole theory. Although the theoretical premisses of syntagmatic structuralism are different from those of descriptive linguistics, the actual analysis proceeds along very much the same lines. The binary syntagm which appears on different levels, is practically indistinguishable from the 'immediate constituents' of descriptive linguistics, thus: Poor John / ran away; ran / away, a / way; ils / écrasaient, écras / aient; Les forces / mystérieuses, mistér / ieuses, etc. etc. 13 The failure of so many modern linguists to distinguish between 11

Cf. p. 95 ff. below. Cf. p. 63 above. 18 It is, however, important to note, that, in contrast with descriptive linguistics, Mikus sets great store by a discussion of the philosophic (Sprachphilosophische) background of his theory. Philosophically his syntagmatic theory is based on the following set of assumptions. A linguistic sign is a semologically relevant phono-acoustic entity. It can serve its purpose in com12

80

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

syntagmatics and syntax has very much to do with their professed abandonment of the morphology-syntax division. "Conventional linguistics" says L. Hjelmslev" has been systematically interested in such dependences (like selection, O.A.) within the text only insofar as they occurred between two or more different words, not within one and the same word. This is bound up with the division into morphology and syntax, the necessity of which has been insisted on by conventional linguistics since antiquity, and which we shall shortly be led to abandon as inadequate — this time, incidentally, in agreement with several modern schools." 14 This quotation from Whitfield's translation of Hjelmslev's book puts in a nutshell the gist of what has been expounded on the opening pages of Part 4. Yes, all the modern schools which have been brought together under the general appellation of 'structural linguistics' have persisted in abandoning the division, which 'conventional' (or 'traditional', the latter term being more euphemistic) linguistics had attached so much importance to: the division of grammar into morphology and syntax. It is to be hoped that what has been said above has explained how it came to pass: units and arrangement! Just units — all kinds of them. Units widely differing in extent, recurrence, combinability, etc.; plus — the different 'relations', 'relationships' or 'functions' between them, uniformly and indiscriminately applied at all levels, with special emphasis placed on the theoretical importance of this levelling out, of munication by being, first of all, an identifying unit. But the function of identification is unthinkable apart from differentiation, the two together forming a dialectic unity. Thus, for instance, the lexical sign red fulfils the two-fold function by, simultaneously, identifying the object as (1) being of a colour and (2) distinguished from the rest of the colours by specification of its place in the spectrum. In a word like red the two functions are inseparable, welded together within one global sign. In the syntagm, the two functions are overtly distributed between its two components, this being the reason why the binary principle in the analysis is so important; cf. p. 63 above. But the syntagm is not a sign-within-the-language, not part of the system, the langue. It is a sign-in-speech, a complex unit, created by means of different kinds of 'transpositions'. 14 Louis Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, transl. by Francis J. Whitfield (Madison, 1961), 26.

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

81

substituting something so simple and consistent for the 'vague and unreliable statements' of the traditionalists.15 What, then, is Syntax? Syntax is the theory of the utterance, of the speech-event. The 'structural' methods, which begin with 'single morphemes and work up' (assuming that the morphemes of the language had already been isolated, which, of course, has never yet actually been the case) are bound to give a distorted picture of real utterances based on natural human languages.16 The utterance consists of words, not of morphemes, just like a train consists of carriages, and not of wheels, brakes, walls, windows, etc. WORDS are the ultimate constituents of the utterance, its minimal units. The results of the layman's first natural 'articulation' (première articulation) is words.17 This statement is made as categorically as possible, although the authors of the present book are fully aware of the stupendous difficulties which are bound to arise the moment a confirmed 'syntagmatist' comes up with all the well-known examples of 'borderline' cases like, f.ex., articles, preverbal personal pronouns, the-king-of-England's-hat, etc. etc. All these questions have been taken up time and again in different countries and by differently oriented linguists. It is also an established fact, that (1) the word as a unit which on the expression-plane is hierarchically intermediate between a word-combination (a slovosocetanje) and a 16 For a comparison of the basic precepts of glossematics with those of descriptive linguistics to demonstrate their agreement on all essential points of syntagmatic description see O. S. Akhmanova et al., Exact Methods in Linguistic Research (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1963), 10. 16 Harris in "From Morpheme to Utterance", 150, rightly concludes that if we were to begin with the whole utterance and work down "... we would have to find formal criteria for breaking the utterance down at successive stages. This is essentially the difficult problem of determining the immediate constituents of an utterance. It is not clear that there exists any general method for successively determining the immediate constituents, when we begin with a whole utterance and work down." " Or 'monemes' (monèmes), but certainly not morphemes, which even the most sophisticated linguists can hardly single out. Cf. A. Martinet, "Arbitraire linguistique et double articulation", Cahiers F. de Saussure, No. 15 (1957), 37-47; cf. also O. S. Akhmanova et al., op. cit., 13-16, and "Ausgedriicktes und Nichtausgedrucktes in der zusammenfassenden Semantik des Wortes", Zeitschr. fur Slawistik, VI, No. 4.

82

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

morpheme does not stand out equally clearly in all languages, and (2) that a unit can be a word to a greater or less degree.18 Altough many of the commonly advanced criteria for dividing the words from the morphemes, on the one hand, and from wordcombinations, on the other, have too often been branded as subjective and lacking explicitness, even mere phonetic criteria can still be quite reliable in a number of typical cases. For instance progressive assimilation of the /C0KV > C 0 K 0 / type (C and K are different consonants, 0 is voicelessness, v is presence of voice) in Modern English, owing to which a voiced stop /K v / is regularly replaced after ¡CJ by a voiceless sound / K J , is realized only when /K v / and /CJ ARE PART OF THE SAME WORD ('word' being the 'conventional' for 'word-form' or 'slovoform'). The assimilation does not take place when /K v / belongs to the next word in the sequence: thus, looked up [lukt Ap], but look down [luk daun]. Another example: the English compound words ráilway, bláckboard, the German Eisenbahn, Schwarzbrot have no stress on the second elements, which proves them to be compound words, and not 'syntagms' or word-combinations.19 Most important is, also, the criterion of 'inseparability'. Admirable is one word because the sequence cannot be broken to insert other 'units' between admir- and -able, whereas the controversial problem of the French je fait etc. is 'objectively' solved by the comparative ease with which other units can be placed between the two elements, as in je le fait, etc. etc.20 The word as the 'free' form was independently vindicated by scholars of the stature of Bloomfield and Sôerba. In recent times one more criterion was added, by applying the methods of infor18 Cf., especially, A. I. Smirnitsky, Leksikologia anglyskogo jazyka (Moscow, 1956), 16-40; A. Martinet, Actes du sixième congrès international des linguistes (Paris, 1949), 19-30, 261-302; "Arbitraire linguistique et double articulation", Cahiers F. de Saussure, No. 15 (1957), 105-116; "Le Mot", Diogène, Revue trimestrielle publiée sous les auspices du conseil international de la philosophie et des sciences humaines et avec l'aide d'Unesco, 51; Problèmes du langage (Paris, 1965). 19 See A. I. Smirnitsky, op. cit., 28; S. Chatman, "Immediate Constituents and Expansion Analysis", Word, 11, 1955, No. 3. 20 Cf. A. Martinet, loc. cit.

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

83

mation theory. In the flow of speech the transitions characterized by convergent hierarchies must correspond to states with relatively low entropy of transition. This occurs, among other things, when a vast variety of stems converge upon a limited number of suffixes.21 In other words, the greater the potential variety of the left to right 'environment', or the greater the number of classes of mutually substitutable units capable of following the unit in question, the sharper the 'structural boundary' and the higher the rank of the preceding element in the hierarchical scale. In the Russian sequence golubyje bluzy 'blue blouses', for example, the difference between the two boundaries — the one, separating golub- and -yje and bluz- and -y, on the one hand and the one, separating golubyje and bluzy, on the other — can be easily demonstrated by applying the criterion of probability. Golub- can be followed by only a very limited number of fully inventorized suffixes oj, -aja, -oje, etc., while after golubyje any noun which can denote objects, thought of as blue can freely appear — to say nothing of numerous adjectives, conjunctions, etc. etc. A WORD, then, is the ultimate constituent of the utterance and its 'potential minimum'. It can be directly referred to a thingmeant (which is a reverberation of a part or portion of objective reality), i.e., it is endowed with the quality (or attribute) of 'individual reference'. Although these two main characteristics of the word are separately embodied in its 'formal' (or grammatical) and its 'material' (or lexical) aspects, they are as it were, intertwined and constantly interact. The study of this specific interaction is the object of morphology; this shows how great the importance of the morphology-syntax division is, primarily in terms of the morphological and syntactic aspects of the word.22 21

Cf. O. S. Akhmanova, "On Psycholinguistics", General Systems, Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, 5 (Ann Arbor, 1960), 200ff. 22 The paramount importance of the Word will become evident if the following definitions of the phraseological unit and the slovosocetanije are taken into account. A word-combination (slovosocetanije) according to V. V. Vinogradov is "a combination of words organized in accordance with the laws of a given language and expresssing one concept, however complex". It is a free equivalent of a 'phraseological unit' ("Idealisticeskije osnovy sintaksiiieskoj sistemy prof. A. M. Peskovskogo", Voprosy sintaksisa sovremennogo russkogo

84

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

THE UTTERANCE is a unit of the 'communicative plane' (kommunikativnogo plana): it can consist of a single word, several words, 23 or of specific combinations of words like there was a time or (Russ.) byla noc. But in many, perhaps in the majority of actually produced utterances, especially in connected speech, there occur (in some cases recur) complex units, which are constructed according to certain definite principles or rules of 'arrangement' and are justly regarded as 'syntactic units of the non-communicative plane'. These are the non-ultimate or 'immediate' constituents of the utterance, the syntagmata or word-combinations or slovosocetanija. Vinogradov's schema: word e phraseological unit e free equivalent of phraseological unit, the slovosocetanije (see footnote to preceding page) is widely accepted in this country (the USSR). The theory of word-combination is called 'minor syntax'. The theory of the sentence (the 'utterance'?) 24 'Syntax proper' or 'major syntax'. This approach to syntax — a description of both its non-communicative and communicative aspects — is presented by Vinogradov in his introduction to the Grammar of the Russian Language (1952-54) sponsored by the Academy of sciences of the USSR. The slovosocetanije is formed according to certain rules of subordinating word-combination. Being non-communicative (nonpredicative) units, the slovosocetanijas may be viewed as an instance of 'syntactic paradigmatics' — f.ex. to read a book, reads a book, reading books, to be reading a book, etc. A concatenation of different

jazyka, M., 1950, 42). But a phraseological unit according to the same author is, in its turn, a word-equivalent, a functional equivalent of a word. In this way the 'free' word-combination, being the equivalent of the phraseological unit, also becomes the equivalent of the word! (cf. V. V. Vinogradov, "Pon'atije sintagmy v sintaksise russkogo jazyka", in the same collection of articles). 23 The number of words in a single 'sentence' can vary from one to several dozen, both the one-word and the inordinately long sentence being deviations from the norm. Point 209, for example, in Leo Tolstoj's Osvoboidenije ot obmanov very is one sentence of 108 words. Cf. in this connection G. A. Lesskis, "O razmerax predlozenij v russkoj naucnoj i xudozestvennoj proze 60-x godov XIX v.", Voprosy jazykoznanija, 1962, No. 2, 78. 24 See p. 109 below.

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

85

word-combinations within an utterance may form complex wordcombinations (by 'contamination'), f.ex., izjavit' zelanije rabotaf v provincii ('to express a wish to work in the provinces'), jego izvestnaja vsem neujomnaja zazda dejateVnosti ('his generally known insatiable thirst for action'), etc. Some word-combinations are always complex (or 'contaminated') ones: prijexaf pervogo maja ('to come on the first of May'), vesc vysokoj ceny ('an object of high price'). 25 It should be emphasized that not all the elements (or ultimate constituents) of an utterance are neatly distributed among the slovosocetanijas in the manner assumed for immediate constituents in descriptive linguistics or for 'binary syntagms' in other structuralist trends. All the coordinating word combinations within the utterance form directly part of the larger syntactic unit. They are not included in any of the constituent slovosocetanijas. There is, as a result, among the more rigorous adherents of this view a tendency, to ban the 'secondary parts of the sentence', which, according to them, are the product of an artificial schematization and are based on non-grammatical principles. It should also be noted that the predicative bond is a COORDINATING and not a subordinating syntactic bond. The predicative complex, therefore, cannot be regarded merely as a special kind of slovosocetanije,26 A very important methodological problem is the connection between synchronic syntactic description and 'diachronic Syntax' — the movement, the change, the development, which is ever present, always effective. An idea of this trend can be formed by consulting the very interesting collection of articles under the title Razvitije sintaksisa sovremennogo russkogo jazyka v sov'etskuju epoxu (Moscow, 1966), edited by N. S. Pospelov and E. A. IvanSikova. A glance at the Introduction, entitled "O razvitii sintaksisa russkogo jazyka v sov'etskuju epoxu", by E. A. Ivancikova (concerning the development of Russian syntax during the epoch of the Soviets) 26 See for further examples M. Ivic, "Non-omissible determiners in Slavic languages", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., 1962 (The Hague, 1964). 28 Cf. Osnovy postrojenija opisateVnoj grammatiki sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (Moscow, 1966), 129-146.

86

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

may well serve to stimulate interest in this aspect of syntactic study, too long neglected by recent trends in syntactic structuralism. It is natural for the student of diachronic syntax to look, first and foremost, for those changes which were conditioned by sociolinguistic factors, like, for instance, the 'democratization of the literary language', due to the fact that great masses of people, whose parents were illiterate, are now enjoying the benefits of general secondary education and use the standard literary language as a matter of course. In terms of syntax this 'democratization' manifests itself in (1) the penetration of colloquial constructions into the written language, mainly into 'journalese', and (2) the spread, in everyday language, of constructions originally confined to the 'bookish', the language of literature, and 'written' language in general. However interesting these processes may be both syntactically and sociolinguistically, they are, perhaps, problems of 'style' and not of syntax in the proper sense of the word.27 There existing no generally recognized theoretical foundations for a clear distinction of the two fields, E. A. Ivancikova confines herself to several statements concerning the results of the changes which have been under way for some time. For example, the change in the order of syntactic bonds, resulting in what Ch. Bally and A. Sechehaye called 'segmented' constructions, held together by such devices as specific intonation contours and pronouns — personal (anaphoric), relative, and demonstrative. Examples: morskajcC voda — sto my o nej znajeml ('Sea water, what do we know about it?'), Xorosij obed — eto ocen' vazno ('A good dinner — that is very important), Pr'amyje sv'azi s predprijatijami — vot sto nuzno ('Direct contact with industry — that is what is required'), Kepler — otec bioniki? ('Kepler — the 'father' of bionics?'), etc., etc. In close connection with the spread of 'segmented' binary structures is the development of two-member compound sentences, f.ex. A ctoby masiny gruzit' — etogo i v mysl'ax ne bylo ('As to " Similar problems are faced by researchers in the field of syntactic typology; cf. Fred W. Householder, Jr., "First Thoughts on Syntactic Indices", IJAL, 26 (I960), No. 3.

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

87

loading the trucks—they never even thought of that). Compression, condensation of compound sentences, in which the subordinate clause becomes fused with the main one, absorbed by the latter, f.ex. Vyjdes zamuz za kogo saxocet otec ('You will marry whom father says'); innumerable other cases, including caiques: net slezam, da produblennym rukam ... ('No to tears, yes to toilhardened hands'), etc., etc. Ivancikova arrives at the following general conclusion: all the innovations, which first appear as subjective syntactic tricks, confined to the personal style of a particular writer (also in the portrayal of literary characters) gradually penetrate into the common syntactic 'stock-in-trade' and become widely used in different styles of speech, particularly those, of course, whose aim is to impress the listeners, to create an emotional atmosphere, to challenge and exhort. The language-speech dichotomy goes back at least28 to the first half of the nineteenth century (Wilhelm von Humboldt's famous "Ober die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues" came out in 1836). It was he who first in modern linguophilosophic tradition drew a distinct line between energeia, i.e., 'language' as Thàtigkeit {Erzeugung), as a creative process, a form of behaviour, language in the making on the one hand, and 'language' as ergon {Werk, ein todies Erzeugtes), as a fixed and rigid System, something that is complete in itself and underlies the different speech-events in which it is realized by communicating human beings. It is believed that it is to Humboldt that de Saussure owes the idea of the language-speech antithesis which he elaborated in his famous lectures. However that may be, in one respect the two scholars were quite different. Whatever Humboldt's other 28 We emphasize 'at least', because we have read the preface to Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax: "His (Humboldt's, O.A., G.M.) view, that a language 'makes infinite use of finite means' and that its grammar must describe the processes that make this possible is, furthermore, an outgrowth of a persistent concern ... with this 'creative' aspect of language use. ... What is more, it seems that even Panini's grammar can be interpreted as a fragment of such a 'generative grammar', in essentially the contemporary sense of this term."

88

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

faults, the clarity of his views and the consistency of his theories have been generally recognized. Not so with de Saussure. The posthumously published course of lectures, which was compiled from notes taken by his pupils, contains many inconsistencies and contradictions.29 At the same time even in this imperfect form it contains numerous statements the validity of which cannot be questioned. There can be no doubt whatsoever of the 'objective' truth of such statements as the following: "at any given moment speech presupposes, simultaneously, an established system and an unceasing evolution, language is always both a living activity and a product of the past". "To cope with the difficulties, created by this state of affairs, a method must be found which would be wholly adequate to its complex nature, one that would ensure the participation of psychologists, anthropologists, physiologists and physicists."30 And, of course, this is quite correct, for the number of problems to be solved, particularly psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic and psychological ones, is very great.31 It goes without saying that speech, 'the theory of performance' in all its numerous 29 We are not in a position to analyse here the materials, made public by Godel, which can be very profitably used to disclose the finer shades of the Master's thoughts. 30 The complexity of speech as an object of scientific study will become quite clear if one realises that at present it is in the centre of attention of: mathematics, physics, biophysics, biology, physiology, psychology, logic, information and communication theory, cybernetics, dramatic art, anthropology, defectology, medicine, pedagogy, theory of advertising, oratory, statistics, statistical mechanics, theory of translation (esp. oral and machine), electromodelling, etc. All this accounts for the fact that speech, at present, is often regarded as one of the central problems of science. Cf. N . I. Zinkin, Mexanizmy reci (Moscow, 1958). 31 It is unfortunate that psycholinguistic studies of speech are not making as much headway as could have been expected. The reason is, probably, to be sought in the fact that neurology and psychology have not yet succeded in presenting their more particular results in a sufficiently clear and succinct form. — The two competing models for the psycho-physiological speech mechanism are the Ch. Osgood and the Chomsky-Miller ones, the former being based on the 'finite-number-of-states', the Markov chain, the stochastic principle, the latter (the Chomsky-Miller model) being transformational, with underlying i c analysis. It rejects the mathematical theory of communication and concerns itself not with 'sentences', but with 'terminal strings'. True, the 'finite-number-of-states' model can well be regarded merely as a

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

89

aspects is an inalienable part of Linguistics — the science of (natural, human) Language. At the same time it is hardly to be wondered at — seeing how little has been achieved even to-day — that there was no serious investigation in the field of speech production in de Saussure's time. It should also be remembered that his own interests were centered on the special domain which at present is, perhaps, most adequately described as, 'microlinguistics'.32 Although very much has been said and written on the subject, the language-speech dichotomy still presents many difficult and controversial problems. To make the discussion at all possible it is essential to distinguish, from the outset, the following two aspects: (1) the general philosophical (the epistemological) aspect and (2) the aspect of the concrete reality of speech. As far as the former is concerned, it is mainly a question of the mutual relationship of the 'manifesting' and the 'manifested'. To the idealist the primary, the basic, the initial is 'language', 'la langue'; the 'manifested', Speech is, in this case, a derivative, an avatar, a display of an immanent, self-sufficient, and abstract entity. To the materialist (this point of view is presented in the work of a number of Soviet linguists) the primary, the basic, the initial is the reality of linguistic intercourse, whence the idea of the objectivity of language and the ontology of 'the general' and 'the particular' (obscego i otdeVnogo). It follows that whatever the units (i.e., signalling units), items, entities, elements, constituents, etc., they all belong both to language and speech.33 particular instance of ic grammar, and the latter as a particular instance of transformational grammar. Nevertheless the two models appear to be sufficiently different to bring about a methodological schism. 82 As far as microlinguistics is concerned the rhetoric of the Cours when the reader is exhorted to make sure he has fully grasped the importance of abstraction, when he is urged to concentrate on la langue defined as completely closed, self-sufficient, an und fiir sich, etc. etc. — does sound needlessly pathetic. It was this mode of speaking which gave rise to adverse criticism of what was assumed to be Saussure's own views on the subject: the 'tearing asunder' (razryv), the artificial rift between language and speech, the attempt to present them as opposed and incompatible. It was also these 'pseudo-Saussurian' pronouncements which have become the motto (the catch-word) of certain shades of 'neo-saussurianism'. 33 Cf. p. 11 above.

90

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

The marxist postulate of dialectic unity of language and speech (for Marxist theory is inseparable from practice, by which it is nurtured and verified) is fully borne out by recent studies of Speech. It has now been conclusively shown that the effectors of speech are not mechanical agents, merely fulfilling the commands received from the central system of controls. They are, simultaneously, participants of the analytic-synthetic system and parts of the analytic device, for they serve not only to register the completion of the process, but its progress as well. In this way the combined efforts of linguists and psychologists give new promise to research in the field. But to really understand the nature of effectors of Speech and the laws which govern its functioning, the combined efforts of linguists, psychologists and physiologists have to be supplemented by those of specially trained mathematicians, for it is to the latter that the new conception of the process — as a specific mechanism — is due. This approach has also developed, to a very great extent under the influence of the recent studies in the elaboration of various technical devices in the field of sound transmission and automatic computation. All this has made it possible to begin a systematic investigation of auto-regulation (feed-back) within the system of the 'mechanism of speech'. The kinaestetics of speech is now regarded as a special kind of feedback, by means of which the central system is supplied with uninterrupted information concerning the extent to which its orders have been fulfilled. And although the study of the speech-mechanism at the higher levels has only just been started, everything seems to indicate that language (existing as it does in speech, possessing, in fact, no other form of existence) thrives on speech, grows and develops only because of new utterances incessantly coming into being and in this way providing fresh supplies of words, syntactic patterns, etc. etc. for language to draw upon. Thus the validity of the Marxist view is borne out by experimental data. The well-known postulates are: that language should be conceived in its relation to reality, to the speech situation; that it should be regarded not merely as a means of communication, but as the very activity of thought; that it should be studied in

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

91

connection with the social life of its bearers. Emphasis should be placed once again on the great importance for linguistics of the concepts of energeia, das Werden, le devenir, the 'becoming', the 'coming into being', for only in this way can the nature of language be properly understood. Both the one-side approaches — the professed 'synchronic' or 'static' one and the 'diachronic' or 'genetic' are doomed to failure. A 'synchronic' description to be scientific and methodologically sound is bound to include 'the factor of time', for at every stage in the development of language some elements are just 'coming into being' while others are on the wane, on the decline, obsolescent. Also the genetic approach, if it disregards completely the systemic, the functional aspect is debarred from an understanding of the 'inner' laws and regularities on which the direction of change (always seen both ways — retro-and prospectively) depends. The rapid development of electronic computers is believed by some to have brought about a drastic change in the approach to language, to have created a need for an altogether new science in place of 'traditional' linguistics. But this is completely untrue.34 There is no question whatsoever of giving up the 'traditional' 34 Criticisms of the 'mathematical fallacy' have come from differently oriented scholars. Thus F. J. Whitfield, well-known for his translation of Hjelmslev's Prolegomena, in "Linguistic Usage and Glossematic Analysis" disagrees with those of Hjelmslev's followers who emphasize the algebraic aspect of Glossematics and forbid all consideration of the 'substance'. What is the use of an algebra which can do nothing to improve the study of usage? C. E. Bazell in "The Choice of Criteria in Structural Linguistics", Word, 10 (1954), No. 2-3, 130, draws attention to the paradoxical fact that even mathematical logic does not insist on formalization of its procedures with the rigour shown nowadays by some adepts of 'formal' methods in linguistics; Henri Frei in "Critères de délimitation" (same journal) speaks of the barrenness of the purely formal distributionalism : linguistic description is unfeasible without consideration of the signifié. This is apparent, among other things, in the case of proper nouns, for there are no 'positions' by means of which any one proper noun could be distinguished from all the rest. Frei completely rejects the view that linguistics has now entered the 'mathematical' phase: the attempts to apply mathematical methods (within reasonable bounds) cannot be taken to mean that linguistics is now a branch of mathematics. It would never have occurred to de Saussure that linguistics could be made into a carricature of some other science.

92

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

methodology of our science. All we need is a systematic search for new devices which will enable the researcher to solve the specific technical problems to be viewed as part of 'applied' linguistics — for instance in connection with the ever growing necessity of improving (speeding up, making more exact, etc.) the methods of communication between the human being and the machine. In this specific part of 'interlinguistics' 'explicitation' must be complete. The particular 'interlanguage' (mediator, intermediate language, etc.) will be quite useless if it remains an irrational system, acceptable as a means of communication between human beings whose identical cultural background has taught them to 'understand' by intuition the quickfire of rationally 'undecodable' signals. But all this does not affect the basic methodology of linguistics in the slightest. Interlinguistics is a specific interdisciplinary science with specific problems of its own. A mediator language is a secondary derived semiotic system, firmly rooted in natural language, which is primary and essential. For Human Language (in the full or proper sense of the word) is not merely a means of communication — in spite of the fact that communication is its only directly observable function. It is the MOST IMPORTANT, the PRIMARY means of communication because it is, at the same time, the reality of thought, the means of social development and struggle. It follows that if a language is to be considered as a 'means' (sredstvo) it is a very specific means, which not only serves to pass on or convey fully shaped, ready made thoughts, but also organises the thinking, orders the experience, develops the social consciousness of the individual. The researcher can fully understand the nature of human language only if he realizes that language is a special kind of social phenomenon. Much too frequently the definitions of natural human language which present it merely as a 'system of signs' lose sight of this basic fact. The study of (natural, human) language has also been hampered in recent times by grave terminological disorders — the 'swelling' of the term 'language'. We are now confronted with a state of affairs when 'language' is used to cover all kinds of semiotic systems, with at one extreme the abstruse logical 'languages' of science, and

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

93

at the other the 'language' of bees, fishes, etc. In this way the term has been almost completely disabled from serving its primary and natural purpose — denoting that unique Language for which it was originally created. When used under those new and untoward circumstances it has to be accompanied by a mass of differentiating epithets, of which mention has already been made above. O f late the reaction against the excesses of 'microlinguistics' (of conventional structuralism) has been growing rapidly and getting more and more pronounced. It is therefore much easier now than it was only a few years ago to insist on the unity of 'language and culture' on the compulsory sociolinguistic ingredient of language-study (the facts of the social life of its creators and perpetrators, the speech-community to which the language belongs). N o effort should be spared to improve the methods of sociolinguistic research, to make them as 'exact' as is compatible with the nature of the object. At the same time there can be absolutely no harm (just the contrary, much harm would be done if they were discontinued) in going on with the specialized and 'formal' (sometimes highly formalized) investigations and descriptions of the feature level of natural languages (their phonetics, phonemics, graphemics, etc.) which lends itself so readily to all kinds of mathematical and physical investigations. As far as the semantic level is concerned, 'exact' methods will, probably, have to be confined to the study of the 'intellective' function of speech there being, so far, very little hope of the methods really achieving promising results for the 'meta-semiotic' — the emotional, phatic, esthetic, voluntative, and other functions of speech. The ontology of the general and the particular is the methodological basis of the language-speech dichotomy. But a more detailed investigation of the functioning of language and the various functions of speech has brought about a detalization of the conceptual system in question and, consequently many more terms — for without the terminological 'envelope' or 'capsule' the concept can not become serviceable. Particularly influential in the extension of the terminological (resp. conceptual) field was 'metasemiotics' or stylistics, which, together with other branches of'sociolinguistics'

94

SYNTAX AND SYNTAGMATICS

is now concentrating on various aspects of social and territorial variation — the 'coexistent systems', language contacts and so forth — all these primarily from the point of view of 'norms' and standards of speech, the latter acquiring especial importance in a world of general compulsory secondary education and general democratization of learning at all stages.

5

SOME O U T S T A N D I N G PROBLEMS O F SYNTACTIC THEORY

A. THE PROBLEM OF 'CONTENT'

The most difficult among the current issues of syntax is the problem of content, le signifié. No other aspect of the vast domain, usually called syntax, has been the scene of so much misunderstanding, so much shooting beside the mark, so much Einandervorbeisprechen. The first (and most deplorable of these misunderstandings) was the failure of some scholars to state clearly what they meant (and/or of other scholars to see their point) when they claimed that syntax should be 'formal' and started different projects of 'formalization' of syntactic description. In Part I of the present book enough may be assumed to have been said on 'meaning' in American descriptive linguistics.1 A more recent, and, perhaps, an even graver one was the misunderstanding caused by the announcement by N. Chomsky of a 'completely non-semantic theory of grammar'. The now very popular example made up to show that an utterance may be completely devoid of commonsense and at the same time remain 'grammatical' was Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. The stupendous problem of 'grammatically' will be discussed below. The aim at the moment is merely to remind the reader of the fact that this way of introducing the concept of what could, perhaps, still be described as 'grammatical meaning' was by no means the easiest to comprehend. There exist at least three generally recognized ways of 'slicing' an utterance for the purpose of bringing out its different aspects : (1) substituting for the root-morphemes (the lexical or material 1

See, especially, p. 9.

96

SOME OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY

elements, the semantemes) some arbitrarily chosen combinations of sounds — as far as possible immune to 'morphologization' or even 'phonesthemization', i.e., to being apprehended as either morphemes or even phonesthemes of the language in question. There is a very large number of 'sentences' of this kind in the literature, beginning with L. Scerba's glokaja kuzdra stenno budlanula bokra i kudVavit bokr'onka, Jabberwocky (in Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carrol), or Fries' the vapy koobs dasaked the citar molently.2 (2) The singling out of the inflections without bothering to invent non-morphologizable successions of phonemes, as in Smirnitsky's x y-ed z, Scerba's -aja -a -y -a, Fries' (less consistently because of the pooling of grammatical inflections, lexical inflexions and 'syntactic words' — sluzebnyje slova) as in Twas-, and the -y-s Did-and-in the — All-y were the — s and the - - s —3 (3) the combination, according to grammar rules, not of nonsense-, but of ordinary normal words of the language in question, but selecting them in such a way as to make the combination 'pragmatically' untenable, unacceptable from the standpoint of the world-view, culture, etc. of the speakers of that language.4 Clearly the last named device is most ineffective, not to say downright misleading, for nobody has ever been able — and this is most flagrantly borne out by modernist fiction-writing — to fathom the degree of 'collocability', and to demarcate the ground on which 2

Ch. C. Fries, The Structure of English (London, 1961), 111. Ch. C. Fries, op. cit., 70. There is an interesting footnote: "For the suggestion of this type of use of nonsense words I am indebted to prof. Aileen Traver Kitchin. I had used algebraic symbols for words but not with the success she has attained with 'Jaberwocky' material." 4 In the metalanguage of prof. Firth 'Colligation' without 'collocation'? Cf. J. R. Firth, Papers in linguistics 1934-51 (London, Oxford University Press, 1964), 194-214. 3

SOME OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY

97

the speaker or writer is forbidden to trespass. 5 All languages have registered in their inventories of accumulated 'ergons' innumerable proverbs, sayings,6 puns, nursery rhymes, etc. in which the more obvious 'valencies' of words are purposefully violated. The number of 'ergons' of this kind is now enormously increased by the new, specific, and so far unanalysed 'folklore', the fragments of which are scattered over the innumerable books on modern linguistics — all the 'laughing triangles' which 'were drunk up by a shoe-string'; 'the green horses smoking a dozen oranges', etc., etc.7 One does not have to be over-sophisticated as a philologist to understand that specially concocted 'sentences' of this kind have become authentic facts of 'speech' and, having been recorded and repeated, are bound to affect the 'system', la langue. As far as fiction is concerned, there is very little doubt that not only Andrew Marvel's 'utterances', but Cummings' and Joyce's as well, are now facts of English. When the reader or listener is confronted with an utterance allegedly in his own language he immediately (and intuitively) CONSTRUES it as well as he can. This familiar situa5 When the last of the three methods of displaying grammatical meaning was branded as the least effective above, it was not intended to cover the specific aims of psycholinguistic experiment. When George Miller and his collaborators prepare different types of experimental materials by turning and twisting Furry wildcats fight furious battles, Respectable jewellers give accurate appraisals, Soapy detergents dissolve greasy stains, etc., into *Furry jewellers create distressed stains and *Soapy wildcats give smoky damsels, and further, Furry fight furious wildcat battles and Jewellers respectable appraisals accurate give, etc., etc. the exercise appears to be sufficiently well-grounded. See George A. Miller, "Language and Psychology", New Directions in the Study of Language, Eric H. Lenneberg, ed. (Cambridge, Mass., The MIT press, 1964), 95-96. 6 Like pigeon's milk, once in a blue moon, the Russian 'when the lobster will whistle at the top of a mountain' (kogda rak na gore svistnet), 'there was an old woman who lived in a shoe', etc. etc. 7 Besides, there are the normal facts of 'talking about talking'. "In a comprehensive dictionary of Russian," writes Roman Jakobson, "the adjective signifying 'pregnant' was labelled femininum tantum because — beremmenyj muicina nemyslim — a pregnant male is inconceivable. This Russian sentence, however, uses the masculine form of the adjective." (Jakobson, op. cit., 144). To return to what has been said above: Jakobson goes on to say (loc. cit.): "... and the 'pregnant male' appears in folklegends, in newspaper hoaxes and in David Burliuk's poem: mne nravitsa beremennyj muscina, prislonivsijs'a k pam'atniku FuSkina."

98

SOME OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY

tion is discussed in detail by A. Hill and by Roman Jakobson in their criticisms of Chomsky's Syntactic Structures,8 Particularly interesting is Jakobson's detailed linguistic, linguostylistic, and philological analysis of the "allegedly nonsensical sentence" Colorless green ideas sleep furiously, which has already been mentioned above. 9 A brilliant, concise and up-to-date discussion of the problems at hand is found in Uriel Weinreich's "Explorations in Semantic Theory". 10 Weinreich has proved the inapplicability to natural languages of the 'logistic dichotomy' — the neat division into 'syntactic' relations (the relations of symbols within an 'object language') and the 'semantic' relations (the relations of symbols to certain entities outside the 'object language'). Although generative grammar had claimed the domains of Syntax and semantics to be separate, it has failed to locate the boundary between them, has been unable to draw a distinct line of demarcation. Weinreich has also shown that to recognize the importance of semantics in syntactic analysis should not be understood merely 8

See Archibald A. Hill, "Grammaticality", Word, Vol. 17, No. 1, April 1961 (Russian translation in Voprosy Jazykoznanja, 1962, No. 4, 104-110), and Roman Jakobson, "Boas' View of Grammatical Meaning", American Anthropologist, vol. 61, No. 5, Part 2, Oct. 1959, 139-145. 9 "Thus parsing the allegedly nonsensical sentence 'Colourless green ideas sleep furiously' ... we extract the pluralized topic, 'ideas', said to develop a 'sleeping' activity, and both terms are characterized — the 'ideas' as 'colourless green' and the 'sleep' as 'furious'. These grammatical relations create a meaningful sentence which can be submitted to a truth test: do things like colourless green, green ideas, sleepy ideas or a furious sleep exist or not? 'Colorless green' is a synonymous expression for 'pallid green' with a slight epigrammatic effect of an apparent oxymoron. The metaphoric epithet in 'green ideas' is reminiscent of Andrew Marvel's famous 'green thought in a green shade' and of the Russian idiom 'green boredom' (zelenaja skuka) or of Tolstoj's 'horror red, white and square' (vse tot ze uzas krasnyj, belyj, kvadratnyj). In the figurative sense the verb 'sleep' means to be in a state like sleep, as that of inertness, torpidity, numbness", e.g. "his anger never slept: why, then, cannot someone's ideas fall into sleep? And, finally, why cannot the attribute 'furious' emphatically render a frenzy of sleep? Dell Hymes actually found an application for this sentence in a senseful poem written in 1957 and entitled 'Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously'." (op. cit., 143-144). 10 Current Trends in Linguistics, III, Thomas Sebeok, ed. (The Hague, Mouton, 1966).

SOME OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY

99

as a retreat to the position 'no syntax without semantics'. The mutual relationship between the two is very much more complicated, there being no semantics without syntax! Very interesting are, furthermore, his views on the role of 'deviant utterances', which he regards as an "indicator of the way in which linguistic phenomena are apportioned between syntax and semantics". One more approach to the 'syntax vs. semantics' dichotomy (which, as is so often the case in linguistics, has received so many other names). In the tradition of Soviet linguistics it has become customary to speak of the 'lexical' vs. the 'syntactical': the utterance can be considered (described, discussed, etc.) either in terms of the lexical units, of which it is composed, or the 'construction', the arrangement of the components; in the latter case the specific lexical properties are not taken into account. In practice, however, it is very difficult to keep the two apart. One of the most comprehensive investigations of the interaction between the syntactic pattern and the lexis is, probably, N. Ju. Svedova's work on the syntax of Russian Colloquial Speech.11 The 'lexical' component is especially prominent in this variety of speech, for here a large number of syntactic clichés, which, though formally constructed according to some complex sentence pattern, are in reality global, syntactically unanalysable wholes expressing various modal purports (for example the modal purport of indubitable statement as in sto pravda to pravda, sto tak to tak, sto verno to verno, etc.). The stabilization in the language of constructions of this kind is usually accompanied by complex lexical-semantic processes.12 Besides, certain purely syntactic patterns are often found to function (i.e., to 'generate' sentences) only provided suitable conditions are created by the 'lexis', for the constructions in those cases are subject to 'lexical limitation' (or what V. V. Vinogradov has described as "the resistance of the lexical material"). As a result, specific kinds of constructional patterns come into being — specific because, although essentially constructional, they are not 11 Ocerki po sintaksisu SSSR, 1960). 12 Loc. cit.

russkoj razgovornoj

reci (Moskva, Akad. Nauk

100

SOME OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY

'free', and therefore not 'syntactical' in the proper sense of the word. Ideally syntactic is the abstract schema, the ordered arrangement of slots to be filled by ANY words (from the appropriate wordclasses) and therefore forming the basis, the cornerstone of grammar.13 The only logical conclusion is that the syntax, the 'syntactic' patterning in the domain of colloquial speech can not be described without due attention to the lexical material which the patterns or schémas naturally carry. It may even be claimed, that 'the lexical limitations' are part of the FORM of constructions of this kind, that the latter (the FORM) consists not just of two elements, the abstract 'arrangement' plus intonation, but includes the 'lexical component' as well.14 Nevertheless the study of these constructions belongs to Syntax,15 for they are based on a pattern. The investigation and description of patterns always belongs to Syntax, even when their realization is limited, that is when they are not universally 'recursive', confined to certain semantic or lexico-grammatical classes of words. The 'colligation-collocation' (or grammatical-lexical) antithesis is, in the opinion of some scholars, resolvable in terms of 'phraseology' as a separate branch of linguistics, whose subject is the lexical-semantical combinability of ultimate sentence-constituents,16 13 Svedova's book contains a detailed analysis of this kind of facts. Thus, for instance, in constructions like Aj da Varia ! only the first element is lexically fixed, non-substitutable, whereas in Ax on mosennik! several 'categorial' limitations set in: the second element of this construction can only be a personal pronoun; the third — either a 'personal' noun (with strong-evaluative meaning, chiefly derogatory : mosennik, podlec, etc.) —, an adjective of the same category or a combination of a 'pronominalized' personal noun, that is name of person with the 'non-omissible' evaluative adjective as in dobraja dusa, zolotoj celovek, etc. (for non-omissible qualifiers, cf. p. 85 above). 14 In colloquial speech, according to A. B. Sapiro, Ocerki po sintaksisu russkix narodnyxgovorov (Moscow, 1952, 19), "... the purely syntactic aspect of sentence-structure is contaminated with the sphere of the lexis : the researcher is, therefore, confronted with the problem of interaction between these different, but often organically intertwined fields. However novel and complex this problem may be, there is no getting away from its investigation." 16 Svedova, op. cit., 10. 16 I.e., the 'words'. In this connection the category of 'autonomous syntagmata' (A. Martinet, Eléments de linguistique générale, Paris, 1960, llOff.)

SOME OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY

101

Diachronic studies, generally speaking, would appear to indicate that, by and large, languages display a tendency toward 'amalgamations' of ultimate constituents and as a result the number of 'phraseological units', 'complex word-equivalents', etc., etc. is steadily increased. All the aspects of 'content', 'meaning', 'semantic component', etc. etc. as discussed above are, however, on the periphery of syntax proper. What one should still go on looking for is the meaning of the SYNTACTIC construction, the SYNTACTIC relationship, the signifié of the different kinds of 'syntactic bond'. From this point of view there are only four signifiés in syntax: the 'process' relationship — the relation between the agent and the (process of) action; the 'objective' relationship — between the object and the process or between two objects; the 'qualificative' relationship — between a 'quality' or 'attribute' and the object or process it modifies ; and the relationship of circumstances (the circumstantial relationship — the relation between the 'setting', in which a process is taking place (or in which an object is situated) on the one hand, and the process or object themselves, on the other. 17

B. THE PROBLEM OF 'GRAMMATICALLY'

Part 2 of the present book contains a detailed discussion of a most important trend in Modern Syntax — the one that insists on the priority of the immanent 'deep' syntactic structure manifested in actual utterances ; the latter being its 'avatars', its protean and unsteady realizations. In his more recent publications Noam Chomsky, with whose deserves serious attention." Pour la compréhension des fondements de la structure linguistique, c'est le syntagme autonome qui doit retenir l'attention, plutôt que le type particulier de syntagme autonome caractérisé par l'inséparabilité de ses éléments et groupé sous la rubrique 'mot' avec les monèmes, qui n'entrent par dans de tels syntagmes." (loc. cit., 115). " See A. I. Smirnitsky, Sintaksis anglijskogo jazyka (Moscow, 1957), 184-185.

102

SOME OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY

name the development of this trend is most readily associated, has been laying special emphasis on the fact that this approach to language in general and syntax in particular is by no means new: he has demonstrated that it was based on "the accumulated capital of ideas provided by the genius of the XVIIth century,18 when the idea of "the creative aspect of language" of "man's capacity to innovate".19 etc.etc. was both generally accepted and highly thought of. For years (until in some parts of the world it was swamped by the behaviourist-positivist mechanistic simplifications) it was universally accepted not only by the school-master, but by the Linguistic Scientist as well.20 All pre-Chomskyan theories, however, had one serious flaw. The 'traditional' ('conventional') linguist, both as schoolmaster and scientist, took things so much for granted, was so self-sufficient, convinced of his own ability to distinguish between 'well-formed' and 'non-well-formed' sentences, that the problem of'grammaticality' did not even arise. It took a very high degree of linguistic sophistication for the problem of linguistic 'correctness' to become a serious scientific issue. The basic postulate of generative grammars as theories of linguistic competence is the assumption of "... an ideal speakerlistener, in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically 18 See Noam Chomsky, Cartesian Linguistics (New York and London, 1966), Epigraphic quotation from A. N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World. 19 Ibid., 6. The Cartesian approach to language was originally developed in the Port Royal Grammar, Grammaire générale et raisonnée (1660): " the theory of deep and surface structure as developed in the Port-Royal linguistic studies implicitly contains recursive devices and thus provides for infinite use of the finite means that it disposes, as any adequate theory of language must." Op. cit., 41. 20 Many eminent linguists clearly distinguished what is nowadays described as the 'model of analysis' and the 'model of synthesis' (also in terms of 'listener' — 'speaker'). Especially influential for many years in the USSR was L. V. Scerba's division into 'passive' and 'active' grammar. See esp. V. V. Vinogradov, "Obscelingvisticeskije i grammatiieskije vzgl'ady akad. L. V. Scerby", Pam'ati acad. L'va Vladimirovica Scerby (Leningrad, 1951), esp. 44 and 53 if. The repercussions of the theory in the domain of foreignlanguage teaching, especially in schools, have been most impressive.

SOME OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY

103

irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance." 2 1 The sole criterion, then, is the linguistic intuition of that nonextant 'ideal speaker-listener' (with the rest of the specified conditions as just so many fictions of the brain, or figments of the imagination). A n d with practically n o hope of scientific foundation for the 'theory of informant-reaction' insofar as 'the theory of performance' is not among the concerns of linguistic theory! It could hardly be doubted that a thorough investigation of'performance', i.e., what Jespersen would call simply Syntax and Mathesius jazykove stylizace, is the only way out of the otherwise hopeless predicament. So much has already been said and written about 'grammaticality' that it would be pointless to discuss again the fragile whales, all the examples like midnight drank John etc. etc. 22 O n e aspect of linguistic 'performance', however, has not so far 21

Noam Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), 3. 22 A. Hill's discussion under the title "Grammaticality" in Word, 17, No. 1, April 1961, still remains adequate as far as the general theory of syntactic 'well-formedness' is concerned (particularly important, also, because it brings out the difference between the written and spoken utterance, the syntactic vj. the stylistic well-formedness, etc.). This does not mean to say that no progress was made since. Much useful information can be obtained from Chomsky's reply to Hill ("Some Methodological Remarks on Generative Grammar", Word, 17, No. 2, 1961) as well as from his subsequent publications, where numerous and varied utterances have been analysed and the concept of degrees of grammaticality firmly established. Very important is also U. Weinreich's classification of 'deviations' or 'violations': (1) the violation of transformational and morphophonemic rules, which yields purely grammatical deviations, f.ex. *he goed home; (2) the violation of rules in the 'Calculator' which yields 'purely' semantic deviations, the Calculator being a step in the semantic process to which the generalized phrase-marker is subjected; the Calculator distributes certain semantic features along branches of the tree, matks the contradictions between certain semantic features, etc.; for example, They flew the craft if said with the intent to refer to a surface vehicle; and (3) the violation of a categorial component rule (including rules of strict subcategorization and selection, (f.ex. went home he; he puts into the safe: the dog scattered). The last of these violations is so important that it alone "has a role to play in rational communication" (Weinreich, op. cit., p. 471).

104

SOME OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY

received all the attention it deserves. It is the aspect of 'pragmatics', or 'usage' as a pragmatic norm for linguistic performance. Quirk 23 is quite right in claiming that"... The lexical incompatibility of Casals is played by the cello or Matthews is played by football is of less consequence than the syntactical incompatibility ... of the cello is played by Casals with an important range of utterances in which Casals plays the cello is perfectly acceptable. At the least, one may feel, it would be worth stating that 'we will not find' the sentence Football is played by Matthews for Blackpool.'''' Quirk's polemic article is noteworthy also because the author (far from being a 'conventional' linguist) has made a profound study of modern works on syntax and in his own research 'congrammaticality', 'serial relationships', etc. occupy a very prominent place. 24 Shall Syntax have to wait for the 'informant reaction' (and, hence, the 'grammaticality') problem to be finaly solved for the ideas of generation and transformation of sentences to become useful to the student of the syntax of natural human languages? The answer is an emphatic "No", for there exist already several investigations (some of them rightly regarded as classics) for both the noncommunicative and the communicative syntactic units. 25 A classic which is, among other things, of great value to the teacher is Z. S. Harris' "Co-occurence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure". 26 23 See Randolph Quirk, "Towards a description of English Usage ", Transactions of the Philological Society, 1960, 45-49. An extremely interesting overall analysis of all the relevant aspects of this highly involved problem is found in C. E. Bazell, "Three Misconceptions of Grammaticalness", Monograph series in Languages and Linguistics (Washington, 1964), No. 17, 3-9. Bazell sets up several very promising oppositions: meaning vs. semantic tie-up; ungrammatical vs. non-grammatical; grammatical constraint vs. grammatical restraint; semantic restraint vj. referential obstruction. 24 Cf. R. Quirk, "Descriptive Statement and Serial Relationship", Language, vol. 41, No. 2, Apr.-June 1965; H. Hiz, "Congrammaticality, Batteries of Transformations and Grammatical Categories", Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, 12 (Providence, 1961) 47. 25 See, for example, D . S. Worth, "Transform Analysis of Russian Instrumental Constructions", Word,\ol. 14, No. 2/3, Aug.-Dec. 1958; Russian translation in Novoje v lingvistike (Moscow, 1962), 637-683. 28 First published in Language, 33, N o . 3 (July-September 1957), 283-340; reprinted in The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language,

SOME OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS OF SYNTACTIC THEORY

105

One of the all-important sociolinguistics problems mankind has so far been unable to solve is that of 'foreign language teaching' which consists, as far as 'active grammar' is concerned, in imbuing people with a very complex kind of 'linguistic competence': one that will enable them to generate well-formed sentences not only in their own language, but in other languages as well. Insofar as teaching foreign languages is concerned, the first step would consist in singling out and describing the basic, the major generative (and transformational) patterns of the 'target' language. This is what Harris has successfully achieved. His work has made it possible to rationalize the process of acquisition of linguistic competence (proficiency) in Modern English. The study of English Syntax can now be planned in such a way as to concentrate the learner's attention on those syntactic rules of the 'foreign' language, which are essential to it and at the same time alien to the learner's vernacular. The major English transformations are: 27 (1) S