Mathematical linguistics in the Soviet Union [Reprint 2019 ed.] 9783111352862, 9783110997767

Table of contents :
Preface
CONTENTS
1. Historical Antecedents
2. Milestones of Mathematical Linguistics in the Soviet Union
3. Structuralism under Discussion
4. Statistical Modelling
5. Structural Modelling
6. Machine Translation
7. Other Applications of Mathematical Linguistics
8. Mathematical Linguistics in Higher Education
Bibliography

Citation preview

MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS IN THE SOVIET UNION

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE N I C O L A I VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curai

C O R N E L I S H. V A N S C H O O N E V E L D STANFORD UNIVERSITY

SERIES MINOR NR. XL

1966

M O U T O N & CO. LONDON

• THE H A G U E •

PARIS

MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS IN THE SOVIET UNION by

FERENC PAPP UNIVERSITY OF DEBRECEN

1966

MOUTON & CO. LONDON •

THE HAGUE •

PARIS

© Copyright 1966 by Mouton & Co., Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

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

" . . . it is essential to devote a great deal of attention to the study of the structures of different languages. At first glance it might seem that this is a subject linguistic scholars have always dealt with, and that no special problems raise themselves in this connection. Yet, when we consider how the structure of particular languages have been studied so far and how they ought to be studied, it becomes at once clear that, in fact, we are faced with a momentous question of prime importance for linguistics." Sôerba, 1945, 6

PREFACE

There are periods in the development of every scientific discipline when it is sufficient, for a long time after the emergence of great new methodological systems and discoveries, to collect and add new facts, to interpret and systematize them in the spirit of that major break-through. Just such a situation came about in the science of language with the emergence of the historical-comparative method. There are, however, periods when a new system of techniques and methods is in statu nascendi and then it is not enough to bring to light new facts. At such a juncture the elaboration of the new system is given priority, and at the same time new light is thrown on old facts and the discovery of such facts as have hitherto been neglected by research. This stage was reached with the appearance of the historicalcomparative method; from the beginning of this century linguistics has again been going through such a phase. The core of the new discovery was synchrony. The new methods had this in common that they all attempted to describe synchronic systems in terms of their own structures. What happens in a science at such a time as this? If the discovery is both momentous and timely in that it springs from the actual needs of the science and of life, then it is as likely as not that the discovery will be made simultaneously in more than one place, and this is exactly what happened in our case. Yet to most philologists in any country, with their set scientific habits, the new "discovery" must have seemed unjustifiable. They had been working with the old tried methods, employing them with success. And there was, in their view, much work to be accomplished on the basis of the old methods, sufficient to spur on whole generations. Why, then, they must have asked themselves, should we devise new methods which may prove to be wrong? Did these scientists think

8

PREFACE

that their methods would always be valid? They may well have thought so, or, at least, have felt that their age was not yet ready for a change. This has therefore been the arena in which for decades past the debate, covert rather than overt, has everywhere been conducted between the adherents of the "old" and the "new" methods in the various branches of linguistic study. The advocates of the "new" methods, especially those of the first generation, studied under the old masters, and so, naturally, it was not difficult for them to come to terms with the old problems; on the other hand, those who are not acquainted with the "new" methods may well find it hard to understand anv works conceived in the new spirit, if only because of the unfamiliar terminology and approach. In the course of time, however, results have been forthcoming: the "new" spirit has penetrated the "old" methodology, and, at the same time, the later generations of "new men" have come to realize that they, for their part, must study the "old" methods and their problems. By the late fifties Soviet linguistics had reached a stage, rather interesting from an international point of view, that culminated in an open confrontation between the "traditionalists" and the "new", "younger" people. The situation had been rendered even more complicated by the fact that another linguistic debate had only recently taken place in that country, a debate which, as is known, had ended in a complete defeat for the so-called "Marrism", mainly as a result of Stalin's active and direct intervention. The debate, furthermore, broke out in a country where the adherents of both linguistic schools of thought were equally versed in the fundamental principles of dialectic and historical materialism and strove to apply these general philosophical principles consistently in their research work. There can be no doubt today that the practical application of dialectic and historical materialism has led to quite outstanding results in both the socio-political and the economic fields, as well as in the fields covered by particular sciences. No one who has the interests of linguistics at heart can therefore be indifferent to the ways in which our Soviet colleagues have attempted to solve for themselves the great questions engaging the attention of linguists

PREFACE

9

internationally, and to the results which they have been able to achieve through working with the new methods. In this work, the representatives of the new Soviet trends will be called "mathematical linguists", and the new trends will be referred to as "mathematical linguistics", in view of the fact that most of our Soviet colleagues apply this designation to themselves. There are a few Soviet linguists who would sum up the new trends under the heading of structural linguistics (e.g. Saumjan, 1960b). The term "mathematical linguistics", as used by me in this work, is at all events intended to cover a range of trends and methods which is by now clearly defined and is much wider in scope than was the original intention of the designation (cf. the report of the congress of linguists at Oslo in 1958, 62-91).

CONTENTS

Preface

7

1. Historical Antecedents

13

2. Milestones of Mathematical Linguistics in the Soviet Union

38

3. Structuralism under Discussion

55

4. Statistical Modelling

62

5. Structural Modelling

80

6. Machine Translation

100

7. Other Applications of Mathematical Linguistics . . . .

127

8. Mathematical Linguistics in Higher Education

133

Bibliography

138

1

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

1. Academician V. Ja. Bunjakovskij, a mathematician working in the fields of integral calculus, and the theory of numbers and probability, was the first Russian to point out, in an article on the subject in 1847, the applicability of certain mathematical (or, to be more precise, statistical) methods to a study of the "humanities" (see Struve, 1918). Among other things, he suggested that the theory of mathematical probability can be used to support certain etymological derivations and, also, that we should know the extent of the complete vocabulary of a language, its distribution in terms of word-classes, length of words, the frequency of initial and final letter combinations, etc. Although he mentioned that he himself had carried out certain investigations of this kind into linguistic material, the results of his research have never been printed or come to light. A continuous tradition of interest on the part of Russian mathematicians in this type of investigation dates only from the beginning of the present century (see below, 2.3). Statistical methods, however sporadic, were adopted very early by Russian philologists such as the eminent scholar of the Russian language and philology A. S. BudiloviC. In his grammar of Old Church Slavonic, published in 1881, he gives some statistics of sounds (as he calls them, though, in fact, his figures refer to letters) which are based on linguistic records investigated by him. It is revealed, for instance, that the frequency of vowels (i.e. the letters and letter combinations used to denote them) is as follows: I - 20.4%; t - 13.9%; C - 13.4 %; O - 13.4 %; A - 12.7%; 6.1 %; b - 6%; nasals appear to be of equal frequency: A and X. 4.3% each; the two least frequent sounds are bl - 3% and OY 2.5 % (cf. Budilovie, 1881,67-8). Relying on Schleicher, he supplies similar data on the consonants, of which - as he shows - T, B, N,

14

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

and C appear to be the most frequent, while Z, X and Y have the lowest figures (ib., 97). Ten years or so later appeared "The Voronez Ethnographical Collection" by M. A. Dikarev. The author in this work of some three hundred pages described inter alia the speech habits of the citizens of Voronez ("Onepic BopoHeaccKoro M e m a H C K o r o roBopa") and appended some tables; he collected local sayings, proverbs and superstitions, as well as some popular songs. On the basis of a relatively limited number of sounds (somewhat less than 7,500) he gave some frequency ratios for individual sounds (cf. Dikarev, 1891, 9). It is, however, noteworthy that he rejected the method of basing sound statistics on dictionary material. He arrived at his figures by examining continuous texts (mainly of the popular poetry he published in his volume), for as he puts it, individual words can be compared to individual farms which exist in village communities in sentences - and are subject to the rule of the provincial government - the complete work. Moreover, economic statistics teach us that individual farms must not be considered in isolation out of their proper context (as are the words in the dictionary; cf. op. cit., 308-9). His sources, however, included treatises not only on economic statistics but also on linguistic subjects, as can be seen from the inclusion of M. Miiller, Sievers, and Baudouin de Courtenay with the Russians in his references (op. cit., 9). D. N. Kudrjavskij, the noted professor at Jurjev University, is generally regarded as the continuator of the ideas of Potebnja, and perhaps it is little known that at the end of the first decade and at the beginning of the second decade of this century he published some excellent papers which used mathematical methods and which were, of course, of a much higher order than those of the provincial author just mentioned. Making a statistical count of the verb forms in the Laurentius version of the Old Russian Annals, he noted that the number of aorists decrease as compared with the other verb forms in the non-narrative parts of the Annals (e.g. in the texts of treaties or in the initial part of Vladimir Monomax's Admonitions, etc.), whereas the aorists increase in the interpolations (written in a more archaic style). He demonstrated that the ratio of verb forms

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

15

to the other word-classes decreases in the records written after the year 1110 and listed those places which contain a particular high number of participles in -JII. (it is a well-known fact that these forms ultimately came to the fore as the exclusive means for expressing the past tense and ousted the aorist and the other preterites); (cf. Kudrjavskij, 1909, 51-3). In the same work he referred to the importance of the statistical method as a technique in linguistics in that it can express the general aspects of mass phenomena and can give objective direction to research {op. cit., 53-4). He followed up the same train of thought in his next publication, two years later, which appeared in the periodical Pyccmu (fiuAOAomecKuu eecmnm (see Kudrjavskij, 1911). On the basis of some 30,000 verb forms studied in the Annals already mentioned and in several other early sources, he traced the development of the Russian past tense to the present day. It was shown, for instance, that the form ending in -jn>, originally a participial form, required almost without exception in the case of the 2nd pers. singular, plural and dual, the appropriate form of the auxiliary (as a substitute for the personal pronoun) during the 12th13th centuries, whereas the auxiliary was less often used with the 1st pers. and least frequently of all with the 3rd pers. (especially in the pi.). In a further paper he dealt in a similar manner with the Old Russian participles in -a, and on the basis of a frequency count he rejected a theory which attempted to explain their origin by reference to phonetic laws (Kudrjavskij, 1912). 2. In my view, more important than these sporadic, albeit with Kudrjavskij rather advanced, attempts is the fact that three major centres of research came into being in the early years of this century, paving the way for the new trends. These centres survived the revolution and supplied scholars for the new trends and also provided problems, both solved and unsolved, for study. 2.1. The first of these centres was the Moscow (formalist) school, led by Fortunatov. Its founder and members - some of whom are

16

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

still alive - have always regarded linguistic form as their starting point, and in this they differed from the Buslaev logicians and the psychologist, Potebnja. They boldly applied statistical methods in their investigations and, thus, provided the basis for many of the later departures in linguistic science. It is little wonder that nowadays many members of this school belong to the foremost advocates of mathematical linguistics (Reformatskij, in particular). On the relationship between Fortunatov's school, on the one hand, and structuralism and one of the applied branches of the latter, MT, on the other, the scholars concerned had this to say: "When we strive to give a formal expression of the various relationships between different languages, we have to rely on those theories which set out in their study of language from its formal side. In the linguistics of today this trend is represented by the various currents of structuralism. Language was investigated from the same fundamental point of view by the so-called 'formalists' too, whose system was first formulated by Fortunatov and his pupils in the clearest manner. It is hardly possible to regard it as accidental that when we began to work out the rules of machine translation of English into Russian the most effective method proved to be that according to which the text is continuously divided into bipartite groups in each of which one member is dependent on the other. Plainly, such a division is essentially one into syntagms (in Fortunatov's sense)" (Kuznecov, 1956, 109). 2.2. Hardly less important a role in preparing the ground for the new trends was played by the Kazan-Petrograd school. Baudouin de Courtenay, as is known, came quite near in the last quarter of the 19th century to a recognition of language as a system, on the one hand, and as an activity, on the other (hence, in part, his phonological conception). He stressed the importance of synchronic investigations, and in a certain sense he was groping towards the discovery of the nature of language as a system of signs, etc. (cf. SCerba, 1929, as well as a collection of articles written to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of his death, in which Leontjev discusses Baudouin's general conception, Toporov the significance of

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

17

his phonological work, Ivanov his studies in connection with the typology of the Slav languages, Grigorjev his attitude to international artificial languages, etc. : Baudouin, 1960). His thoughts are strikingly reminiscent of Saussure's ideas. When therefore the Kazan circle (by that time working in Petrograd) received and read Saussure's work 1 they could readily become, as far as the main points were concerned, "Saussureans". Nor is it really necessary to dwell on the obvious connections between Saussurean ideas and the new trends that were to arise on the continent. Some members of the Kazan school, just as much as some of the continental followers of De Saussure, were moving in the direction of present-day conceptions in areas not even considered in the work of the Geneva master. For instance, Baudouin himself was not averse to applying strictly mathematical methods in linguistic studies. In one of his university lectures, he suggested that in order to determine the system of the Russian consonants in a more exact way, one would have to carry out statistical investigations (see Baudouin, 1881). Later, Bogorodickij, a noted member of the succeeding generation of the Kazan school, pursued mathematical studies outside the field of his linguistic research. In addition to longer work in MS, he published in Kazan a booklet in which he proposed to write a chapter on "inductive philosophy", relying heavily on the mathematician Lobaôevskij (Bogorodickij, 1908). In his printed university lectures, he included certain statistical data concerning the frequency of Russian speech sounds (Bogorodickij, 1913, 37-41). Members of the Kazan school, including Bogorodickij and Sôerba, were also responsible for introducing instrumental phonetics into Russia, which led to the need for the development of an ever widening range of mathematical and physico-mathematical procedures (see e.g. Bogorodickij, 1909). It was also in Kazan, as far as we know, that the first Russian 1 Unfortunately, we do not know when De Saussure's work reached Petrograd during that turbulent period of war, revolution and intervention. But we do know, thanks to A. A. Reformatskij's kind information, that the Cours de linguistique générale was received by linguists in Moscow in 1922.

18

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

studies of the statistical aspects of languages taught in schools were published. For instance, G. A. Aleksandrov took a continuous passage of 1,000 sounds from the phonetic transcriptions in Vietor's textbook and established the ratio of German vowels to consonants as 37.7:62.3 on the basis of it (Aleksandrov, 1911, 5). He also examined the ratio between certain vowel and consonant combinations (ib., 5-6, 7-8). V. Petrov carried out a similar calculation based on a continuous French text of some 1,000 sounds taken from P. Passy's Le français parlé, which was also in phonetic script. He found that the ratio of French vowels to consonants was 42.2 : 57.8 in the text examined (Petrov, 1911, 3-4). Furthermore, he expounded the view that the proportion of certain sounds (soundtypes) may be characteristic of the sound system of a particular language (ib., 3). Only a few years later, in 1915, V. Jermolaev published a study in which he set out to establish the proportions of declarative, interrogative, exclamatory sentences, etc., in Russian texts, which represented different art forms and, unfortunately, different ages. He calculated that the proportion of declarative sentences amounted to 59.8% in lyrical texts, whereas it was 84.2% in prose (excluding novels). He did not investigate the current spoken language directly, but even so, he found dramatic texts very divergent in so far as they contained a particularly high proportion of interrogative sentences: 14.9%, as against a relatively low proportion of declaratives: 58.2%. Jermolaev, incidentally, referred to Bogorodickij as his teacher and wrote that he was following a suggestion of his when he set out to characterize the language of different art forms in this statistical manner (cf. Jermolaev, 1915, 3). At the same time, he himself argued for the relevance of the application of statistical procedures in linguistic research in these words: "When an author ... selects one sentence type out of all the other possible ones, this comes as a result of a number of accidental circumstances ... Therefore, the sentence types that occur in a given literary work may be regarded as mass phenomena, and we know that it is mainly for events of this nature that the statistical method is relevant..." (op. cit., 3-4).

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

19

2.3. Finally, with regard to the third centre of research, we have to bear in mind that a school of Russian mathematics of an internationally recognized high standard had been engaged since the early years of this century in the investigation of language phenomena which were amenable to mathematical treatment and came within the scope of probability theory and statistics. I am thinking in particular of A. A. Markov, who in 1913 gave a lecture to the mathematics-physics department of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in which he outlined his theory, using as his illustration the first 20,000 letters of Onegin (disregarding the very frequent "hard" and "soft" signs). The 20,000 letters could be regarded as 20,000 connected trials, and the result of each either a vowel or a consonant (cf. Markov, 1913, 153; see also Markov, 1907). He also had the time and patience to deal with an enthusiastic philologist (see Morozov, 1915) when the latter jumped to incorrect conclusions on the basis of his theory in particular and that of probability in general. Morozov's mistake was that he thought he could decide charges of plagiarism on the basis of a relatively small sample or disputed authorships with the help of a few simple statistical indices (cf. Markov, 1916). This lively interest taken by mathematicians in matters of linguistic science has never flagged; moreover, the mathematical vein has always been rather strong in many of the Russian and Soviet linguistic scholars. It is well-known, for instance, that F. F. Fortunatov engaged in higher mathematics with pleasure and at length. As far as contemporary Soviet scholars are concerned, it is enough to think of the words of P. S. Kuznecov at the IVth Congress of Slavists, when he stated that he gave his theory of case its final shape after consultations with Academician A. N. Kolmogorov, the distinguished mathematician. 3. It will probably not be without interest to see how these beginnings were further developed during the first years following the Revolution. 3.1. Russian philology continued its organic existence into the

20

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

first decades of Soviet philology. Both the Kazan and the Moscow schools carried on their activities. Perhaps the most characteristic feature of this early period was a sincere desire for a new orientation, a striving to apply correctly the tenets of dialectic and historical materialism when trying to solve the greatly increased number of practical problems that were suddenly presented to all linguists living and working in the Soviet Union. Scientific policy created a favourable climate for discussions and debates between the exponents of the most varying trends. The international contacts of Soviet scholars were good. Mazon continued to visit the Soviet Union during the Civil War (it is well known that he published an extremely interesting brochure on the linguistic changes that had taken place as a result of the First World War and the Revolution). The foremost Soviet linguistic scholars continued to publish articles in Western periodicals (e.g. Bubrix, Bogorodickij, Polivanov, Peterson, and others) and made study tours abroad (as Scerba). A succession of the works of the best linguists in the West appeared in Russian translation (De Saussure, 1933; a collection of writings on language and style in antiquity, 1936; Vendry^s, 1937; Meillet's Introduction ..., 1938, etc.). The Moscow Linguistic Circle ( M o c k o b c k h h jraHTBHCTHiecKHH KpyacoK) flourished in the pre-revolutionary and immediate postrevolutionary periods (1914/15-1923). It is a pity, however, that we know so little about its activities (cf. Jakobson, 1959, 313-4). B. V. Tomasevskij played an outstanding role in the work of this circle; he was by training and profession both a linguist and a mathematician (statistician); from 1918 onwards he published several works on statistical aspects of telecommunication (cf. ibid., list of works by Tomasevskij, pp. 316ff.). He turned his thorough acquaintance with statistical procedures to good use in the field of prosody, as is borne out by his papers on the subject, one of which, written in 1922 and dealing with the question of verse rhythm, deserves special attention, as it applies Markov's theory in a constructive way (Tomasevskij, 1923). This atmosphere was naturally very propitious for an unimpeded

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

21

development of the new ideas embryonic in the old trends. On the other hand, the urgent practical tasks, in a sense, also gave momentum to this development. Many languages had to be described for the first time; for many languages which hitherto had been without a script an alphabet had to be devised (thus, it may be said, the tasks confronting the Russian linguists at that time were not very different from those with which their transatlantic colleagues had to grapple when they began to study the languages of the American Indians, a task which was, as is wellknown, a contributory factor in the development of American descriptivism). A committee was formed consisting of specialists, both theoretical and practical, and administrative officials interested in the "New Alphabet"; they also had a press organ which was entitled first Kyjibmypa u IIucbMeHHocmb BocmoKa peeojuotfun.

a n d later IIucbMeHHOcmb u

I propose to refer, in chronological order, to some publications that appeared shortly after the revolution. They carried the traditions already outlined of pre-revolutionary Russian philology or mathematics. In 1925 Peskovskij published a remarkable article. He gave phonetic transcripts of passengers' conversations that he overheard and jotted down while travelling in a suburban train in the neighbourhood of Petrograd. He attempted to draw some conclusions concerning euphony from his phonetic statistics (see Peskovskij, 1925). Prof. Peskovskij showed a predilection for the statistical method elsewhere in his works, applying it mainly to phonological material. Prof. Jakovlev, the distinguished Caucasologist and a pioneer of phonology (phonemics), published his paper "The Mathematical Formula of the Structure of the Alphabet" in 1928. At the beginning of his article, which appeared in a collection that has become a bibliographical rarity, the author declared that, to solve the practical task of devising a new alphabet, a revaluation of certain fundamental assumptions of theoretical phonetics (i.e. phonology) was necessary. He referred to the grammar of the Abxaz language drawn up by P. K. Uslar (Tbilisi, 1887), in which the author ad-

22

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

vanced the view, then startingly fresh, that no matter how diverse the speech sounds of a language are, the number of those sounds that serve to distinguish words from one another can be precisely stated. Jakovlev, furthermore, referred to one of his own works (see Jakovlev, 1923) in which - independently of Uslar - he had reached a similar conclusion. Speaking of the phonemes, he noted, amongst other things, that "they stand out not because every speaker has such a subjective feeling but, conversely, they feel them just because in language, being as it is a socially worked out grammatical system, these sounds possess a special and particular grammatical function" (Jakovlev, 1928, 46). He went on to note that the alphabets so far known to us, i.e. those which came into existence in the prescientific age, were developed by men who had an intuitive awareness of the notion of the phoneme, their aim being to invent symbols for each phoneme and to denote the phonemes only. The simplest solution would, then, be to have an alphabet with exactly as many symbols as there are vowel and consonant phonemes in the language concerned. Such an alphabet would, however, not necessarily be practical or economical. And here Jakovlev suggested an idea that Baudouin had already developed in its embryonic form, namely, that a mathematical formula (this was the actual expression used by the Kazan master, see Baudouin, 1912, 67) has to be found for the relationship between consonants and their permissible vowel sequences. As far as is known, Baudouin did not bring this idea of his to fruition. Jakovlev, on the other hand, gave the following formula for the required quantity of symbols to be used in an alphabet: A =(C + 0 — (± C'±r')

+ 1

where A is the number of the symbols in the alphabet, C is the number of consonant phonemes, r is the number of vowel phonemes, C" is the number of those consonant phonemes that differ from another consonant phoneme in some common feature, which does not, however, prevent them from being followed by identical vowel phonemes, and r ' stands for these same vowel phonemes.

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

23

If we apply this formula to the Russian language - on the basis of the orthographical practice from which Jakovlev derived this principle - we get the following figures: C = 33, r = 5, C" = 12 (the latter are the soft and hard consonants respectively, and the common feature in which they differ is palatalization: m-m', n-n' 1-1', r-r', f-f', v-v', s-s', z-z', p-p', b-b', t-t', d-d', k-k', g-g', x-x'; Jakovlev was not sure of the phonemic character of the palatalized member of the last three pairs; that is why he gave 12 as the number of pairs distinguishable); r ' = 4 {a, o, u, i: the letters h and u denote the variants of one and the same phoneme, says the author, while the e-phoneme can only stand after one member of the distinguishable consonant phoneme pairs; i.e. only a soft consonant may precede it). Accordingly, the above formula gives the number of letters in the Russian alphabet as, ARus. = 33 + 5 — 12 + 4 + 1 = 31 which means that it has seven fewer letter symbols than would be needed in the simplest phonemic alphabet. (The + 1 at the end of the formula stands for the symbol used when the consonant to be denoted is not followed by a vowel; i.e. it stands before another consonant within a word or at the end of a word.) Jakovlev also described the types of phonological structure in connection with which his formula may especially prove to be economical, and he illustrated this by reference to some Caucasian languages. He criticized the Latin historically based spelling systems in which distinctions such as those noted above are either denoted by a mass of diacritic marks or by the frequent use of an extra letter (a letter denoting not a phoneme but some distinctive feature) or sometimes by both these makeshift means. It is perhaps not without interest to note in passing that it was §5erba who later made a very clear and consistent analysis of this peculiarity of the Russian alphabet, which developed historically and spontaneously (see Scerba, 1942, esp. 160-3). Jakovlev was not alone in pursuing such scholarly interests in a practical manner. Applied linguistics, of which Baudouin had already stressed the significance in 1871, came to the fore in that

24

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

period, especially with regard to the devising of new orthographic systems for languages with no written tradition. Many other linguists besides Jakovlev took an active part in the All-Russian Central Committee's work of devising new alphabets, including L. I. 2irkov (who in the thirties delivered a series of university lectures under the title of "Applied Linguistics"), J. D. Polivanov, N. V. Jusmanov, A. M. Suxotin, N. K. Juldasin, N. A. Baskakov, A. A. Reformatskij, and Y. A. Artemov. In addition to the publications of the committee just referred to, these scholars were also responsible for contributions to the great Soviet world-atlas. An interesting and authentic account of all this work was given to the participants of the Oslo Congress of General Linguistics (see Bokarev, 1958a; Ivanov, 1958a, 23). It is characteristic of the lively intellectual flavour of the scientific life of the period in question that scholarly works using the new methods appeared not only in the old seats of learning, Moscow, Leningrad and Kazan, but also elsewhere. An excellent little book by the two authors Cistjakov and Kramarenko was published in Krasnodar in 1929 (see Cistjakov, 1929). The co-authors' original idea in the book was to compare "the synchronic phenomena of the Russian language with similar phenomena in other languages" (ib., 4). The initial idea was eventually modified as a result of a maturing in outlook and the experience gained from working on concrete material. When, therefore, the book appeared, the authors summed up their aims as follows: "1) laying a theoretical foundation of the application of the statistical method in linguistic science demonstrating its possibilities and relevance; 2) ascertaining some linguistic problems that call for such a procedure in their solution; 3) illustrating the statistical method on concrete material" (ib.). In their introduction they then expounded the view that the possibility and need for applying statistical techniques to linguistic phenomena are provided by the fact that changes of a chance mass nature are continually taking place in language, because the psychophysical structure of members of the society is continually undergoing changes as a consequence of the ever-changing complex of

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

25

the conditions of the productive forces (to use their own terminology). And it is precisely in this respect, the authors assert, that the statistical treatment is relevant. Today we perhaps tend to be surprised at the circumspection and overcautiousness with which they justified their method and its theoretical foundations. But it will be readily recognized that the writers were pioneers in their own age if we turn to the first, unnumbered, page of the original preface to their work. Here we are told by the director of the research institute at Kuban, that published the book, that debates preceded and followed the writing of the book. Many opposed the idea of investigation language along these lines and could not clearly see to what extent this new method could be applied, or what linguistic problems might be tackled by the new complex of techniques suggested by the authors. It is therefore apparent that Cistjakov and Kramarenko were not just shadow-boxing. After the theoretical preliminaries, the authors provide statistics on sound sequences (9-43) and morphology (44-59) and then, for the sake of completeness, they provide six unnumbered pages of graphs and tables. A bibliography is included, which although not extensive, shows the authors to be sufficiently well acquainted with the relevant literature on the subject. Cistjakov and Kramarenko seem to be better statisticians than linguists, although it is not so easy to judge their latter capacity. For instance, they speak of "fundamental sounds" when dealing with the phonetic system of Russian and they count only these sounds. It must in fairness be said, however, that the general level of phonology was not very high at that time, and was certainly not in a position to have supplied them with the information that what they were counting in fact were phonemes. At all events, the authors are right in feeling the need for the notion of the phoneme in the kind of work they propose themselves. The label "fundamental sounds" points to just this awareness of theirs. Similarly, they are on the right track when they state that in a language there are a great number of possible sounds, all different from each other, even if only one factor is taken into

26

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

account, namely that each sound will be modified (i.e. in point of articulation) by two adjacent sounds, before and after. On the basis of only forty fundamental sounds, this will result mathematically in nearly 60,000 different sounds (cf. ib., 9). It may be added that they used a fairly large sample for their investigations, and its extent becomes all the more impressive when we consider that they almost certainly carried out the work of collecting and processing without the aid of mechanical devices. They used extracts from Russian texts originating from a wide range of genres and periods, the total number of words (tokens) amounting to some 25,000. To this they added, for comparison purposes, material from French, German, English and Hebrew texts totalling 2,500 words (tokens) altogether. To illustrate their method I include here a table giving the respective percentages of occurrence for the "Parts of speech" (51st table, ib., 51): Part of Speech Noun Adj. Art. Verb Adv. Prep. Conj. Particles Total words examined

From From ScienPreLom. to Puskin to tificic Lomonosov Puskin 20th C. lit. 35.6 16.6

37.9 17.5

37.2 15.3

61.0 20.3

—

—

—

—

15.8 5.4 9.8 12.0 4.8

15.6 8.3 10.5 6.3 3.9

16.7 10.5 10.1 6.5 3.7

2.964

4.355

11.500

Fr. Germ. Eng. Heb.

10.2 9.5 10.2 6.2 2.6

32.4 18.1 7.1 14.1 11.1 8.1 5.1 4.0

31.2 12.9 9.5 15.6 12.1 8.5 7.1 3.1

33.5 12.6 5.3 19.6 11.6 9.1 5.3 3.0

41.0 8.2 6.1 15.4 2.0 5.6 19.4 2.3

6.375

400

832

547

605

Equally interesting are those data which the authors give concerning the relative frequencies of the individual prepositions. Thus, the most frequently used preposition in Russian is found to be e (28.4%); next come, in order of magnitude, Ha (19.3%), c (10.56%), 3a (5 %), and the least frequent of these simple or "original" prepositions seems to be 6e3 with 1.09%. It is important to add here that Cistjakov and Kramarenko were

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

27

convinced that statistical investigations were also necessary in the field of semantics; but, they felt that this would have entailed a long process of preparation, in which the words would have had to be grouped into certain typical semantic classes (cf. op. cit., 43-4). This treatise represents a bold and imaginative beginning, and, although the general weakness of the form of morphological, and, especially, phonemic analysis then prevailing in descriptive linguistics lessened the effectiveness of their undertaking, their book has continued to offer a great deal of valuable data and instructive methods, even after the publication of modern works on phonetic statistics (the following will be mentioned later: Josselson's Russian Word Frequency Dictionary and Steinfeld's work, both of which also include some statistics on morphological aspects). E. Polivanov, the noted Orientalist and general linguist, in 1931 published a collection of papers entitled "For a Marxist Science of Language". The last paper bears the title "Mathematics can also be useful", and the author selects three areas where mathematics can be of use to the linguist (although, as he confesses, he had not much liking for the subject at school). The three fields are experimental phonetics, dialectal statistics (by which the author means that the spread and distribution of certain features can be characterized by percentages) and probability determination of the relative correctness of certain etymologies. This last field deserves special attention. Here he argues, for instance, that the probability of the chance correspondence of the initial s- of the Sanskrit word (atdm, meaning "hundred", with the initial k- of the Latin centum is 4", where x denotes those occurrences which involve an identical correspondence between the same two sounds in the two languages compared. This figure is very low, in view of the existence of a good many pairs of such words (gva canis, pagu - pecu, etc.).

If, to make a cautious estimate, we assume that in eight IE language groups there are 30 such words in which the s - k correspondence may be said to be regular, then the probability that this is merely chance in the languages concerned can be represented in

28

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

mathematical form as 1/8.30 = 1/240. Again, if we take a smaller number than would be warrantable and say that the correspondence of the second sound or sequence also occurs in 20 words of the eight language groups, then the probability of this being due to chance is reduced to 1/38400. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the consonant -t of centum is also found to correspond in the individual languages examined, it is not difficult to see that the probability of chance occurrence diminishes towards zero and, to all intents and purposes, is equal to zero (see Polivanov, 1931,181). At the same time - and this is the argument with which Polivanov concludes his paper - "Japhetidology", the Marrism of the time, offers etymologies which cannot pass the test of probability. If it can be shown that in the etymologies derived by Indo-Europeanists the probability of chance correspondence tends to be zero, the converse is true of the etymologies advanced by "Japhetidology". Let us now take a few random examples of books and articles written in 1933. An article appearing in the journal of the ABC central committee referred to above sets out to assist the planning of printing houses by giving statistics derived from an analysis of one million typographical symbols (Proskurnin, 1933). The practical article also contains data that may be utilized by the linguist. Thus, the method of sampling is noteworthy. The exact distribution of the various kinds of printed matter was first determined from the current plans of publishing houses (the more important sections were represented by the following percentages: social sciences: 28.39%, applied sciences: 22.63%; fiction: 16.96%; publications for the peasantry: 9.40%; natural sciences: 6.58%). The one million printed symbols were then collected in these proportions. In Russian texts the percentages of the individual sets of symboltypes are as follows: small-case letters: 85.22%; capitals: 7.37% (this is noticeably less in Ukrainian - 4.03%); punctuation marks: 6.18%; figures: 1.33% (see Proskurnin, 1933, 74, 77). A comparison of Russian with Belorussian, in terms of the percentages of individual letters used, is not without linguistic[interest, for in Russian the letter o represents 11% of all the letters used,

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

29

whereas in Belorussian this figure is only 3.95%. Further data are as follows (the first figure is for Russian, the second for Belorussian): a - 7.51%, 16.34%; H - 2.02%, 4.60%; e - 8.75%, 3.40%; a - 6.02%, 3.35%; u - 0.44%, 3.17%. It can be seen that the divergences are not to be explained only in terms of the difference between the phonemic systems of the two languages. Reformatskij's article "Linguistics and Polygraphy" appeared in the same journal (Reformatskij, 1933a). This contained stimulating ideas regarding the contrasts between the written and spoken forms of language. The sharp distinction between the two media has become particularly important since work started on MT, since this method consistently relies on the written norm when grammatical rules are being compiled. In the same year Reformatskij published another thick volume which dealt with the typographical aspects of editing books (see Reformatskij, 1933b); he was also co-author of a monograph of a similar kind (see Artemov, 1933). Throughout the period under review, Prof. Peterson, a representative of the Moscow school, continued to publish studies and books. His Russian syntax, based on Fortunatov's theory of syntagms (Peterson, 1923), was issued in 1923. In 1928, he gave in a paper an exact statistical description of the occurrences of particular constructions on the basis of Lermontov's works (Peterson, 1928), and not quite ten years later he subjected the Igor song to a similar analysis (Peterson, 1937). Another scholar at that time, who was always in the mainstream of the new development, was L. V. Scerba (an Academician since 1943). He, for instance, gave his seminar students nonsense sentences to analyse, in which the words had appropriate grammatical morphemes and had been arranged grammatically, e.g. rjiOKaa Ky3£pa niTeno GoflJiaHyjia 6oicpeHKa (something of this sort has frequently been done in English with the Jabberwocky verse, "'twas brillig, and the slithy toves", etc.). The sentence invented by SSerba has become a sort of household saying with mathematical linguists in the Soviet Union. Quite understandably so, since it admirably illustrates the abstract concept of

30

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

the "well-formed sentence" or "any so-called attributive group", etc. In a sentence such as this, the suffixal morphemes are all unimpaired and in "place"; it is only the stem morphemes which do not occur as such in the inventory of actual morphemes in Russian. (In this sense, we cannot, of course, speak of a sentence here, because a sentence ceases to be one either if the rules governing the linking of constituent morphemes are violated or contravened, or if one or more morphemes are smuggled into it which are not included in the given list of recognized morphemes.) Such sentences may have great value in teaching a language in so far as they can make the pupil aware of the all-important nature of inflexional morphemes and may help to develop in him a skill in formal analysis (if only because nothing else can be done with such a nonsense utterance). Such a sentence may also help to make us realize what goes on in a machine when it has to work out a human sentence. For a machine any sentence in any existing language is "nonsense"; all that it is taught to "know" is that such and such a form is a noun, that form is an attribute to that noun, these nouns are in this or that case, and so on. In a word, this nonsense utterance only appears to be nonsense and is certainly not so for the linguist. It resembles its inventor, the always profound and extremely original thinker, Scerba, who also has a great deal of the French esprit in his make-up. From the mid-thirties onwards he has been working on the solution of problems that have gained the attention of most linguists only in quite recent times. He started, in collaboration with radio engineers, to investigate the comprehensibility (audibility) of electronically transmitted signals, the question of disturbances and noises in transmission, and related matters (see, for more details, Zinder, 1957; also SSerba's publications at that time: SCerba, 1936a, 1936b). MT experts derived considerable benefit from his theory about "active" and "passive" grammar (see below, Chapter 6, 2 and cf. §5erba, 1937 and 1947). Very characteristic, too, is the way in which Sfierba's syntactical conception was developing. Towards the end of his life he declared

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

31

very sceptically about the concept of the "sentence": "It makes no sense to ask 'what is a sentence?'","... it is by no means clear what things we keep in view when we speak of a sentence" (§2erba, 1945, 9-10). But equally interesting is the general conception which he briefly outlines in the last of his papers - by way of a testament, as it were. "Grammar", he writes, "is no more than a set of rules of behaviour by speech (peneBoe noBe^eHHe)". And it can be seen that what he means by "behaviour" is really the same thing as that which is understood by contemporary linguists, if we refer to an earlier passage in the same work, where he states: "If a man begins to understand a language which has not been taught to him at all, this can be explained by the fact that... his understanding in such a case is made possible by the sharing of a common experience and a common reaction to the phenomena of life" (ib., 13). We could continue enumerating in this way the rich ideas of a practical and theoretical nature that he has left us in his longer and shorter works, speeches, the introduction to his dictionary, his handbook of French phonetics, etc. The final conclusion to be drawn from the life-work of this exceptionaly versatile scholar is that the most urgent task in Russian, as well as in all other national linguistics, is the study of the structure of languages and the writing of descriptive grammars with a scientific value (§£erba, 1945, 14ff.). 3.2. S&rba's activities have perhaps taken us too far ahead in time towards the present day. The first, heroic age of Soviet philology is separated from the present age by the two intervening gruelling decades of Marrism, roughly the period between the mid-thirties and the early fifties. Marrism, which first began as an application of Marxism to the field of linguistic science - and, we may add, there were many such attempts (see the collection of articles by Polivanov referred to above) - was slowly becoming an autocratic system of thought. As early as 1931 an article appeared attacking Polivanov, who, besides being a man of exceptional talent and insight, was a difficult

32

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

person to get on with, according to what his contemporaries assert. The attack was directed against his methodology - and, what was far from just, against his "mathematical" methods. It was becoming increasingly difficult to write anything that was new from a theoretical point of view. This was especially the case for the members of the Moscow school (perhaps those at Kazan were in a somewhat better position owing to the personal qualities of §£erba which endeared him to everyone). Periodicals and occasional publications started in the preceding period all came to an end. Soviet linguists were deprived of nearly all their foreign contacts. The majority of works deviating, however slightly, from the prevalent regime of Marrism appeared in the university proceedings (Ynenbie 3anucKU), which were practically inaccessible to foreign scholars and were in any case, not a suitable form for discussion and debate. Nevertheless what did appear in this way was not very encouraging. A scrupulous fear of everything new is the principal feature of these publications, their authors being subject to an excess of caution. Researchers avoided references to foreign sources, nor did they mention Russian works written before or shortly after the Revolution (the only exception is, again, §5erba, who constantly refers to Baudouin, whom he regards as his master and of whose merits he writes a fine appreciation). All this does not mean that Russian linguistics went into hibernation during the period in question, as is sometimes thought. Nor would it be quite true to say that nothing of importance was done even within our own limited field of review. For instance, in 1939 (or, maybe, a couple of years before) a Russian technician-inventor was granted a patent, the first ever in the world, it would seem, to cover "translation by machine" (P. P. Smirnov-Trojanskij, for details of whom, see Zirkov, 1956). Then, in 1941, the text of Prof. Peterson's lectures on present-day Russian grammar was published, as well as the phonological treatises of A. A. Reformatskij and P. S. Kuznecov (see Reformatskij, 1941; Kuznecov, 1941). Neither must we forget the new developments in mathematics, the third source of the new trends mentioned earlier (p. 19). 1941 saw the publication of Academician Kolmogorov's article, which

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

33

justifies his being classed among the early pioneers of the information theory (see Kolmogorov, 1941; on the significance of the theory, see Berg, 1960). He produced several other studies, in the same period, on constructive logic. A. A. Markov published a work on the theory of algorithms, and in the preceding period a paper of far-reaching importance appeared on communication techniques (Kotel'nikov, 1933), etc. 3.3. After the publication of Stalin's articles (1950) the period of stagnation was replaced by a more lively period in Soviet linguistics. The works of foreign authors began to appear in Russian translation (two of Meillet's works: 1951, 1952; Vaillant's Old Slav Grammar conceived in the new spirit: 1952, etc.). In 1952 the periodical Bonpocbi H3biK03Ha.HUH2 came out, which was soon to become a a publication of a high standard, even judged in international terms (see below). On the other hand, the fundamental tenets of traditional l i n guistics were formulated in such a way in Stalin's articles that it was possible for formalistic concepts to revive to a certain extent. Reformatskij, for instance, quoted Stalin when he wished to reject Vinogradov's criterion for the sentence as "reflecting reality" (Reformatskij, 1955, 259). In a similar way Peterson found fault with the traditional view of the "secondary parts" of the sentence substituting for it his own syntagmatic concept derived from Fortunatov (see Peterson, 1952, 389). He did not directly criticize the traditionalists; he was actually dissecting the views of MesSaninov. But there can be little doubt as to whom he had in mind (see e.g. KroteviC, 1954, 8ff.). We should also note the following. It is known that Stalin alluded to "certain shortcomings" in the historical-comparative method, leaving it to the specialists to find out what, exactly, these were. It was not therefore possible to institute a thorough revision of the historical-comparative method (such a revision would today assume the form of an extremist structuralist view) because the a

F r o m n o w on abbreviated to VJaz; BM in the Bibliography.

34

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

article simply hinted at "certain" shortcomings, its chief aim being and this is its historic merit - to restore the prestige of this selfsame method. Only in one field was an attempt made to supplement the historical-comparative method, and this was in the field of the contrastive study of languages of different systems, i.e. the comparison of their internal structures, independently of the separate (or, in some cases, contiguous) histories of the linguistic structures. The idea seems first to have occurred to Vinogradov (Vinogradov, 1951, 42), although he originally suggested this idea only as a "valuable method to be used in practical language teaching". From then on, however, well-known research workers, took up the idea and began to speak of its scientific value; to be more precise, they plead for the use of this method to help to eliminate the deficiencies in the historical approach (see, e.g., Bernstejn, 1952, 8if., Beleckij, 1955, 3 if.). Contrastive linguistics - i.e. a comparison with a structuraltypological purposes - is not new. It has occurred more than once in the course of traditional Russian linguistics in a more or less mild form. As early as 1877 one author had recourse to contrastive methods when dealing with questions concerning hypotactical sentence structure (Kors, 1877); in the early years of this century a study published in the Academy's Communications and discussing the question of articles in Russian mentioned the need for a contrastive analysis of non-related languages (Xalanskij, 1901). A few years later a disquisition on the syncretism of the accusative and genitive in Slavic made use of the same approach (Tomson, 1909). Later, an inquiry into semantic problems found the contrastive method indispensable (Pokrovskij, 1936). While the indication of structural contrasts is used as a complementary method to the historical-comparative approach in these technical treatises, the same procedure can also be found in use for practical purposes, in the teaching of languages. Thus, a first-rate representative of the Kazan school such as Bogorodickij does not think it to trivial too discourse on the pronunciation mistakes committed by Germans learning Russian and on the special handicaps of Russians learning

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

35

German, finding ample room for the contrastive technique in his demonstrations. Nor is it without significance that this contrastive study appeared in the most authoritative contemporary organ for Slavistics, the Archiv fur slavische Philologie (See Bogorodickij,

1927). Guided by the same principle, Polivanov went a step further and compiled a contrastive grammar of Russian and Uzbek (Polivanov, 1934). But, needless to say, this method could play only a minor role within the framework of traditional linguistics, although, on the other hand, it became one of the essential means for the description of synchronic structures. Accordingly, the adaptation of this new method for practical uses required the efforts of such brilliant scholars as the two members of the forward-looking Kazan school mentioned above. Somewhat different is the case of works using contrastive methods after 1950. Several contrastive grammars appeared in rapid succession in this decade: Russian-Tartar - 1952, Russian-Bashkir 1953, Russian-Chuvash - 1954, Russian-Azerbajdzan - 1954, etc. In addition, several doctoral theses as well as smaller papers were written on the subject. The latter appeared in the publications of the language institutes. The novelty of the works just mentioned is that they all aim at applying a new method for didactic purposes, without, however, relying on foreign works or on those of their predecessors at home and without, in fact, trying to modify the current methodology of research or their linguistic outlook. Clearly, such attempts are doomed to failure from the outset. It is in the case of more or less new methods or little used innovations more than in any other that the workers must increasingly rely on foreign as well as on native experience, the obvious reason being that the application of the new techniques cannot yet have become instinctive. On the other hand, a new departure in methodology must not be viewed as something that stands quite apart from scientific research and outlook. There is another, perhaps more important, lesson to be learnt from the comparative studies of this particular period, viz. that the practical aims of language teaching were brought heavily to

36

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

bear on the linguistic work in the Soviet Union. Again, the reason is not far to seek, since the teaching of foreign languages has always been the most traditional as well as the most wide-spread branch of linguistic work. Whereas in the preceding period the main task had been to provide new alphabets for unwritten languages in the Soviet Union, there was now a pressing need to teach the Russian language to the minorities. Moreover, whereas the tasks of the earlier period could be solved only by a deliberate reorientation towards the new trends in linguistics - even though this was not exactly breaking new ground now, to cope successfully with the qualitatively increased demands, linguistic science needed, at least in part, a thorough over-haul. A comparison with other national linguistics was again possible. It is well known that the study of foreign linguistic structures was very much promoted by the mass movement of peoples and populations during and after the second World War. Members of the occupying or liberating armies took part in rapid courses to acquire some sort of working acquaintance with at least the elements of the most diverse languages spoken over the whole area stretching from Asia to Western Europe. All this necessitated a certain amount of research in language teaching. It may be mentioned here as a characteristic feature of this period that the first, and for a decade the only, frequency dictionary of the Russian language was made in the United States, and according to its compiler, its purpose was to fulfil the need for the teaching of Russian in that country (cf. Josselson, 1953, 3). 3.4. Together with the Kazan and Moscow schools and mathematics we may, therefore, include this fourth contributory source to the spreading of new ideas on linguistics which arose from the needs of practice, as distinct from theory. This last source is, of course, not on the same footing as the other three. It is undeniable that the practical demands of life have accompanied and motivated the development of modern linguistic science at every stage. In what follows we shall see that practical demands to an ever increasing extent stimulate research workers and directors of scientific policy

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

37

alike to adopt new methods and techniques and to help bring about a further upsurge in linguistic activities. It is only the combined effect of all these factors - advances in theory on the one hand, and the constant stimulus provided by practical needs on the other - that has caused the new trends to take root and bear fruit so early in the Soviet Union.

2

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS IN THE SOVIET UNION The facts so far mentioned may serve as an introduction to our more immediate subject. Soviet mathematical linguistics in the strictest sense of the word emerged during the debate held in the Soviet Union on structuralism. At the same time, the fine results obtained from mathematical linguistic research were being published. In the following I propose to sketch the external history of this process which is still going on before our eyes, dealing first with the debate itself (1), secondly with the centres around which mathematical linguists have rallied (2), thirdly with the various organs in which the publications of the Soviet mathematical linguists have appeared (3) and, lastly, with the more important conferences held on the subject (4). In using the term "external history" I imply that I shall restrict myself to a mere enumeration of events, publications and institutions. The merits and contents of the debates and the various views expressed in them I propose to discuss in a later chapter in their appropriate context. Any discussion of results achieved subsequent to the debate in the theoretical and practical fields will also be held over till then. 1. The external circumstances in which the debate took place can be briefly summarized as follows. It should be recalled first that immediately after the appearance of Stalin's articles a Soviet linguistic debate concerning the phoneme took place, which was started by Saumjan in an article in the Academy's Departmental Communications (see Saumjan, 1952). Several eminent Soviet scholars contributed to that debate, including Avanesov, Reformatskij, S. Bernstejn, V. I. Lytkin, A. N. Gvozdev, L. R. Zinder and M. I. MatuseviC. The concluding

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

39

article in No. 5 of the periodical in which the debate was published did not, however, furnish any concrete results. On the one hand, Soviet linguistics was, it seems, still too much under the spell of the fifteen years of Marrism, while, on the other hand, the essentially correct pronouncements of Stalin in the recent past too heavily influenced later discussions. At the same time, the subject itself was felt to be too limited, even though it belonged to the most advanced and developed branch of linguistics. This debate may therefore be ragarded as a sort of "dress rehearsal" for the structuralist debate. To fill in the background a little more, it should be pointed out that since about 1955 Soviet linguistic science (as well as the whole life in the Soviet Union) had been undergoing profound changes, to judge from the periodicals and, in particular, from Voprosy Jazykoznanija. Beginning with the first number in 1955 of this leading Soviet linguistic periodical, the authors ceased to refer to all kinds of works of a general philosophical or journalistic nature, which had been mentioned only too frequently in the preceding period. At the same time, there was a great increase in the number of references to Western linguists and also to Russian and Soviet authors of the previous periods. In the last issue of the same volume two Leningrad linguists wrote an appreciative account of the first translating machine put into operation in the United States (Berkov, 1955). After these preliminaries, it came hardly as a surprise when in the periodical just referred to (No. 4, 1956) an editorial article outlining the tasks facing Soviet linguists in the light of the 20th Congress of the Party included a call for a discussion of the basic tenets of structuralism. The atmosphere had by then changed even as compared with that of a couple of years before. The agenda of the debate now had the correct order of priority; for phonology, which had earlier been selected for discussion, had become a problem subordinated to that great complex of questions of principle that would now have to be tackled if Soviet linguists were to find their bearings in the general trend of development in their science during the last couple of decades.

40

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

The debate was launched in the very next issue by an author who, since his views were quite near to those held by Hjelmslev, approached the whole tangle of problems under discussion from an extremist point of view (see Saumjan, 1956). Following this provocative opening, no less than thirty articles were printed in the correspondence columns of the periodical, which were written by both Soviet and foreign authors between 1956 and the close of the debate, which may be set at 6th May, 1960. Some of the contributors went beyond the scope of the original issue and raised questions that could themselves have been the subject of separate debates (on phonology, the concept of grammatical cases, etc.). On the other hand, several other papers, either published elsewhere in the same periodical or appearing in other periodicals, took up the problem of various aspects of structuralism. The main trend of the debate was, nevertheless, determined by the contributions sent to VJaz. An impressive array of questions were dealt with, including the structural-semantic analysis of particular linguistic units (Levkovskaja, 1957), the theory of syntagms (Mikus, 1957), general considerations with regard to structuralist methods (Steblin-Kamenskij, 1957; Reformatskij, 1957), semantics and structuralism (Revzin, 1957c, Grigorjev, 1958). Noted foreign scholars like Stieber (1957), Trnka (1957), Cohen (1958), Sui Kuo-Chan (1959), etc., also took part in these discussions. New light was thrown on the applicability of structuralist techniques in dialectology (Piotrovskij, 1957), nor was there a shortage of articles on the problems of descriptive and historical phonology (Kuznecov, 1958aand 1959, Krupatkin, 1958, and Kacnel'son, 1958). All the contributors mentioned essentially approved of the methodology worked out by structuralism. What is more, they entered into controversy with each other (for example, Reformatskij with Saumjan) regarding various nuances of meaning in the field of structural linguistics. At first, the voice of the "opposing" camp could hardly be heard at all. Only a little known Ukrainian linguist (Mel'nicuk, 1957) and a Rumanian academician (Graur, 1958) raised objections. They both held that structuralism was basically'incompatible with Marxism itself.

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

41

By the second half of 1958 the situation had been reversed, at least in the correspondence columns of VJaz. Almost exclusively, it was the opponents of structuralism who came forward. They argued chiefly against the separation of synchrony and diachrony (Budagov, 1958, Zirmunskij, 1958), criticised particular modern linguists (Serebrennikov, 1958, who attacked Jakobson), or rejected the views of the structuralists - or some of them - regarding the structure of language (Gornung, 1959). These latter authors considered structuralist methods to be incompatible, not with Marxism, but with the science of language itself (which, for them, meant the historical-comparative approach of the previous century or, in the case of Zirmunskij, the more progressive version of the Kazan school). At about this time, in the spring of 1959, and academy committee under the chairmanship of Vinogradov published a draft "Prolegomena" - to a longer document outlining the fundamental questions of theory in linguistic science (see Vinogradov, 1959). The spring and summer of 1959 seem to have marked the culmination of the debate. It would appear from documents published early the following year (1960) that, scarcely had the draft come out, when Saumjan and the science departments of the Academy at once reacted with unusual severity. The leaders of the Language and Literature Department convened an extended meeting of departmental heads. The conference, which lasted for two days, 7th8th June, 1959, discussed the controversial issues posed by structuralism, and then passed a resolution (for details of the debate and the text of the resolution, see Gornung, 1960a, Cikobava, 1960, Saumjan, 1960c, Resolution, 1959). The resolution condemned in strong terms the idealist outlook underlying structuralism. At the same time, however, it considered, on a purely practical plane, that the methods of structural analysis were necessary and useful and that, therefore, a Semiotic Institute and a Committee of Applied Linguistics should be set up under the auspices of the Academy. The resolution called for the devotion of considerable attention to structuralist methods, under the seven year plan, the establishment of structural-typological sections in

42

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

both the Russian Language Institute of the Academy and the Slavistic institute and, finally, the setting-up, in cooperation with the Ministry of Higher Education, mathematical linguistic departments at universities and high schools (see Resolution, 1959). The resolution, however, seems not to have effected a satisfactory settlement of the questions raised, and this is borne out by the fact that not quite a year later the presidium of the Academy took up the problem again. It endorsed the resolution passed by the departmental heads and stressed that the application of mathematical methods could considerably aid the development of the theory of language. It also called on the Department leaders to discuss a possible programme for research into structuralist methods and then to work out a plan for projects of a traditional character (see Resolution, 1960). It was hoped that this resolution would terminate the debate, and, as it is dated 6th June, we can conveniently regard it as the official end of the structuralist debate. But, as so often happens in science, the truth is that the debate has not yet ended. In the same number of VJaz which carried the presidential resolution, there appeared an article by Gornung with the title, "The Place of Linguistics in the System of Sciences and the Relevance to it of the Application of Methods of Other Sciences" (my italics). Needless to say, "the methods of other sciences" were mathematical methods, and, as the title already indicated, the wellknown author was of the opinion that mathematics as a method belongs not to the exact sciences but to the natural sciences; in other words, he argued, if any scientific discipline belongs to the social sciences - as linguistics indisputably does - it cannot be exact. At the same time, Saumjan published an article in the leading ideological journal of the Soviet Union, Bonpocu $UAOCO$UU (Autumn, 1960), in which he put forward a case for regarding structural linguistics as the highest form in the hierarchy of linguistic studies. Such a view was novel in view of the fact that the cited resolutions contain no statement of this kind (see Saumjan, 1960b). Saumjan's article was published by the editors as the second contribution to a series begun by Academician Berg, a few months

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

43

earlier in the same periodical on the question of cybernetics. Coinciding with the debate conducted in the periodicals of the Academy, mainly in VJaz, and ending in the manner indicated above, a symposium was held by the Linguistic Institute of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in Moscow on the 12th - 16th March, 1957. The subject matter of this "internal" discussion was published in a separate volume in 1960 (see Bibliography, C A H H H ) . Of the four main contributors two belonged to the "opponents" and two to the advocates of the new methods (for details of the former two, see Gornung, 1957, and Jarceva, 1957, and for details of the latter two, see Reformatskij, 1957d, and Andreev, 1957b). Those who spoke from the floor in the heated discussions which followed the main lectures included Saumjan, Ivanov, Toporov and Piotrovskij. After this decisive year of 1960, the debate began to lose its momentum, although not completely, as is borne out by the annual general assemblies of the Linguistic and Literary Department of the Academy. Academician Vinogradov's report to the assembly meeting held on 31st January and 1st February, 1961, dealt with the activities of the structuralist departments set up the preceding autumn in the Slavistic and Russian Language Institutes of the Academy. The same forum discussed his report to be submitted later in that year to the Academy's Presidium. This categorically condemned the view that structural linguistics was the "new", the "scientific" trend, and that "classical" linguistics, which had no use for the new methods, was outdated. The conclusion was, therefore, that four branches of linguistics should be cultivated with equal intensity, i.e. descriptive, historical, historical-comparative and typological-comparative linguistics (see General Assembly, 1961). The next joint meeting, held from 20th to 22nd March, 1963, discussed the further topics of the theory of signs as applied to language, the interaction of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors in the functioning of language, quantitative and qualitative procedures and typology (see General Assembly, 1963). The four subjects need no commentary - except that the second falls partly outside the main scope of modern linguistic science. It is small wonder then that the Department leaders could only find

44

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

"opponents" for the mathematical linguists among those scholars who had up to then taken up a moderate and mediatory position between the two camps. (The "old" mathematical linguists were represented by Saumjan, Andrejev and XolodoviS, and their opponents were the "moderates" Beleckij, Admoni, and Makaev; the less interesting second topic was presented by Axmanova and Panfilov.) Academician Vinogradov gave his report the title "The Elimination of the Consequences of the Personality Cult in Linguistics". He and the other speakers felt that the deficiencies of the period following the appearance of Stalin's articles were the failure to recognize the social stratification of particular languages, the failure to define the position of language in the sphere of social phenomena, and the incorrect assessment of the relationship between thinking and language. As the title of Vinogradov's main report indicates, the principal attack was no longer aimed at mathematical linguistics, while the topics submitted for discussion at this meeting are an even clearer indication of the change. 2. One of the earliest centres of Soviet mathematical linguists, which is still very active, was the translation department of the Moscow Foreign Language Institute. Here, on 24th December, 1956, the Machine Translation Association was founded under the directorship of V. J. Rozencvejg. Since its foundation the Association has held occasional meetings, heard reports and discussed lectures. The texts of the lectures and the minutes of the debates were published in EMI1 (see below, 3). This same department, from an early date in its career, attracted many enthusiastic people interested in MT and in mathematical linguistics generally. In the academic year 1957/58 the then lecturer of the Translation Department, I. I. Revzin, started a course with the title "Introduction to the Theory of MT and Mathematical Linguistics". A good many outside enthusiasts also came to these lectures, and it was here that the regular training of mathematical linguists started in the autumn of 1958, two years before the course at Moscow University. The direction of the new department was

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

45

entrusted to Rozencvejg. He was also made responsible for the MT Laboratory attached to his department. The efforts of the young and enthusiastic co-workers in this laboratory have recently been directed towards work on the formalization of meaning. We shall therefore describe their work later when we come to the discussion of the results achieved by Soviet structuralist semantics. Another flourishing centre of mathematical linguistics has from early times been Moscow University. Here an inter-departmental seminar began its activities on 24th September, 1956. The seminar had as its subject "Some Applications of Mathematical Procedures in Linguistic Science". It held regular weekly meetings in term time under the rotating chairmanships of P. S. Kuznecov, V.V. Ivanov and V. A. Uspenskij. Participants at the 1956/57 seminar discussed lectures on independent topics. In 1958/59 V. A. Uspenskij gave a series of lectures and directed practical work on "Mathematics for Linguists". These events led to the formation in 1960 of a Department of Mathematical Linguistics under the professorship of Zvegincev. The Department takes care of the training of mathematical linguists and has some 7-10 students each year. The lecturers include the Professor of the Russian Chair of the University, P. S. Kuznecov (this versatile scholar held courses in 1959/60 in Swahili), with Saumjan as a guest professor. The programme of studies for students of the arts faculty regularly includes courses in structuralmathematical linguistics which are open to all university undergraduates. Attendance was rather high at the classes of A. A. Zaliznjak, a research-worker in the Structural-Typological Department of the Slavistic Institute, who as a guest lecturer introduced his students in 1962/63 to the methodology of typological comparison (ranging from Hungarian through Indo-European to the Semitic languages). In addition, lectures were held at the other faculties of Moscow University on questions related to linguistics. For instance, in the Mechanical-Mathematical Faculty in 1962/63 Kulagina led a specialist seminar for third-year students in collaboration with an assistant of Viniti (BcecoKWHMii HHcraryT no HaynHon H TCXHH-

46

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

HecicoH HHijDopMamm) with the title, "Select Mathematical Problems of MT". Since 1956 there has also been an inter-departmental seminar at Leningrad University under the leadership of N. D. Andreev the theoretical aspects of machine translation. In March, 1958, an experimental laboratory was put into operation there. It was jointly organized by members of the mechanical-mathematical, the arts and the oriental departments. Andreev and his group, on the one hand, dealt with the general theory of MT, especially the question of the intermediary language, and, on the other hand, devised algorithms for several pairs of languages. The training of mathematical linguists began in Leningrad in the autumn of 1958 under the direction of Prof. L. R. Zinder. In contrast to Moscow, however, the training of students in Russian conforms to a mathematical pattern, so that, if need be, graduates can take up jobs as teachers of Russian in schools. The first batch of students graduated from both the Moscow Foreign Language Institute and Leningrad University in 1963. In the Leningrad branch of the Linguistic Institute of the Soviet Academy of Sciences two departments carry on mathematical research, one of them is the department of general linguistics led by XolodoviS, the other the Mathematical-Linguistic department headed by Andreev. Research is also being conducted in a closely related field in the theoretical section of the University's Electronic Computer Centre (of the research workers to be mentioned later, Cejtin and Fitialov are both on the staff of this last mentioned establishment). Mathematical linguistic instruction commenced at Kiev University in 1959, but not at first as a separate subject. It was mainly the third and fourth year students of linguistics who began to study the new subject according to individually drawn up plans, ommitting a few lecture courses in order to make room for their mathematicallinguistic studies. A separate department entitled "Structural and Applied Linguistics" was inaugurated in 1961, but it was renamed subsequently in the official curriculum "Mathematical Linguistics"

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

47

(for details of mathematical-linguistic instruction, see Chapter 8 below). As can be observed, not only optional seminars with more or less the character of informal debating societies, but also quite regular (or semi-regular, as at Kiev) university or institute courses for the training of mathematical linguists had been introduced in one or two places before the official research establishments of the Academy started to interest themselves in the matter. The reputation of the latter was saved in some measure by the Linguistic Institute of the Academy when a Working Group for Applied Linguistics was formed under its aegis. This group originally had one member (Mel'cuk) apart from its head (Reformatskij) but, subsequently, L. N. Iordanskaja, R. M. Frumkina and a few other research workers joined the group. Although the resolution taken by the Department heads in 1959 provided for the setting-up of structural linguistic departments in the other two institutes of the Academy, the fact remains that these departments were not organized until after the Academy had passed the presidential resolution in 1960. The Structural-Grammatical Department of the Russian Language Institute is headed by Saumjan and Apresjan is one of its co-workers. The StructuralTypological Department of the Slavistic Institute was formed under the leadership of Toporov, and perhaps it is here that we find the highest number of - deservedly - "great" names: Ivanov, Revzin, Molosnaja, Nikolaeva, Volockaja, Zaliznjak. A characteristic feature of this department is that in 1963 the average age of the staff members just mentioned was nearer thirty than forty. Research activity with origins similar to that described in connection with Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev may also have started in other big Soviet cities and the capitals of federal republics, but, as yet, very little is known about any organized work which is being carried on in these places. I have left to the last any mention of the mathematicians who were the actual initiators of mathematical linguistics. Prof. A. A. Ljapunov of the Moscow Steklov Institute (later with the Siberian branch of the Academy) and the co-workers of the Academy's

48

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

PrecisionjMechanics and Computer Institute (HTMhBT), the Viniti had for the most part anticipated the work of the linguistic centres on this subject (for details of their publications, see the next section). 3. From the moment the debate first started, concrete research work had been directed towards a goal which by no means everybody recognized as correct or desirable. In this section I shall enumerate a few journals in which Soviet mathematical linguists publish their studies (not including the independent publications of which there are as yet only few) and the results of their Western colleagues, commenting upon them in the light of their own experience. VJaz published an account of the first IBM translating machine long before the commencement of the organized debate. In the 1957 volume two important sections were devoted to our subject, one entitled "The Experiences of MT" and the other "Linguistics, Information Theory and MT". The next volume introduced a column with the title "Applied Linguistics". The 1960 volume continued thus under a new title, "Applied and Mathematical Linguistics", in which a number of the contributions to be discussed later first appeared. In addition, the 1959 volume started a new feature called "Consultation" ; in the columns of which Soviet mathematical linguists briefly outlined particular structural - analytical procedures, including ample bibliographical references. It was here that reports appeared on distributive analysis (Grigorjev, 1959a), glottochronology (Klimov, 1959), the relationship between code and language (Grigorjev, 1959b), transformation analysis (Nikolaeva, 1960a) statistical methods in linguistics (Frumkina, 1960b), IC analysis (Sljusareva, 1960), the Zipf laws (Frumkina, 1961), glossematics (Lekomcev, 1962), formants and their structures (Grigorjev, 1962b), and the role of anti-formants in the spectrum (Grigorjev, 1962a). If we take into consideration the great number of reviews and reports of work published in monographs, articles and treatises, each of which reveals a particular facet of the innovations in lin-

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

49

guistic analytical techniques, it is not difficult to appreciate how very important and useful this forum has been. No greater service to mathematical linguistics can be rendered than that of making the specialists acquainted with new methods and new ideas. In this way, empty talk and theorizing is replaced by concrete demonstrations of how the new methods "work" in practical analysis. This propagation of original thinking in linguistic science has been all the more stimulating and fruitful because it proceeded pari passu with the development of the structuralist debate in the Soviet Union. VJaz, moreover, printed papers in its other columns, which also demonstrated, or gave accounts of, the new trends in research. Into this category fall articles like the one on the applicability of probability in linguistics (Toporov, 1959a), and another which sets out to redefine the concept of idioms and fixed phrases along the lines of probability (Mel'5uk, 1960a). We may also mention here a treatment of word-classes based on the set theory (XolodoviS, 1960), an article dealing with the problems of the information theory and linguistics (Jaglom, 1960b), an account of the statistical aspects of the Puskin Dictionary (Frumkina, 1960a), and so on. What is more, one of the periodicals shortly after the publication of the resolution of the department heads issued a longer feature article dealing with the various questions raised by applied linguistic science (see Andreev, 1959d). One of the important periodicals of a more general nature was PyccKuu R3bw e HatfuoHa/ibHou tuKOM (.PHHIII— in our Bibliography), which, perhaps thanks to the foresight of its assistant editor, G. A. Lesskis, noticed relatively early the beneficial effect which language teaching could derive from an application of statistical methods. This periodical also had a consultation column in which pithy articles written by well-known authors appeared on mathematical linguistics (Piotrovskij, 1961) or on IC analysis and transformation (Apresjan, 1962b). A purely mathematical-linguistic organ, the Journal of the MT Association (EMIIin our Bibliography) edited by V. Ju. Rozencvejg, also appeared from time to time.

50

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

The first five issues came out in 1957 on cyclo-styled sheets of varying lengths (29-95 typewritten pages). In 1958 a further two numbers were issued. After that, the series was renamed " M T and Applied Linguistics" (MIIuIIJI) retaining the original name as a subtitle and continuing the old numbering in brackets after the new serial numbers (thus, the first three in the new series also bear the numbers 8, 9 and 10). The seventh in the new series came out in 1962. The Journal of MT and Applied Linguistics played an important role, especially during its early period. It was here that Saumjan published his first study on the two-level theory of the phoneme, Mel'£uk his account of the rules worked out for MT from Hungarian into Russian (subsequently printed in a collection to be mentioned below), etc. This mimeographed publication still retains its original interest and significance. In the autumn of 1958 a periodical collection of articles was introduced with the title "Problems of Cybernetics" (T1K in our Bibliography). Its editor-in-chief is A. A. Ljapunov. In the very first collection, a discussion column headed "Questions of Mathematical Linguistics" was launched. Kulagina was one of the contributors to this column with her study on the set theory conception of language (Kulagina, 1958c). Mel'Suk also published here his algorithm of translation from Hungarian into Russian (Mel'5uk, 1958c), and it was here that the rules for translation from English into Russian were outlined (Molosnaja, 1960a). The Leningrad circle started a mimeographed series, edited by Andreev in the spring of 1958, under the name "Materials Concerning MT" ( M M I I in our Bibliography; Vol. II appeared in 1963). The Kiev group launched their first collection of articles, edited by L. A. Kaluznin, in 1962 (TLJluMII in our Bibliography). Periodical publications on MT written by research workers at the Precision Mechanics and Computer Institute began to appear from 1958 onwards. (C6. Mil in our Bibliography). According to my information, their first separate study on MT came out in 1962 in their series of brochures (see Manolova, 1962). The Structural and Applied Linguistics Department, headed by Reformatskij, in 1961 started a series in which each publication

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

51

contained a separate study (see Mel'Suk, 1961a, Iordanskaja, 1961a, RaviS, 1962, Frumkina, 1963). In the course of 1962 two structuralist departments of the Linguistic Institute (the Russian Language Institute's Structural Grammatical Department and the Slavistic Institute's Structural Typological Department) each issued a collection (TICJ1 and CTM, resp.). Both centres intend to continue the periodical publication of such collected papers. In addition to the increased publication facilities available for Soviet authors, a great deal of significance is being attached to a series edited by Prof. Zvegincev and called "New Advances in Linguistic Science" (HoBoe B JIHHRBHCTHKE). The three volumes published to date (Vol. I, 1960, 462 pages; Vol. II, 1962, 684 pages; Vol. Ill, 1963, 568 pages) have played an important role in the reorientation of Soviet linguistic opinion and the training of young mathematical linguists, in so far as this series undertakes to keep scholars informed of recent developments in international linguistic science. For instance, the first volume contained, in addition to articles by the the founders of glottochronology and by B. Whorf, the full text in Russian of Hjemslev's Prolegomena, while the second volume gave Chomsky's epoch-making Syntactic Structures in full. Parallel with these volumes Russian translations of full-length monographs were being published. For instance, Trubeckoj's Grundziige der Phonologie, translated by Prof. XolodoviS, appeared in 1960. Both the volumes in the Zvegincev series and the independent monographs were introduced and annotated by the most eminent Soviet specialists (e.g., Saumjan wrote an introduction to Chomsky's work, while Trubeckoj's fundamental work was introduced by Reformatskij). 4. Owing perhaps to the initial lack of publishing space or to the novelty of the subject or both, Soviet mathematical linguists have quite frequently held conferences on a nation-wide or more restricted basis. The theses submitted in advance of particular lectures have usually been collected and published in the form of brochures (some lectures are not delivered but circulated in this

52

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

form for discussion by the conference participants; the lectures of one such conference - see (5) below - were published separately as stencilled copies). From now on, I shall briefly state the date, place and theme of the successive major conferences and give an abbreviated reference to the items in the Bibliography which contain details of a particular conference. I shall also refer to notices in the central press organs on the respective symposia. (1) The first of these conferences took place from 1st to 4th of October, 1957, in Leningrad, and was devoted to linguistic statistics (CP; cf. Uspenskij, 1958). (2) The next conference was held in Moscow on 15th-21stMay, 1958. It was arranged by the MT Association. The symposium on MT was attended by representatives from 79 institutions, including 29 research institutes from the Academy, 11 universities and 19 language institutes. More than seventy lectures were given at the plenary and the working sessions. Most of the lectures were concerned with MT but some also dealt with other branches of mathematical linguistics (M77; cf. Nikolaeva, 1958b). (3) On 15th-21st April, 1959, a conference was again held in Leningrad, with, on this occasion, mathematical linguistics as the main theme on the agenda. The fifty-eight lectures given embraced the following subjects: mathematical models for language, the probability and set theory characteristics of language, mechanical and artificial languages (i.e. mechanical intermediary and symbolic language) and the design of machines capable of processing and transforming information carried by speech ( M J I ; cf. Mel'Suk, 1959c, Andreev, 1960b). Although it does not form part of the series of conferences with which we are immediately concerned, we should, nevertheless, like to refer to the memorable meeting of Soviet linguists with their Western counterparts at the Fourth International Conference of Slavists held in Moscow in the autumn of 1958. A whole morning session was devoted to questions of machine translation. After a report from a linguist from Washington, participants heard lectures and contributions from Soviet scholars, partly on the theme of MT

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

53

and partly on general aspects of structuralism (a report from a Soviet collective was given by Mel'Cuk; see Mel'Suk, 1958d). Contrary to the original plan, this meeting had to be held in the main hall where the plenary meetings took place. Soviet linguists took the opportunity to invite leading Western experts to meet them in their own circles at the Foreign Language Institute. Two such occasions were arranged. At the first R. Jakobson gave a highly interesting account of work being done in the United States and at the second he gave a stimulating lecture. For the hosts, Artemov, Lurija, Zinkin and Mel'5uk lectured on current research in the Soviet Union. (4) The next Soviet conference followed in Cernovci on 22nd-28th September, 1960. The main subject here was officially defined as questions of applied linguistics. More than sixty lectures were given before the plenary sessions and the three working sessions. The latter covered: structural and mathematical linguistics, translation and language teaching methodology, and machine translation (IIJI; an account is given by Sirokov 1961; it should be pointed out that this account - contrary to the official name of the conference - is entitled "Conference of Structuralist and Mathematical Linguistics"). Incidentally, this meeting illustrated that the provincial centres were no longer lagging very much behind the two major centres, Moscow and Leningrad. In addition to the teachers of Cernovci University, lecturers were also present from Kiev, Kharkov, Minsk, Jerevan, Frunze, Tbilisi, Baku and Ashabad; altogether, 22 Soviet cities were represented. (5) Viniti organized a conference from 24th to 31 st January, 1961, on the premises of Moscow University. It was convened to discuss the following subjects: information retrieval, MT and mathematical linguistics, automatic reading of texts, and technical installations for information transmission (ffKOHMII; cf. Segal, 1961). Some one hundred and forty lectures were presented in the four sessions. (6) The Structuralist Department of the Russian Institute of the Academy convened a conference from 29th November to 2nd December, 1961, to discuss questions of transformational analysis (KTM; cf. Apresjan 1962a). The ten or so lectures touched upon a

54

MILESTONES OF MATHEMATICAL LINGUISTICS

wide range of practical and theoretical aspects of the transformation technique. (7) Several facets of mathematical methods in linguistics were discussed at the conference "Language and Speech" organized by the Foreign Language Institute (27th Nov.-lst Dec.) (J5TP). (8) A symposium arranged jointly by the Structural Typological department of the Slavistic Institute and the Cybernetics Committee of the Academy studied the structural problems of sign systems. Whereas previous scientific gatherings had mainly been concerned with select aspects of mathematical linguistics, both theoretical and practical, this last mentioned symposium pointed the way towards the foundation on the basis of mathematical linguistics of a large, comprehensive and systematic science, semiotics, which had been so clearly visualised by Saussure. This conference, therefore, reviewed those problems of linguistics which ramify, as it were, into the other related sciences (C3C). (9) Another conference, devoted to phonology, took place from 20th to 23rd May, 1963, in Moscow. The theoretical section discussed the two-level phoneme theory and other major questions of phonology. The other three working groups concentrated on phonological description and modelling, the relationship between phonology and experimental phonetics, and the typology of phonological systems, respectively. A number of valuable contributions (in the form of lectures and published material) were also made on this and related topics by our Soviet colleagues at the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, which was held in Sofia from 16th to 23rd September, 1963 (see particularly Mel'Suk, 1963c, Saumjan, 1963b, Volockaja, 1963).

3

S T R U C T U R A L I S M U N D E R DISCUSSION

In this chapter I shall attempt to summarize the content of the debates held in the Soviet Union on structuralism. 1. Some of the contributions to the discussions, which were almost always from foreign participants, set out to give a general survey of the modern trends, this survey serving, at the same time, as a vehicle for the expression of the personal convictions of the author. M. Cohen's "Modern Linguistics and Idealism", though reflecting the author's subjective opinions, also expresses thoughts which the French Marxist scholars put forward during a controversy on structuralism in Paris in 1956/57. Cohen concerned himself mainly with the first part of his title and characterized the most important contemporary schools of linguistic thinking. He spoke highly of De Saussure's activities, the most positive element of which he considered to be his championing of the case for the scientific study of synchronic systems. He likewise found much that was good in the functional view of language advanced by the Prague circle, but went on to say that only the future would decide whether Hjemslev's abstraction could be used in a new, non-idealistic manner. He felt that the American structuralists' work was fundamentally sound he mentioned specifically Z. Harris - but expressed his disagreement with them on matters of detail. He rejected in particular, their separation of segmental and suprasegmental elements in terms of the individual sounds. The following words are particularly noteworthy: " I n view of the fact that we recognize language as a structure, linguistic science cannot choose but be structuralist. We have to work for it to become structuralist on a sound basis" (Cohen, 1958, 64). Finally, he pointed out a few tasks which still have to be completed ; for instance, the extension of structural analysis into fields

56

STRUCTURALISM UNDER DISCUSSION

where it has not yet been applied (semantics and lexicology). He also welcomed the forging of a link between linguistics and the information theory. A Chinese author analysed the views held by the American descriptivists (Suj Kuo-Chan, 1959). He sharply criticized them for discriminating between phonetics and phonology (phonemics) and accepting only the latter as a legitimate subject for linguistics while rejecting the former, for neglecting semantics and for omitting semantic considerations from their morphemic analyses, etc. He devoted a separate section in his lengthy article to MT but, in his view, this useful area of research had nothing to do with structuralism. Whereas Suj's article was a somewhat shortened reprint from a leading Chinese journal, the paper of the German, K. Hansen, was taken over bodily from the Zeitschriftfür Anglistik und Amerikanistik by the editors of VJaz (Hansen, 1959). He basically disapproved of the American and, even more, of the Danish schools but took a more tolerant view of the "functionalists". All in all, he tended to the conclusion that structuralism contains some positive elements but these are not essential aspects and did not originate from structuralism in the first place (he referred in this connection to Fries's notion of "structual meaning"). On the other hand, he rejected as completely unacceptable such basic principles of structuralism as ahistoricism, holding that "linguistic science has been and will remain a historical and social study" (op. cit., 105). At this point, we should mention an article by the Leningrad Professor of Germanic Studies, V. G. Admoni, who, in reviewing the development of syntactic theories in this century, had some words of praise for structuralism, although, he made some reservations and stressed its weak points. He dealt at length with the well-known work of Fries, which he pronounced to be basically useful, and drew attention not only to the demerits but also to the merits of Fries's novel methods (Admoni, 1956). 2. If accounts which had, of necessity, to be objective by virtue of the aim to which they were subordinated could still be so much at

STRUCTURALISM UNDER DISCUSSION

57

variance in the assessment of the facts which they were reporting, the debate can be expected to become ever more heated when the centre of interest shifts from a mere historical survey to the exposition of particular views. 2.1. We must of course begin our outline of the standpoints of linguists who support structuralism by referring to the article that started the whole debate (Saumjan, 1956). Saumjan first affirmed that the three major schools of structuralism (whose basic works he considered to be Trubeckoj's Grundziige, Hjemslev's Prolegomena and Harris's Methods in Structural Linguistics) "are by no means antagonistic ... Not only do they not mutually exclude each other, but, on the contrary, they complement each other. Essentially these schools deal with different aspects of structural linguistics, which together form a unity" {op. cit., 39). Speaking about the subject-matter of structural linguistics, he wrote that we have to study, on the level of the sounds, the phonemic system (i.e. not the individual sounds, which are covered by phonetics) and, on the level of the actual structure, structural grammar, which excludes semantic categories (i.e. semantics is related to it in the same way as phonetics is to phonemics) but includes lexicology in the traditional sense. Moreover, structural grammar is divided no longer into morphology and syntax but into paradigmatics and syntagmatics. "Structural linguistics is the hard core of linguistic science. Phonetics is linked with linguistic study as an ancillary science to phonology (phonemics), while semantics as one to grammar" (op. cit., 44). Writing about the methods of structural linguistics, he characterized them as being generally deductive in contrast to the inductive methods of traditional linguistics, and he regarded this change of method as revolutionary (as revolutionary as the advance made - he wrote - when Galileo's work led to a transformation in physics). He enumerated three basic principles underlying the deductive procedure: homogeneity, consistency and unification. (Of these perhaps only the last needs elucidation. The principle of unification requires that the different fields of linguistic inquiry be unified on

58

STRUCTURALISM UNDER DISCUSSION

the basis of the common principles and the isomorphism discovered to be present in language.) In conclusion, Saumjan discussed the ways in which the three schools complemented each other in their work on the questions investigated. Another contributor, who did not altogether concur with this view, felt that structuralism was not a finished, closed system of thought. Structuralism is no more than the "sum of all the fresh, original research in methods which have arisen in linguistics during the last thirty years or so" (Steblin-Kamenskij, 1957, 35). There are three seemingly trivial principles underly these investigations, namely that language is a system and, consequently, must be studied as a system, that the investigation of a system of language at a given moment must not be confused with the investigation of its history and that language, and not something else, must be made the subject of study (ib., 35-6). " . . . acknowledgement of these elementary truths is not yet structuralism. Structuralism begins where these principles are no longer merely declarative phrases but become the basis of methodological research and certain conclusions are drawn from them" (ib., 36). According to a third view, the name "structuralism" covered a number of trends which were contradictory in many ways (Reformatskij, 1957, 24). They contained both good and bad elements, and the author contended that the original fertile ideas were first distorted by linguists such as Brendal, Hjelmslev, Bloomfield, Hockett, Nida and others; nevertheless, the wheat can be separated from the chaff. Reformatskij, furthermore, argued that structuralism arose as a necessary stage in the development of the history of this science, as a natural reaction to 19th century linguistics. The new trends had to overcome several neo-grammarian assumptions such as the conglomeration theory (i.e. the theory which holds that language does not constitute a unified system), empiricism and an aversion to abstraction, the confusion of elements at different levels (sounds, forms, words), and the confusion of the synchronic state with the historical.

STRUCTURALISM UNDER DISCUSSION

59

Moreover, the new trends had to endeavour to present a genuine historical treatment of language, since the neo-grammarians, whilst speaking about the importance of "Sprachgeschichte", were unable to come to grips with the questions posed by it. Now, the positive, progressive and useful elements in structuralism are concerned with just these points. This is why Reformatskij criticized Saumjan, saying that he wanted to reconcile the inner contradictions of the new trends and to give equal treatment to the correct fundamental assumptions and the theories that distorted them. His final conclusion was as follows: "The neo-grammarian outlook has been replaced by a fresh one, which has come to be labelled structuralism. The distortions and abuses on the part of certain structuralists are essentially a betrayal of structuralism as a strict, scientific view of language" (ib., 36). Reformatskij also pointed out many links between research based on the new methods and practice (ranging from the supply of the population with identity cards, on the one hand, to MT on the other). With regard to the report he made to the "inner circle" of participants in the debate in 1957, which is referred to above, I should like to draw attention to just one point raised by Reformatskij. This was that the primary aim of linguistic science is to conduct a synchronic investigation, because only in this way can public needs be satisfied, and only in this way can the theoretical foundations be laid for a practical system which will facilitate the use of primary functions of language as a means of communication and the formulation of thoughts (cf. Reformatskij, 1957c, 22-3). All the contributors so far have emphasized that structuralism is one branch of linguistic science and, therefore, direct philosophical objections must not be made against it. This thought formed the starting point for the next contributor, Piotrovskij, who pointed out that the idealist linguists under discussion were idealists in their declarations, but as soon as they came to analysing concrete linguistic material they too became materialists. He had probably taken Cohen's advice to heart that a small amount of concrete work is worth much more than a great debate, for he went on to furnish

60

STRUCTURALISM UNDER DISCUSSION

examples of how structuralist procedures could profitably be applied in the field of dialectology in the case of particular sounds or words (Piotrovskij, 1957b). One of the foreign authors who openly stood up for structuralism was Mikus who expounded in VJaz his own principles of syntagmatic structuralism (Mikus, 1957). A Czech scholar defined the attitude of the living members of the Prague circle to the debatable questions (Trnka, 1957). A Polish participant in the debate criticized Hjelmslev's views thoroughly and spoke favourably of the activities of the Prague school (Stieber, 1957). 2.2. A Rumanian linguist openly declared that he differed fundamentally from the main tenets of structuralism, although he too thought that it contained elements from which Marxists could profit (Graur, 1958). But the man who made an all-out attack on structuralism was not Graur but his Ukrainian colleague, who maintained that good elements in structuralism were not new at all and could be arrived at as a result of a synthesis of the varying views expressed, whereas the erroneous elements - which predominated were completely irreconcilable with Marxism (Mel'niSuk, 1957). The more serious offensive against structuralism was, however, only just beginning. Budagov in his article began by stating that it was essential to enquire into the philosophical assumptions of an author because we had always to bear in mind the close relationship which existed between scientific views and the outlook of those who professed them (Budagov, 1958, 37). He then spoke of the separation of synchrony from diachrony as detrimental to linguistics. When this distinction was first formulated by Baudouin and De Saussure, he argued, it meant an advance, but today it was untenable. He opposed the "expulsion by statistical investigations" of historical linguistics. He called for a more precise formulation of the concept of linguistic structure, which was originally uniform but now in need of subdivision. He argued further that the categories of meaning must also be studied, not just those of relation-

STRUCTURALISM UNDER DISCUSSION

61

ship, and emphasised that it was difficult to grasp the systematic nature of "lexis". The same question were dealt with by the Leningrad scholar, Zirmunskij (1958). He pointed out that synchrony was not invented by the structuralists as it had already existed in the vocabulary of the Kazan School. Very appositely, he quoted in this connection the words written by §£erba in the introduction to a youthful work (1915): "... let not the Slavist's heart break" he wrote in his usual conversational style - "if I treat together things that are historically wide apart, and discuss things separately that he usually views together: in the descriptive part, however, I have nothing to do with history; there I am only concerned with what the speakers feel and think. My work consists in discovering this" (quoted by Zirmunskij, 1958, 45). In Zirmunskij's opinion, therefore, there could be no place for a dispute on the legitimacy of diachrony in Soviet linguistics, because in the latter synchronic and diachronic studies did not vie with one another but were mutually complementary (ib., 50). Another contributor to the debate contended that modern linguistic science had failed to answer the question as to what exactly the systematic character of a language was (Gornung, 1959). In his view, language was a structured system and this was the chief feature which distinguished it from other sign systems (e.g. traffic lights). On the basis of the thesis that language is indisputably characterized by its specifically systematic nature and that its groups of elements are hierarchically dependent on each other, he went on to sum up under various headings the ways in which he felt linguistic structure should be studied.

4

STATISTICAL MODELLING

With regard to the mathematical methods used in one aspect of mathematical linguistics, we can say that statistics and the theory of probability form the basis. The information theory has developed from this aspect, and it is therefore only right and proper that we should include under this heading any investigations connected with information theory or, more generally, with semiotics. According to some authorities (cf., e.g., Saumjan, 1958c, 19ff.), these methods are suitable for the investigation of "parole" phenomena (more than for any other). This aspect of mathematical linguistics is, therefore, uniform in terms of both the methods applied and the subject-matter. 1. Before turning to a review of the results of research based on the wider application of statistical procedures, we should do well to examine briefly what the Soviet authors themselves have to say about mathematical methods in general and of the central method of modelling in particular. We shall also refer to a theory underlying mathematical (mathematical-logical rather than statistical) considerations, which promises to yield a fairly comprehensive model. Naturally, everything said in this chapter also applies to research based on mathematical logic and the set theory, both of which are the subject of the next chapter. The questions to be dealt with here relate, therefore, to the whole subject of mathematical linguistics. 1.1. At the inaugural session of the mathematical linguistic seminar held in Moscow on 24th September, 1956, and already referred to above, a lecture was given by one of the seminar leaders on the subject of the interrelationship of linguistics and mathematics

STATISTICAL MODELLING

63

(Ivanov, 1957a). Ivanov stated that in recent years several social sciences had become "mathematicized"; that is to say, the development which we can see taking place within linguistics towards the working-out of exact methods for investigating language and towards the creation of an axiomatic basis closely resembles the general drift in the other sciences. According to the opinion of Ivanov there are, in addition, a number of specific links between linguistics and mathematics. Thus, before the advent of mathematics, the concept of numbers was first expressed in terms of language; in other words, language was at first a kind of mathematics. On the other hand, the system of symbols developed in mathematics may also be regarded, and investigated, as a kind of language. From the viewpoint of the information theory, language appears to be a code subject to certain restrictions of probability. Language-as-code can be described with the help of mathematical logic or the set theory. Another author suggested that the practical demands made on linguistics could justify the application of mathematical methods (Dobrusin, 1958, 1961). He recommended the division of methods that can be borrowed from mathematics as follows: (a) set theory methods for the study of the grammatical system of language; (b) information theory methods for the investigation of linguistic structure; (c) statistical methods for the study of language itself (1958, 15). Here we may again refer to the article which affirmed that from a general philosophical standpoint the significance of the application of mathematics in linguistics is that this has enabled linguistics to come into contact with a number of other sciences and to enter many new practical fields (Saumjan, 1960b). Dobrusin thought that the application of mathematical methods in linguistics had come about as a necessary development and had effected a revolutionary change in the latter discipline. Propaganda for the subject, history and aims of mathematical linguistics can be found in an article by Piotrovskij (1961). He recognized mathematical linguistics as a separate branch of linguistic science. For all intents and purposes, it can be said that it came into being essentially at the beginning of the fifties, but its

64

STATISTICAL MODELLING

rapid development would not have been possible without the mass of specialized knowledge which had previously been accumulated by both mathematicians and structural linguists. An author from Tbilisi listed the mathematical principles and concepts (such as constants, variables, functions, or the concept of meta-language, etc.) which can usefully be applied in this branch of linguistic science (MaCavariani, 1963). 1.2. A general philosophical assessment of the significance of modelling can be read in Saumjan (1960b). According to a definition proposed by a Leningrad scholar "... we call a model any formal scheme which, from a given point of view, describes and represents particular objects and phenomena of language" (Fitialov, 1959, 43). Individual models can comprise wider and wider circles of phenomena (cf. ib., 44), and the limit to such a series of models is the modelled language itself (Cejtin, 1959, 45). Logical models as scientific cognitive instruments are discussed in a number of articles (cf. e.g. Zinovjev, 1960). Some authors examined other forms of linguistic apparatus, such as the logical form of linguistic definitions (Revzin, 1961b). In his monograph, Revzin stated that the essence of modelling was that "a certain sequence of abstract schemata are built up, and these schemata ought to approximate, in smaller or greater degree, to the data of concrete reality" (1961a, 8). He went on, "... the modelling of language ... is a method, in applying which the worker sets out from the most generalized peculiarities of concrete languages, makes certain hypotheses concerning the structure of language as an abstract semiotic system, then proceeds to find out how the conclusions to be drawn from his abstract hypotheses relate to the data of existing languages, the data which are described for him by the particular linguistic disciplines" (ib.). 1.3. When we read Saumjan's works (1958c, 1962c, 1963a, b - to indicate only the main stages of the development of his theory) we are witnessing the birth and constructive development of a body of doctrine embracing the whole of mathematical linguistics and, in

STATISTICAL MODELLING

65

fact, the science of language and scientific cognition as a whole. His theory, which had originated in some of the modern natural sciences or in the course of the generalization of their results, was first applied to phonology by the author (see below, Chapter 5, Section 2). According to this theory, two levels must be distinguished in the investigation of phenomena, the level of phenomena and the level of constructa. When the phenomena are directly observed and systematized, our knowledge attains the first level. This knowledge, however, gives us an insight into the real nature of the phenomena observed, which we cannot obtain by direct means and which, like a "black box", is only known from the interaction of the experimentally introduced phenomena and the response received. What the "black box" contains is merely the subject of the hypotheses which we have derived from our recorded observations as to what "outputs" correspond to what "inputs" during the experiments. The general conception was applied to the investigations carried out by Saumjan of both phonological and other linguistic material. Following Chomsky but relying on this theory, Saumjan selected exceptions to the IC analysis and, using the transformational technique, created his binary (linked) generative model (see Saumjan, 1963a, 70). 2. But the energies of the Soviet research workers achieved more than a mere appraisal of the value of mathematical methods in general and a mathematically based theory in particular (see 1.3. above). The first handbook of mathematical linguistics was compiled by Axmanova, Mel'Suk, Paduceva and Frumkina (see Axmanova, 1961). The book, entitled Exact Methods in Linguistics, comprised the subjects discussed in this chapter, that is to say, the aspect of mathematical linguistics which I consider to play the major role. After Axmanova's introduction, Mel'cuk proposed in Chapter III a basic division of linguistic meaning. In the next chapter he examined the relation between MT and linguistics (including such questions as syntactical analysis, recognition of meaning in MT processes, intermediary language, etc.). Chapter V, written by

66

STATISTICAL MODELLING

Frumkina, provided a terse statement as to how statistical methods could be utilized in linguistic study. In the concluding chapter, PaduSeva discoursed on the study of language, using methods furnished by the information theory. Like Frumkina, she, too, defined the relevant concepts (the amount of information, the transformation of information, language-as-code, redundancy etc.). 3. Drawing on a store of traditional data but using improved methods, several research-workers are doing statistical studies of a wide range of linguistic phenomena. 3.1. The clearest statement on the relevance and aims of applying statistical methods and the extent to which they can be applied was supplied by the foremost representative of this line of research in the Soviet Union, R. M. Frumkina (Frumkina, 1960b). We can only refer here to some of the conclusions contained in her very informative article, which also touched upon some of the earlier dilettante work (including that of Morozov whom we mentioned above). Frumkina argued firstly that all linguists should be able to evaluate their observations statistically, regardless of the school of general linguistics to which they professed to belong. Secondly, statistical calculations must be mechanized. Her third conclusion was as follows: "The statistical study of linguistic data is one possible way of knowing what language is. We have every reason to believe that the employment of statistical methods will lead to the discovery of such laws in language which would be hard, or even impossible in some cases, to find out and describe through other methods" (op. cit., 133). This eminent Soviet linguist posed similar questions at the Cernovci meeting. I quote one of the theses of her lecture there: "... a considerable portion of statements about language- (langue) and speech- (parole) acts, which are usually formulated as having no exceptions, are not like that in actual reality". It seems necessary to make statements of this kind more precise by applying such statistical rules as reflect the regularities obtaining in language and speech (Frumkina, 1960c, 45; cf. also below). Frumkina arranged

STATISTICAL MODELLING

67

these ideas of hers systematically in the chapter which she wrote for the already mentioned Exact Methods in Linguistics (see Axmanova, 1961, 67-97). Several workers have also investigated various aspects of the Zipf laws (Piotrovskij, 1957a, Frumkina, 1961, Segal, 1961a). These considerations of a general theoretical nature and the research subsequently carried out in particular fields or on particular details (such as phonic, lexical and grammatical statistics, statistics in linguistic history or poetics) all serve one purpose. They all proceed from the conviction that the statistical examination of "parole" data might lead to a better understanding of the nature of language as a system. The only given factor is the "parole" (in the form of a set of phenomena), in which certain statistical regularities obtain. In order to be able to make a system (in the form of a construct) of language bound by determinative relations, we have to make a thorough study of these statistical regularities. (Cf. Andreev, 1962,1963b; Frumkina, 1962b; Piotrovskij, 1962b; Klyckov, 1962 - all of them lectures given at the "Langue-parole" conference held at the Foreign Language Institute. I myself, of course, listed the tasks in this manner, on the basis of Saumjan's theory. The lecturers held different views in this respect but they all seemed to be agreed as to the ultimate goal.) 3.2. A traditional field of application for mathematical-statistical methods has been, as is well-known, that of sounds. Participants of the Leningrad conference heard several reports on this subject. One lecture, for instance, discussed the question as to how it could be determined by statistical methods which individual sounds uttered by individual speakers belong to which phonemes. Such questions, apart from having great theoretical significance, have an important bearing on some modern technical applications (see CistoviS, 1957). On the same occasion, the director of the phonetics laboratory of the Moscow Foreign Language Institute spoke about the use of statistical methods in phonetic and psychological-linguistic investigations (Artemov, 1957). Another worker reported on results

68

STATISTICAL MODELLING

achieved in the statistical investigation of syllabic structures (PaduiSeva, 1957). The most substantial research in this field has undoubtedly been done by Prof. Zinder, who is continuing the work begun by Academecian Scerba (Zinder, 1957a, 1958; this last named work also contains references to his earlier studies). Going beyond the field of statistical methods, the distinguished Leningrad author touched upon problems bound up with the information theory. He stated that there were two kinds of probability in language - one purely statistical and one which is influenced by the nature of the phonemic and grammatical systems of the language in question, so that, in consequence, there is more than one source of redundancy (Zinder, 1957a, 58). On the basis of a sample containing some 90,000 phonemes taken from journalistic and literary texts he determined the probability of particular sounds following other sounds (1957a), and presented a comprehensive picture of the probability of certain kinds of consonants following or preceding certain kinds of vowels (1958). He showed what consonant clusters are possible medially and what are only possible at the beginning and end of words. He also supplied data concerning the permissibility of consonant groups arising in both conditions and their differential frequencies in the two cases; for instance, the frequency of "st" is 31.17% medially and 5.17% at word juncture; for "tr" these figures are 8.06%, and 2.16%, respectively, and for "d'b" 0.47% and 57.15%, respectively, etc. He finds the following probabilities with respect to consonants (C) and vowels (V) following each other: CV-0.7449; CC-0.2551; V V - 0.0017; and VC - 0.9983 (Zinder, 1958, 125). In other words, we may say that in Russian practically all vowels are followed by consonants (with seventeen exceptions in ten thousand cases, when we have a vowel + vowel sequence), in three quarters of the cases a consonant is followed by a vowel and in only every four instances do we have a consonant + consonant sequence. Highly valuable phonemic statistics can also be found in several of Nikonov's works (Nikonov, 1960, 1962a).

STATISTICAL MODELLING

69

3.3. Just as different kinds of dictionaries and grammars are indispensable for linguistic research, so investigations of a statistical kind cannot dispense with - and, indeed, necessitate the compilation of - statistical (frequency) dictionaries, which are often "frequency grammars" as well (provided that they include frequency indications of grammatical constructions). For a long time there was only one such dictionary, compiled abroad, and based on mainly literary and, to a smaller extent, journalistic material; moreover, this Russian frequency dictionary was intended as a guide for language teaching (Josselson, 1953). It was quite natural, therefore, that, comparatively early, and as a parallel to the development of mathematical linguistic research Soviet scholars should also envisage and plan a new Russian frequency dictionary. In accordance with their needs, they did not set out to establish frequency data for a "general-service Russian text", as did Josselson, but restricted themselves to a limited sampling of Russian mathematical texts, their primary aim being not to serve language teaching but to further MT (see Volockaja, 1957, 93). They also set themselves the task of determining the frequency of certain grammatical forms and, even, syntagmatic units, in addition to the frequency of individual words. By the autumn of 1957 they had worked through a number of Russian mathematical texts containing some sixty thousand tokens. We do not know whether this material has yet been published but the article referred to provide some advance information about the work in progress. Here are some interesting facts from that report. Out of the 21,000 tokens (the number processed by the date of the report) 7,498, that is, 35% of the total amount, are nouns; substantial types ("lexemes" in the terminology of the report) amount to a mere 387. There is a surprisingly wide divergence between the frequencies recorded for the cases in Josselson's "general literary Russian" and those found in the mathematical texts: (the first figure is that given by Volockaja, the second by Josselson) Gen. - 40.7 %,16.8 %; Nom. - 22 %, 38.8 %; Acc. - 14.7 %, 26.3 % etc. In other words, the order of frequency in scientific texts is Gen.-Nom.-Acc., whereas

70

STATISTICAL MODELLING

in "general literary" texts it is Nom.-Acc.-Gen. The striking prominence of the genitive here is accounted for by the density of attributive genitive groups in technical material; if one noun is dependent on another, it is predominatingly in the genitive. The first theoretical considerations as to how frequency dictionaries should be compiled were given in both an article and a lecture subsequent to the practical experiment which we have just discussed (Frumkina, 1959a, 1959b). Demand for frequency dictionaries has increased recently, in the Soviet Union at least, in connection with both MT and language teaching (see Frumkina, 1960d, Markov, Ju. 1960c). Work was started in Tallin as the compilation of a frequency dictionary for teaching purposes. Experiments using obsolete methods had also been in progress elsewhere, as one can gather from the critical remarks made by Frumkina in her cited study (1960d). The Tallin project worked on a number of texts amounting to 400,000 tokens, one quarter of which came from literature for school children, one quarter from the literature for the adolescence, one quarter from radio programmes for young people, the rest originating from plays and contemporary literary prose (see Frumkina, 1960d, 24). The material has been collected in such a way that, when published, the dictionary will reveal frequency distributions according to word-classes, government of case by verbs, prepositional phrases and also the substantival cases. Despite the importance of this undertaking, the preliminary results of which have been periodically published since 1961 (Steinfeldt, 1961, 1962; cf. also below, Chapter 7, Section 1), certain disturbing features cannot escape one's attention. To begin with, the types of source material do not essentially differ from those worked on by Josselson. Neither is there any significant change as to the proportioning of the types of text (of course, they have been "rejuvenated" here to match the age of the students envisaged). But what is more important than this is the fact that the sample does not contain any living spoken material. Now, anybody who has ever given any thought to this question knows well enough

STATISTICAL MODELLING

71

from experience what enormous differences exist between the vocabulary of a play written for young people and the everyday talk to be heard from school children when among themselves or addressing adults. Another striking thing is that Frumkina, who quite rightly urged the mechanization of this kind of collection procedure, has on this occasion consented to the work being carried out manually by the undergraduates of Tartu University and Tallin Teachers Training College and by secondary school teachers.1 Incidentally, Frumkina not only lent a helping hand to the compilers of this frequency dictionary but also wrote an article on the lessons to be drawn from a recently published Puskin-Dictionary (Frumkina, 1960a). We may learn from this article that all Puskin's works (edited by the Academy) contain 544,777 tokens, constituted from a total of 21,197 types. Moreover, the 50 most frequently occuring types amount to 38% of all the tokens, the 200 most frequent types represent somewhat more than half (52 % precisely) of all items, and the 1000 most frequently used words (types) constitute 70% of the total. Of the other interesting details we should like to quote one which endorses our feeling that Puskin was so very akin to our own age as regards vocabulary, namely that of his first 500 words (which represent no less than 62 % of all the tokens) only 48 words occur which can now be said to have become more or less obsolete (ib., 81; cf. also Frumkina, 1963). We find other workers engaged in similar forms of study on the word level (cf. Grigorjan, 1958, who wished to refine the definition of the stylistic values of words; Nadel', 1959, who, among other things, stressed the need for correcting some of the stylistic assumptions in statistical inquiries into the history of language; Kotov, 1

I received a copy of the completed frequency dictionary after the closing date for my MS. I cannot discuss the many merits of the work here. Ample remarks on the frequency of grammatical patterns are followed by lists containing the most frequently occurring 2.500 words (types) taken from the 24.224 types found in the complete total of some 400.000 running words. Tables are given at the end which furnish facts about the frequencies of factors governing cases. All these various facets combine to make this volume an extremely useful reference book for both specialists and teachers of Russian (see Steinfeldt, 1963).

72

STATISTICAL MODELLING

1958, who investigated telegraphic style in a vocabulary statistics context, etc.). Such statistical studies have not been carried out exclusively on Russian texts or the works of a Russian author. At one of the conferences, a research worker from Petrozavodsk, for instance, gave details of the results gained from a statistical word count of English geological texts (Udarceva, 1958). At the same time, a frequency dictionary of Rumanian (more precisely Rumanian and Moldavian combined) was completed. Interesting conclusions, partly using, and partly modifying the Zipf-laws, emerged from the results obtained by a linguist from Bel'ci (Novak, 1960). 3.4. As we have seen in the preceding section, the frequency of certain grammatical constructions was also raised in connection with the statistical assessment of vocabulary. There are a small number of studies whose immediate aim is to measure the frequency of certain grammatical features. One report was made on research into determining the frequency of word-classes in BeloRussian (GapanoviS, 1960). Frumkina wrote on the distribution of particular words and word-classes (1962a). Nikonov devoted a series of stimulating studies to the statistical distribution of Russian cases (1959, 1961); he also pointed out the reason for the differences between the data given by Volockaja and those given by Josselson (see previous section). Nikonov also proposed an original statistical method for the investigation of adjectival suffixes (1962b). (On the application of the statistical investigation of particular morphological features for language-teaching purposes, see also 7.1.; the immediate aim of a study undertaken by Frumkina is to assist in the compilation of a word-list for MT by examining the statistical frequency of the Spanish irregular verbs and their forms, but it goes a long way beyond this in its methodological conclusions, 1960e.) Some interesting research can also be found concerning the statistical methods applied in the sphere of syntax, such as the study of the configurations in English texts (Molosnaja, 1960c) and the study of the lengths of sentences in various kinds of Russian texts (Lesskis, 1962, 1963).

STATISTICAL MODELLING

73

In view of the fact that in many known languages a characteristic feature of most sentences is that in them chains of syntagms are linked together and each word depends only on one other word, it seems possible to regard each sentence as the realization of a multifarious accidental process (Zolotarev, 1959). On the basis of this idea, if the sentences really prove to be in line with the Markov theorem, it may become possible to obtain a solution, with a modicum of statistical investigations and using simple computation, to such problems as the number of words and chains of word groups which can be expected in sentences, the maximum length of chains, etc. (Zolotarev, 1959, Frumkina, 1959c). 3.5. Bearing in mind the article by Polivanov to which we have already referred, it can be said that the utilization of statistical methods not only in the sphere of sounds and "lexis" but also in comparative-historical studies has already become a tradition. The leading authority in this line of research is undoubtedly V. V. Ivanov. In a number of papers he considered such questions as the development of related languages (1957a; although this tends to employ set theory techniques), "linguistic time" (jiHHrBHCTHHecicoe BpeMfl), the tempo of linguistic changes, the separation of related languages in chronology (1957d) etc. Here, for instance, is a method suggested by him as to how to determine what elements are on the "way in", and what elements are only survivals (on the "way out" in any synchronic sense). This is what he says: "... the probability of occurrence of a given element must be determined in the texts (utterances) and the degree of its isolation in the system (code): the degree of isolation is the ratio in which the number of members of the class to which the element in question belongs, stands to the members of (an)other class(es). To a later stage of development may be assigned those elements which predominate in the texts of the period scrutinized. If such elements show little isolation, it may be predicted that their use will be more widespread in the texts of subsequent stages than in the present synchronic state" (Ivanov, 1957d, 63). Ivanov linked this latter statement with the hypothesis of grammatical analogy. In the same lecture, Ivanov

74

STATISTICAL MODELLING

also made suggestions as to how to improve the lexico-statistical method. At the Cernovci conference a separate lecture was devoted to the problem of lexico-statistics. The lecturer shared the view of Ivanov that, in its present form, glotto-chronology can usually be applied to the determination of relative times, such as settling certain questions of dialectology, determining the place of particular Slav languages, solving the problem of Balto-Slavonic unity, etc. He himself applied the method in his study of Albanian historical material, as a result of which he was able to give the participants some interesting facts (Sirokov, 1960b). Another research worker wished to apply probability to the determination of linguistic affinity in this manner: "We compare the morphemes of like meaning to be found in languages belonging to different groups and find out what sound correspondences occur ("sound coincidences" - 3ByK0B0e c o B n a / i e H H e - are circumscribed by the author). Using the appropriate probability formulas we can determine the likelihood of such and such a number of morphemes coinciding in sound by accident in such and such a number of languages ... If the probability of accidental coincidence is slight enough then this may be taken as a strong argument for the languages being related" (Dolgopol'skij, 1958, 38). The same author the following year put forward a logically reasoned theory to explain how the frequency of particular sign can be measurably related to the factors of linguistic development (Dolgopol'skij, 1959). Ideas quite close to those of Polivanov can be found in current works. One participant at the Cernovci conference spoke of the possible application of the theory of probability in the study of the etymological identity of individual words (Pelevina, 1960). 3.6. One may be forgiven for thinking mathematicians and linguists had only been waiting for the appearance of Nikonov's study (1958) to give them impetus for a fresh attack using improved methods, in a traditional field of application for statistical techniques, that of prosody. Kolmogorov wrote two papers (one jointly with a

STATISTICAL MODELLING

75

colleague of his) on the rhythmic patterns of some of Majakovskij's poems (Kolmogorov, 1962, 1963). In the latter work he also partly criticized the papers of a co-worker of his (Kondratov, 1962a, 1962b). His declared aim was to focus attention on the need for a systematic study of the verse patterns in Majakovskij's poetry to replace previous sporadic, albeit valuable, studies of partial aspects. Moreover, he wished to demonstrate the character of statistics on the basis of relatively limited number of examples, for, as he puts it, statistics is "indispensable in a 'structural' analysis of Majakovskij's poetic works" (1962, 74). In his opinion, it was in this particular respect that Nikonov's article made a fresh departure. Speaking of the metres employed by the poet, Kolmogorov stated that he understood that a metre could be defined as a regularity of rhythm "which is definite enough to elicit (a) an expectation that the next lines will reiterate the pattern and (b) a peculiar 'sense of 'break', if the pattern is violated by the poet" (1963, 64). The task which Ivanov set himself was in many respects similar when, during a lecture, he analysed a poem or, to be more precise, "the semantic function of the combination of the least frequently occurring forms in a poem" (1962e, 157). 4. The significance of the probability theory for linguistic science is defined by Toporov in these words: "The introduction of the idea of probability into linguistics and some other sciences results on the theoretical plane in making possible for these sciences that they can work with the required exactness and systematicalness, approaching in this way other, even more exact, scientific disciplines; on the practical level, it results in giving us a simpler and more economical means of analysis" (1959a, 35; 1959b, 15). In the same place Toporov expounded the view that probability theory may be applicable also to the study of language in the Saussurean sense of "langue". He considered Herdan's work to be an attempt to conceive of "langue" in terms of the probability characteristics reflected in the "parole" (1959a, 33). "The introduction of probability into the analysis of language must not be

76

STATISTICAL MODELLING

viewed as simply a complementary method but as a necessity too, if only because any language model will only approximately reflect the structure of language. And all that which the model reflects imperfectly or summarily, only in an undifferentiated way, belongs to the sphere of probability conditions" (ib.). Shortly afterwards, a further contribution to this problem appeared in VJaz., which reviewed the points of contact between linguistics and information theory (Jaglom, 1960b). The article analysed speech as a probability process and referred to the entropy of the probability process and the information contained in it. Furthermore, it gave facts about the entropy of particular letters, partly on the basis of the author's own calculations and partly from other sources. It defined the redundancy of texts and compared the different forms of redundancy (i.e. redundancy at the various levels of language). The author also revealed very interesting facts about the redundancy levels of works by different authors or in different styles, and about the relative "compactness" and "verbosity" of languages from the point of view of the information theory. Piotrovskij and two of his assistants examined the entropy of written Russian with the help of Shannon's "guessing" method (Piotrovskaja, 1962). He also compared the respective informational parameters of written and spoken Rumanian and Russian (Piotrovskij, 1962a). Certain consequences of redundancy were lectured upon by a research worker from Frunze (Suprun, 1960). Ivanov wrote about the relationship of code and message (1957b). Following Jakobson, he concluded that this relationship was fourfold: message concerning a message (such as the indirect mood of Lettish expressed by morphological means), code relating to a code (he includes proper names here), message relating to a code and code pertaining to a message (the latter would comprise certain pronouns). The same writer in another place made a case for separating, in the case of theoretical studies connected with the automation of linguistic processes, the transformation of messages (texts) from that of codes (sign systems) (Ivanov, 1958c). By the transformation of messages he meant the process as a result of which the message is

STATISTICAL MODELLING

77

translated from one code into another while its content remains the same. Such a transformation takes place in telephony. The situation is much more complicated when the "translation" is within one language (in the case of information retrieval) or when we have translation from one language into another (where the characteristics present in the target language of the code may be preserved from the source language) or, finally, when the translation is made from one natural language into an abstract logical language (where only the logical structure of the text may remain). An extremely wide range of perspectives is offered by the scientific study of the transformability of the codes into each other. He understood by transformability a process at the end of which one code is converted into another whilst its model remains unchanged; this happens in a mechanical intermediary language constructed from some natural language(s). The author thought that the experience gained in work of this kind could also be utilized to give a more exact definition to some of the concepts used by historical-comparative linguistics in view of the fact that the particular historical codes each represent an individual instance of the general problematic pattern of codes. Another worker inquired into the structure of the code and analysed the classification of simple sentences and the relationship between sign and code (Lekomcev, 1959, 1961). Apart from these general theoretical studies a number of detailed questions have also been investigated. For instance, it has been found that the gender-determining forms of the Russian verb (namely, in the past tense, the singular of the indicative mood and the singular of the conditional mood) are almost completely redundant. Only transitive verbs (and not necessarily in every case) can be accompanied by two words in the nominative (and even here an exception must be made if the object is an animate noun) but in such a case the word order very often quite clearly determines what is the subject and what is the object, at least in technical texts (see Vinogradova, V., 1958). The examination of mathematical texts has further shown that in 85 % of the cases the adjectival endings are also "superfluous"

78

STATISTICAL MODELLING

in Russian. If a few simple rules governing arrangement and orthography can be devised, this may make it unnecessary for the machine to take note of the adjectival endings in the majority of cases, since these rules can give it sufficient guidance as to which noun the adjective in question refers to (see Leontjeva, 1958). It is perhaps unnecessary to stress the importance of such findings for general linguistics. They reveal that a great deal of suffixes are redundant in the written form of Russian, which is a highly inflected language full of lengthy suffixes. 5. The study of language from the information theory standpoint necessarily leads to the investigation of other symbolic systems which help us to improve our understanding of the nature of a language and make it possible for us to utilize the methodological lessons and facts drawn from the study of language in the establishment of semiotics as a general science of signs. Since, as we mentioned earlier, this subject was the theme of a separate symposium, Soviet scholars used this opportunity to outline their thoughts concerning semiotics. A brief account of this symposium (complemented wherever necessary, by references to other publications) will therefore enable us to obtain a picture of the present state of this new systematizing branch of science in the Soviet Union. In the introduction to the theses of the symposium written by Ivanov (whose authorship, incidentally, is not mentioned) semiotics is defined in the following terms: "semiotics is a new science which has for its subject-matter any systems of signs used in human society" (1962d, 3). It was also Ivanov who had earlier classed language with the other means used for the communication and storing of information (1961h). At the first session, which dealt with general aspects, Revzin spoke of the specific difficulties encountered in the devision of semantic models for natural languages (1962b), and Saumjan characterized language as a semiotic system (1962a). On the basis partly of the theses and partly of the lectures, it was possible to gain an idea of similar research on natural languages as sign systems.

STATISTICAL MODELLING

79

The second section was devoted to a discussion on the problems of written codes and their decipherment. Of the material handled in the session on non-linguistic communication systems, reference should be made to the theses made by Zaliznjak in his lecture on traffic control as a sign system (see, for more details, Zaliznjak, 1962c) and to Ivanov's lecture on the system of the Abaz popular games (1962a). During the discussion on artificial languages great interest was shown in PaduSeva's ideas concerning the construction of an artificial language which can provide a model for the structure of the compound sentences of natural languages (PaduCeva, 1962). The lectures presented to the session dealing with modelling semiotic systems included some interesting ones by Pjatigorskij, in which, for instance, he commented on the categories of linguistic psychology (1962a, c; see also an article by him containing more details on this subject, 1962b). A group of authors published an article on some modelling semiotic systems, namely, on the structural-typological study of religions and mythologies (Zaliznjak, 1962b). Ivanov gave a detailed account of the East Siberian expedition of the Slav Institute and its results concerning the knowledge of the Khet model of the universe (1962b). The sixth section was devoted to art as a semiotic system. Ivanov acquainted the participants in his published theses, with the lengthy manuscript work of Vygotskij (an eminent Soviet psychologist who died some decades ago and has recently been rediscovered) on the psychology of artistic production (Vygotskij, 1962). On the same occasion interesting lectures were delivered by a painter, a sculptor and a musician-mathematician (the latter illustrating his words with melodies composed from Ural - 2). Zolkovskij's findings about the modelling of the linguistic attitude of the listener to music were also worth attention (1962b). The seventh section concentrated on the structural and mathematical study of literary works and much remarkable research work was reported (see, e.g. 2olkovskij, 1962a, §5eglov, 1962, etc.).

5

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

The other main aspect of mathematical linguistics is characterized by the application in it of the models of set theory and mathematical logic. These methods do not interfere with the linguistic unity of the subject investigated and make it possible to approach the language system or "langue" directly. After mentioning some general questions (such as the relationship between structural and statistical methods, for which see above, Chapter 4, Section 3.1, and "meta-remarks" on structure in general) I propose to review the Ljapunov-Kulagina-Revzin comprehensive set theoretical model, the results achieved in immediate constituent and transformational analysis, the research in this direction at various levels of language (phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics) and, finally, the applicability of structural analysis to typology. 1. One lecture at the first Leningrad conference examined the relationship between structural and statistical procedures (Revzin, 1957b). The author outlined the results obtained by Zipf and Yule and others in the statistical investigation of language, and emphasized that further progress was only possible if structural analysis were developed in a way which would facilitate algebraic exactitude in determining additional linguistic elements. Statistics can be applied only to material that has previously been described structurally. The structural nature of language is commented upon by several authors. Kuznecov, for instance, once observed that the elements existing at different levels constitute systems but in the description of these systems it is not enough to take account of and operate with the concepts of only one system and the one on a level immediately below it (thus, in describing phonemes one must to a

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

81

certain extent rely on morphology, too). It is therefore possible to conceive of a structural description in which we first deal with the lowest level and then a provisional third "floor" by means of which a system can be set up at the middle level, on the basis of which we can give the final shape to our description of the uppermost level (1958b). Saumjan, on the other hand, wished to solve the problem of "linguistic structure" with the help of symbolic logic. In the course of his argument he furnishes the following definition: "The linguistic structure is that property of the relations between the expressive elements and those between the elements on the content level that these levels are isomorphic to each other" (1958b, 66). The difference between "system" ( c n c r e M a ) and "structure" (cTpyKTypa) is pointed out by another author: "We understand by 'system' here any set organized in some way; by 'structure' we mean the definite kinds of certain necessary relations which characterize the given system. Therefore for us it is quite logical to ask: what structure the given system has" (MaCavariani, 1963, 86, note). 2. Perhaps the most significant result achieved so far by Soviet mathematical linguists is the set theory model worked out by Ljapunov, Kulagina and Revzin. Kulagina published her theory in 1958 (1958c, 1958d). Several "interpretations" of her theory appeared both at home (Revzin in 1957 already prior to the publication of the theory; then 1958b, 1959a, 1960b) and abroad (see, e.g. Jaurisova, 1960, Kiefer, 1963), so that the linguistic reading public was acquainted with the thoughts of the Soviet mathematician. The purpose of Kulagina's work was "to attempt to construct a linguistic conceptual system based on the exact terminology of the set theory" (Revzin, 1960b, 88). Her grammar, couched in the language of the set theory, gave exact definitions of the relationships between the fundamental concepts - definitions which do not appeal to the content side (for example, the following definition is unacceptable or, at least, undesirable: "We call a word a noun if it denotes a thing or a person...").

82

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

These basic concepts function here like the point or the line in geometry. They are not defined within the given system, since only their relations are known (or expressed). The whole grammatical edifice is, therefore, founded on these few undefined concepts. But let us quote Kulagina: "There is given a finite set S = (x) of members x; these members are called words. The corteges of words, i.e. such arranged finite strings of words in which repetitions are permitted, are called "phrases" (4>pa3ti) and we write them: A = Xj, x2 • •. xn. There is furthermore given a 0 = {>4} set of phrases. The phrases belonging to this group are said to be marked. There is given the system of subsets, containing no common members, of the set S; these subsets are called the neighbourhoods (oKpecTHOCTb) of their constituent members; the neighbourhood of x is denoted r (x). ... Such a set of words whose system of neighbourhoods is given and which constitute marked phrases is called language and is written: E(T, ©)" (Kulagina, 1958c, 203). In this text "phrase" roughly corresponds to the concept of syntagma; markedness means grammaticalness (a marked phrase, in addition to being grammatical, may or may not make sense); by the neighbourhood of a word is meant the totality of the paradigmatic forms of that word. Kulagina adduces as examples: un cas très simple - marked phrase, un cas très - unmarked phrase ; table-tables - the neighbourhood of the word "table" ; grand-grandsgrande-grandes - the neighbourhood of the word "grand". Kulagina's method was used, interpreted and extended to other fields in Revzin's monograph Language Models (1961a). The book consists of two parts, the first and longer part containing the formulae and their interpretation and the second part furnishing the mathematical-logical proofs of the theorems. The introduction to the first part expounds some basic concepts (such as models, modelling, primary concepts and their interrelations). The first chapter presents the application of some models to phonology. The next three chapters - which are perhaps the most fascinating portion of the book - are concerned with describing grammatical models. Following Kulagina (although in places somewhat deviating from her) he establishes the concept of "family"

STRUCTURAL MODELLING (ceMeficTBo: boy, house, cosmodrome,

83

coffee-mill, etc. are all

members of a family), the concept neighbourhood (oKpecTHOcrb: all the inflectional forms of a single stem together constitute one environment: child,|child's, children, children's, etc.).

He formulates the set theory equivalent of the word-classes and sets up important criteria for typology, using the terms "simplicity" and "homogeneity". The principle of simplicity requires that two words with the same neighbourhood should belong to different families; the different degrees of simplicity characterize particular languages typologically. On the other hand, the principle of homogeneity requires that if we have two words in the same family but with different neighbourhoods, then each word in both neighbourhoods should have a corresponding word from the same family in the other neighbourhood. The concluding chapter discusses the syntagmatic models of grammar. (For an interesting and more detailed review of Revzin's book see Antal, 1964.) Apart from the Kulagina-Revzin model we know of other theories, advanced in less elaborate publications, which attempt to define elementary grammatical concepts in terms of the set theory (Dobrusin, 1957, 1958b) or treat of linguistic models based on the statistical and set theory structure of language (Andreev, 1959a). In a collection of papers published in Moscow there appeared an article by a Rumanian mathematician which advised linguists how they could make models on the basis of the Graf theory (Marcus, 1962) etc. 3. With respect to the theory of immediate constituents and transformational analysis we are again in a fortunate position, as these questions were taken up by a separate conference, so that we can refer to some of the results achieved in this field, using the programme of this conference as a basis. As a preliminary to the conference, studies on these questions had been carried out by a number of scholars. One report to the conference, for instance, outlined the possibilities of using a Chomsky model for Russian.

It stated: "Grammar may be

84

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

looked upon as a source generating the sentences of the Russian language. Grammar consists of two parts, the first of which brings about those elementary sentences which constitute the 'kernel' of the Russian language. This part is the structural grammar in Chomsky's sense" (Borodin, 1960, 20). The other part of the grammar contains operations by means of which all other possible sentences can be generated out of the kernel sentences (kernel constructions). In the author's view, there are two such groups of operations: transformation and analogy. The value of transformational analysis in the syntactic examination of a language had been earlier pointed out by a research worker from Moscow who used English examples for the most part (Molosnaja, 1960b). Another lecturer showed what this new analysis could do for the investigation of word derivation (Volockaja, 1960a, 1960b). Earlier, the same method had been demonstrated in use in simple sentences in German by Babickij (1959). Before, or roughly simultaneously with, the conference, two studies by Lees on this subject appeared in Russian (Lees, 1961a, 1961b). Shortly after the conference, at the beginning of 1962, Chomsky's Syntactic Structures was published in Russian in the Zvegincev series already mentioned. Much discussion took place at this conference on the limits of the applicability of TA (Toporov, 1961) and on the role which this method could play in axiomatic grammar (Fitialov, 1961c). Revzin delivered a lecture on transformational synthesis and analysis (1961c), and Saumjan dealt with the relationship between this method and the classification of words (1961). Ivanov also made some remarks concerning this new procedure (1961d). Zasorina spoke of transformational analysis as a vehicle for linguistic experiment (1961). Using Russian material, Nikolaeva showed how transformational analysis could be put to use in the study of word groups (1961i). Not much later, a printed paper extended the same work to a wider range of Russian syntagms, in which the more important ones had nouns and verbs as their heads (Manolova, 1962). Two other scholars had employed this method to clarify

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

85

certain syntactic questions raised at another conference held at the beginning of the year (Borodin, 1961, Sumilina 1961). Molosnaja gave an account of transformation analyses which she had carried out on English material to the congress devoted to TA procedures (Molosnaja, 1961). At this conference, just as at the one held the previous year, a lecture was given on the application of the method to the investigation of word formation by derivation (Soboleva, 1961; cf. also Chapter 4, Section 1.3 above on this method in connection with Saumjan's general theory and also Section 6 of this chapter which deals with syntax). 4. In the sphere of phonology mention must be made of the Leningrad and Moscow schools, of Saumjan's theory and of some other works. 4.1. The active pupils of SSerba - primarily, Zinder and MatuseviS are representatives of the world's oldest phonological school at Kazan, and they can also be credited with having developed further their masters' ideas. In Zinder's formulation, the phoneme is the smallest linearly indivisible unit of language. "The particular speech sounds are therefore only reflexes of phonemes or, to put it in another way, they are the existential forms of the phonemes in speech" (1960, 35). In contrast to the Moscow school, the standpoint of the Kazan linguists is very characteristic with regard to the relation of the phoneme to the morpheme: "One and the same morpheme may be differently constituted phonemically in different word forms. What is more, there may exist in languages such phonemic oppositions which do not ensure the distinguishability of the morphemes in all the phonetic positions. Thus in Russian there are no two morphemes which would differ from each other in, say, that one would always have final 'd', the other always 't'. In the morpheme having final 'd', in certain phonetic environments 't' will replace t h e ' d ' " (op. cit. 59; for the current opinion of the Kazan scholars, see further the articles published during the phonological debate as well as the monograph of the famous Leningrad professor, MatuseviS, 1948).

86

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

4.2. The deviation of the Leningrad scholars from the line followed by the Moscow school is immediately apparent if one examines the latter's definition of the phoneme: "The phonemes are those minimal units of the sound system of a language which serve to build up and to differentiate the meaningful elements of the language, i.e. the morphemes, words and sentences" (Reformatskij, 1955b, 174). In the definition of the phoneme therefore - as we have seen in Kuznecov's theoretical article - the higher levels of language also play a part; the phoneme is, by definition, that which differentiates. It cannot therefore be posited that there are phonetic positions in which the phonemic shape of a morpheme is changed and so coincides with the shape of another morpheme, as was postulated by Zinder (see above). (Homonomy of this type may occur but the Leningrad scholars would regard such an occurrence as symptomatic of the system rather than accidental.) Thus, the Leningrad view accords more with the physical reality of the speech sound. All voiced bilabial plosives are "b" in Russian, all voiceless sounds of the same articulation are "p", all fully open vowels are "a" phonemes, etc. In contrast, according to Reformatskij (and also to other representatives of the Moscow school such as Kuznecov, Avanesov, etc.), the phonemes are manifested in different variants and variations, Reformatskij meaning by the latter those cases when it is impossible to decide to which phoneme a given sound belongs (e.g. pretonic Russian "a"; "p" standing at the end of a word or before a pause, etc.). (For the Moscow conception see further Avanesov, 1955, Reformatskij, 1955a, 1955c, 1957a, 1958a, 1961a; Kuznecov, 1958a, 1959, etc.) The Moscow phoneme conception has been formalized by Revzin (1962f, 83 ff.). Speaking at the 1958 Moscow Congress of Slavists, Jakobson said that both concepts of the phoneme have much to commend them. Whereas the Leningrad scholars have been developing the phonology of the hearer, the Moscow school has been looking at the matter from the point of view of the speaker. For the hearer, "a" and " o " are really totally different sounds - and phonemes -

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

87

whereas the speaker wants to produce certain morphemes one after the other and these morphemes always exist in his consciousness in the same form regardless of how they have to be realized at a particular moment in accordance with current phonetic laws. On the basis of different theoretical considerations, Bernstejn also endeavoured to reconcile the two trends by classing the Leningrad phonemes as "lst-grade phonemes" and the Moscow ones as "2nd-grade phonemes" (1962; he also included a short historical survey of the two schools). 4.3. The third trend is represented by the phonological conception of Saumjan, who expounded his views in several articles and publications (1957, 1959, 1960a, 1960d, 1962b, 1962d, cf. also Chapter 4, Section 1.3). Furthermore, he himself applied his own theory to the history of the Polish phonemic system (1958a). Saumjan's phonological conception can be interpreted in the light of his general philosophical and linguistic conception. In fact, as we have mentioned, phonology formed the central point of his later ideas. As long as we associate phonemes with particular groups of sounds (with their physical manifestations) they represent only first-level knowledge; these units are called phonemoids by Saumjan. Once we have stripped them of their physical properties we gain knowledge of them on the second or "constructum" level (1962c). Saumjan justifies this distinction between the two levels by saying that communication may take not only an acoustic but also visual form (in writing). Phonemes as units of the language system can be separate both from the sound ("phone") as an acoustical phenomenon, and from the letter as a visual one. On the basis of a similar principle, he wishes to establish two levels, each with distinctive features. The differentoid belonging to the first degree is a relational-physical concept (vowel-non-vowel, consonant-non-consonant, etc.). In the concept of the differentiator, belonging to the second level and built up on the first, "there is nothing physical; it is purely a relational element"; i.e. the differentiator is a construct in the same way as the phoneme is (1962b, 76). To this extent, therefore, Saumjan modifies the Jakobson-Fant-

88

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

Halle system of distinctive features; on further considering the question, he suggests a partial regrouping of the system and also the establishment of additional oppositions whose total number should be set at fifteen (ibid.). 4.4. In additional to these three major concepts of the phoneme, a number of interesting studies have been published on the subject both of phonology and of instrumental phonetics (see, e.g., Ivanov, 1961 f and Kibrik, 1962; the latter deals with the determination of te distinctive features in the spectrogram analysis; for details of the mathematical modelling of certain phonological features, see Mel'nikov, 1961). 5. In the field of structural morphology, the practice of MT has played a particularly fruitful role. Comprehensive theories of morphology have been brought into existence to further the objectives of MT (Fitialov, 1961b, Nikolajeva, 1962c). The Kiev collection of articles printed a study written by Kurylowicz in 1958 on the relations between allophones and allomorphs (Kurylowicz, 1962). A somewhat more concrete task is the establishment of the subgroups of word-classes (such as the subgroup of transitives and intransitives within the verb, etc., the subgroup of qualitative and relative adjectives with the Russian adjective, etc.). A remarkable solution to this problem along formal lines was suggested by the Leningrad professor, XolodoviC (1960). A number of students have devoted their attention to morphemic analysis and its general problems. Two workers at Kiev attempted to give formal rules for MT purposes on the precise way to determine the stem and affixal morphemes and the multifarious functions of inflectional morphemes, and proposed a method for the separation of homonymic inflectional morphemes (Pivovarova, 1960). Mel'Cuk scrutinized the status of "inner flexion" in IE and Semitic languages (1963b). In the course of his study he proposed that the affixal morphemes should not be classified according to where they occur in relation to the stem morpheme (prefix, infix,

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

89

suffix) but rather according to whether they disrupt the stem or not or whether, attached to the stem, they remain continuous or become discontinuous. Another linguist suggested a novel classification of the stem morphemes in Russian for the purpose of eliminating homonymy in MT (Iordanskaja, 1961b), and a worker at Jerevan endeavoured to work out a formal definition of stem and affixal morphemes, relying mainly on Gleason's and Fortunatov's suggestions (Maksudjan, 1960). We have also seen above that the problem of word formation by derivation has been approached by several scholars from the standpoint of transformational analysis (Volockaja, 1959, 1960a, 1960b; Zasorina, 1961). Quite a few studies have explored individual word-classes, Zasorina elaborated a structural model for the Russian nominal inflexions (1962). A formal determination of Russian verb stems and a classification of the verb based on their stems and categories have been attempted in some works (Matveenko, 1961, Nikolaeva, 1962a). At the Cernovci conference a report gave details of work being done at the Armenian Computation Research Centre on the morphological analysis of the Russian verb (Kjazumova, 1960). Although this project is geared to MT, it also raises a number of general problems connected with structural analysis. For instance, it was learnt that 210 verb stems fed to the machine could be divided into 24 groups according to conjugation. In other words, a strictly formal classification yielded not two, as is commonly assumed, but 24 conjugational types in respect of the most commonly used two hundred Russian verbs. Workers at Jerevan, on the basis of the results of investigations conducted at Harvard University, tried to resolve the problem of reflexive verbs. (This is a problem which defies easy solution not only for MT but also because the derivational suffix of Russian reflexive verbs occupies a special position in the system of Russian affixal morphemes. They occur after the regular inflexional suffixes, so that, if we are to regard them as inflexions, we have to treat them as

90

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

an agglutinated form, which is almost exceptional in Russian.) Other research has been directed towards finding out more about the case system of the Russian noun. In the course of such investigations, it was found that, instead of the six cases hitherto applied, four would be enough for storage in the machine, since the oppositions between the nominative and accusative, on the one hand, and the dative and the prepositional, on the other, seemed to be redundant for MT, but its value for the structural description of Russian is also quite significant. In a somewhat similar manner, Revzin, attempted a reappraisal of the German case system, invoking Dobrusin's set model for the purpose of his inquiry. He came to the conclusion that the opposition of the dative and accusative is "weak", since other oppositions do not consolidate it. If, therefore, we were to discard it, such a procedure would not affect the other members of the German case system, viz. the other oppositions (1960a, b). The author remarked that this finding was in accord with the data of German linguistic history and dialectology. Nikolaeva wrote about the formal distinction of Russian homonymic forms made from adjectival stems with the help of -0/ -e suffixes, a question which was also discussed in the columns of Word in 1957-58 (1961b). 6.1. Some of the questions of structural syntax have already been touched upon above in connection with TA. Naturally, wholly or partly different general models are also conceivable. Fitialov analysed dependencies in language and built his model on the concept of BajieHTHocTb ("dependency grammar"; its original meaning is "valency"). He defined the concept of dependency by stating that word-form a may depend on word-form b. If BajieHTHOCTb is extended from individual forms to classes (this would presumably tally with Kuligina's family or type), a scheme of language is obtained which is equivalent to a description in terms of the immediate constituents (Fitialov, 1961a, 1962). Babickij set himself the task of modelling the structure of simple sentences in German technical texts. He reduced the sentences in his

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

91

text by stripping them of all but the verbal elements (finite verb, infinitive, etc.), the subject and the complements of the predicate and he tentatively called these "preparations" of predicative syntagms. He established a few basic types of such syntagms and determined the operations which are reversible and can be used to produce all the occurrences from the basic types (Babickij, 1962). With the practical needs of MT in mind, Nikolaeva constructed a model for sentence-building and independent synthetizing in Russian (1961b). Revzin's sentence model, which he now built up on the basis of Kulagina's configurational theory, is known from his book. According to Revzin, a construction in descriptive linguistics is "an utterance or a group of words with the same distribution as a word" (1961a, 123). The concept of configuration makes the concepts of construction and its constituents more precise, especially in that it helps to determine the "rank" of the construction. Rank can be defined as follows: A configuration has rank 1 if, in any marked sequence of signs, a single word of the construction can stand for the whole without impairing the markedness of the sequence. An example is "Few people can cook this well"; in this sequence, the configuration "few people" can be replaced by "people" and yet the sequence remains marked ("people can cook this well"), so that it would appear that the rank of "few people" is 1. But in a sequence of signs like "very few people can cook this well" we cannot resort to the same telescoping procedure, since the sequence "very people can cook this well" is not marked. We have to retrace our steps and regard the configuration "very few" as belonging to rank 1 which it is possible to telescope into "few". As a result of a series of trials, we find that "very few" can actually be substituted by "few" in any desired sequence and that this substitution will leave the sequence marked. We are, therefore, justified in concluding that the rank of "very few" is really 1. This means, at the same time, that if the latter configuration has a rank of 1, then the substitutable "few" also has a rank of 1. Now, if we include an element of rank 1 in another construction,

92

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

the rank of the latter must, according to this procedure, become 2. It follows from this that both "few people" and "very few people" have rank 2, and so on. In a similar way, this telescoping operation can be applied to the predicate, where the configuration "cook this" of rank 2 can be inserted into a configuration of rank 3, namely into any intransitive verb; e.g., "(people) walk". At the end of the subsequent telescoping operations, we are always left with a couple of words which can no longer be inserted into each other. The number of these residual words will give the index number of the "norm" of the construction. Any sentence (disregarding certain types for the moment) is therefore a construction of norm number 2. The author proves the reverse by saying that any marked construction having a norm of 2 must be a sentence. The development of Revzin's ideas may be traced in his publications (the first on this subject appeared in 1957a and 1958b). Let us quote an earlier definition of the sentence by Revzin: "A sentence is understood to be such a grammatically ordered set in which (a) every string has at least one common element; (b) for each element a there is one and only one element b which is different from, and immediately larger than, a" (1957a, 21; by saying that b is larger than a, Revzin wished to underline the fact that a is dependent on b). PaduSeva has been engaged in the formal analysis of complex sentences and their classification according to the manner in which they are arrived at from simple sentences (1958, 1960a). We have already mentioned in another connection her artificial language which closely resembles the structure of the complex sentences in natural languages (1963). Iordanskaja has published a noteworthy study on certain peculiarities of "correct" syntactic structures (1963). 6.2. Syntagmatic and configurational analyses have attracted a great deal of attention from Soviet scholars. For instance, in the very early stages, a number of Moscow linguists conducted research into the classifiability of syntagmatic word groups in Russian

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

93

mathematical texts for MT purposes (Volockaja, 1958b); the same subject was taken up again by Padufieva (1961). The establishment of configurations in Russian and the concept of configuration itself have been the subject of a number of the papers already mentioned and also of other papers written by Cejtin and Zasorina (Cejtin, 1961d), Molosnaja (1962) and others. The fundamental concepts of syntactic analysis and the problems of distributive analysis were dealt with by Revzin in publications not referred to above (1962d, 1962e); he also dealt with the exploration of syntactic relations by means of the Ajdukiewicz-BarHillel method for the purpose of MT (1961d). A lecture was given in Moscow on the various ways of segmenting the sentence, including segmentation according to "sentence parts" and ICS (Ilija, 1958). The syntagmatic segmentation of the sentence for MT has been worked out for Rumanian (Martemjanov, 1961), Tartar (Drejzin, 1961), and Georgian (Cikoidze, 1961); a synthetizing method based on syntagmatic analysis (suitable for MT) was put forward by an English post-graduate scholar at Moscow University (Howard, 1961). 6.3. Among questions of detail, special attention was paid to the syntagmatic problem of determining where a prepositional noun belongs (cf. Selimova, 1958, Tarasova, 1961, Iordanskaja, 1961a). The definition of the syntactic relations of "formulae" - unchanged family names, mathematical formulae, foreign language quotations, etc. - presents an equally difficult problem (Langleben, 1958). Other questions discussed in detail were the analysis of passive constructions (Nikitina, 1961), word order. Yojnov in 1960 arrived at interesting conclusions, discovering, for instance, that in Russian scientific texts the reflexive verbs behave like the link verbs in terms of word order (also Vojnov, 1961, Babickij, 1961), and particular conjunctions (the Russian u - Leontjeva, 1959; the German und and oder - Belopol'skaja, 1961).

94

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

7. Questions of semantics were first raised in a general context during the debate, mainly in an endeavour to exonarate structural linguistics from the charge that it completely disregards meaning. Later, independent, comprehensive theories of meaning were worked out. Some detailed questions have since been dealt with. 7.1. The series of articles attacking semantics started with an article in the discussion column of VJaz. It argued that semantic problems cannot exclusively be resolved either from the structuralfunctional standpoint or from the semantical-functional standpoint (Levkovskaja, 1957; in the first case, a consistent structuralist or, to be more precise, a descriptivist standpoint is implied, whereas, in the second case, a traditionalist approach to language is implied). The solution recommended is to analyse the word from all possible structural-semantic points of view; in other words, a study of the structure of a word must be closely allied to a study of the meaning of the structural elements. The next issue of VJaz already contained a study on the relationship between linguistics, semantics and morphology (Revzin, 1957c). The author surveyed the history of the study of the word as a linguistic category, threw light on the manner in which the word is treated by structural linguistics, dealt with the relationship between the meaning and form of a word, evaluated the significance of Carnap's semantics for the investigation of meaning and showed how word forms are related to axiomatic syntax. Finally, he reached the following conclusion: "... only in the sphere of forms can structuralism render us valuable help. In this field the application of structural procedures makes for mathematical precision and rigour which modern linguistics is in need of ... there exist means which can ensure the required consistency and exactness in the study of meaning. These means are those of mathematical logic applied to the study of language by semanticists" (pp. cit. 41). Another participant in the course of the debate asserted that the charge that structuralists underestimate the value of meaning and consider it to be a task falling outside the scope of scientific linguistics is unfounded. He wrote: "structuralism was itself a reac-

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

95

tion to the way traditional linguistics handled the questions of meaning" (Grigorjev, 1958, 32). According to Grigorjev's opinion, the fact that structuralists want to consider meaning separately from the study of form and vice versa is a proof of how much importance and independence they attribute to meaning and its problems. As for their "detaching" meaning from form, this should not alarm anyone, since the whole course of scientific progress has been characterized by the constantly developing tendency to "detach" and isolate phenomena which are indivisibly linked in the objective world, to satisfy the desire for an increasingly thorough scrutiny of the world around us. The second phase of this interest in semantics, such preliminary clarifications as were necessary having been completed, was marked by the development of comprehensive semantic theories. One of the first of these was Martynov's theory (1960), according to which in every language each word belongs semantically to two series: a species series (e.g. ramble - go - move: members of the series denote increasingly general concepts) and a synonym series. Synonyms can, in his view, be defined as the points at which the sets of meaning of two words intersect. But the problem of meaning was tackled by Soviet workers from other angles too. Prof. Lurija and his associates, for instance, adopted the following procedure: "The presentation of a word to a subject is connected with some automatic involuntary reflex (vasodilatation, vaso-constriction, galvanic response of the skin, etc.) and when showing him new words one after the other we are in a position to determine objectively which of the words shown have elicited analogous responses . . . " (Vinogradova, 1958, 33-4). Some research workers at Frunze have conducted empirical experiments to solve the problems of synonymy and antonymy (Brudnyj, 1960). In his book, Revzin did not concern himself with semantic models and, in a lecture, he gave as his reason for this the theoretical difficulty of constructing semantic models (1962b). The most elaborate theory was advanced by Apresjan, who attracted public attention in a review of Ullman's Words and their

96

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

Use (New York, 1951) (Apresjan, 1959), and subequently published studies expounding his views (1962a, 1962c). In the introduction to the latter he wrote: "The difference between any two lexical meanings is relevant in a given language, it is reflected in essential structural differences" (1962c, 143). By analysing 400 Russian verbs, he then showed their structural differences first on the basis of distributional and then on the basis of transformational procedures, thus providing certain formal criteria for the establishment of lexical differences. In this way, Apresjan suggested, equivalent classes of lexemes can be set up. In the same formal manner, the relations between the classes can be determined as well as the degree to which, by means of some formal operation, each of the classes can be further subdivided into two groups, which in their turn can be subdivided into a further two parts and so on. The distance between the points of division automatically gives the distance between any two classes (i.e. the distance between two "meaning-groups"). Some questions of detail have been handled differently, as we shall see later (7.2.). The group of workers at the MT laboratory of the Moscow Foreign Language Institute have been engaged almost since its inception on the formalization of meaning (Zolkovskij, 1960,1961a). They are trying to discover those general semantic units common to the expression of all languages which, if formally described, make it possible to render the content of a communication in any language. The semantic units ("semantic multipliers" - ceMaHTPraecKHe MHOMCHTejm) are extracted not from individual words but from sentences which evidently have the same meaning but are composed of different words. For instance, the meanings of "he's poorly" and "he's feeling unwell" can be regarded as identical. The common meaning is evidently expressed in more detail and more clearly in the second sentence, so that it is advisable to regard the second sentence as giving the meaning of the first. On the other hand, "unwell" has the same meaning as "well", but with a negative force, so that, if we say that (18) will symbolize the meaning of "well", "unwell" may be denoted by (18), where the horizontal stroke above the number signifies negation. If, then, the meaning

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

97

of "feeling" is denoted by (23), the meaning of "(be) poorly" can be represented by the factors 18.23. In addition to semantic multipliers, there are also operators of a more general character denoting for instance, "existence" or "the moment of speaking" (the latter being denoted by S.). Here are a few examples of how to divide meaning into factors: If S has the symbolic function given above, 31 denotes "being alive" and 26 denotes "element", so that I broken up into its factors obtains the form: S. 31.26. Furthermore, if 19 stands for "time", then S. 19 is the form given to now (i.e. the moment of speaking; in this way, it becomes possible to formalize the meaning of grammatical time; for examples, see Zolkovskij, 1961a, 21). 7.2. It is worth mentioning a few of those studies which analyse particular details or aspects built around some coherent theory or meant to illustrate one. Whereas Apresjan, as we have seen, started from individual signs (from verb morphemes), Soboleva, relying on the component analysis of the Copenhagen school, reversed this procedure when analysing individual English verbs (those which have a substantival counterpart of identical form, e.g. to run - the run). She established a few a priori meanings after examining the corpus and then subdivided these meanings deductively (e.g. uninterrupted movement, partial movement or a wider classification can be seen to be divided up as follows: 1. processes; 2. states; 1.1. uninterrupted process; 1.2. partial process; 2.1. moral state; 2.2. physical state; 2.1.1. passive moral state; 2.1.2. being put into a moral state; 2.1.1.1. passive sensations; 2.1.1.2. undergoing inducement, etc.). Diagnostic environments are then sought for the verbs and nouns put into the classes obtained in this way, that is to say, environments which are characteristic of them and of them alone. Failing this, it must be assumed that the a priori classes (sub-classes etc.) have been incorrectly established and others must be devised. The semantic field ultimately created, which is made up of different areas related in various ways to each other, can be characterized in

98

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

a glossematic and mathematical-logical way (see Soboleva, 1962). Another worker attempted to define the meanings of one single English verb {to make) by reference to distributional and transformational procedures (Perebejnos, 1962a, 1962b). Yet another study was concerned with the historical development of the meaning of English verba dicendi (present-day "to say", "tell", "speak", Lekomcev, 1962a). Questions of homonymy have also received treatment. Relying on English, German, Japanese and Chinese material, in addition to Russian, a group of authors concluded that from their point of view homonymy could be divided into two main kinds: "dictionary" homonymy (that is, when the written forms of two stems coincide in the machine dictionary containing the stems, in which case it is possible to tell which stem - word - is in question, without resorting to the context) and "contextual" homonymy (Belokrinickaja, 1960). The following possible cases are assumed for English in this latter category: verb-noun, noun-adjective, verb-adjective, etc. (cf. also Molosnaja, 1958b). In view of the non-inflexional character of English in the overwhelming majority of cases, such homonymy can really be resolved only by the context. But even in a markedly flexional language like Russian difficulties are encountered because of the homonymy of the inflexions. For instance, MaTeMaTHK "mathematician" and MaTeMaTHKa "mathematics" have only one form which is not homonymous, the instrumental (MaTeMaTHKOM-MaTeMaTHKOH), whereas all the other forms coincide with one in the parallel word: MaTeMaTHKa, the accusative of the first word, the nominative of the second; MaTeMaTHKy, dative and accusative respectively; MaTeMaTHK nominative and genitive plural, respectively (cf. Belokrinickaja, op. cit., 101). An associate of Reformatskij has constructed a method for dealing with homonymy at the various levels of language (Iordanskaja, 1960). A suggestion as to how to solve the problem of structural homonymy in Chinese was made by 2erebin (1961a). On the formal line of demarcation between homonymy and polysemy, see Koptilov (1962).

STRUCTURAL MODELLING

99

It is customary to place the question of set phrases and idioms within the province of lexicology and semantics. In this field a Soviet linguist advanced an extremely original idea (this could have been equally appropriately discussed together with the theories on linguistic probability; Mel'5uk, 1960a, b). The author put forward the following definition which can be seen to accord with the spirit of the probability calculation rather than with that of structural analysis: "The degree of how much a collocation is stabilized in point of one of its elements can be measured with the probability with which the element in question determines in advance the co-occurrence of the other elements of the collocation (in a definite order in relation to the element in question)" (Mel'cuk, 1960a, 73). In a similar way, he offered a formal definition of idioms, based on the characteristic feature of idioms that they always contain a word which, despite the fact that it may occur outside the idiom, still requires in the given context a translation (within the same language this may take the form of a synonym) which is appropriate only to that context. 8. Typological research was, of course, revived during the period of the structural investigations, both in terms of general questions of principle (for instance, Revzin's monograph, and also Revzin, 1962c, Uspenskij, B. 1961, 1962) and in terms of general questions concerning the Slav languages (Burlakova, 1962, Volockaja, 1963).

6

MACHINE TRANSLATION

In this chapter on Soviet machine translation I propose to discuss or touch on the following questions: the history of MT in the Soviet Union, problems connected with or arising from the Soviet MT practice, algorithms completed or in progress (especially three of these, the French-Russian, English-Russian and HungarianRussian), selected aspects of MT, the problem of the intermediary language and the relation between the written and the spoken language. 1. It is well-known that a computing machine made by IBM, New York, successfully carried out a test translation of a Russian mathematical text into English for the first time ever on 7th January, 1954. The first Soviet results did not lay very far behind, for work was started at the end of 1954 on a French-Russian algorithm at the Academy's Mathematical Institute in Moscow, under the direction of O. S. Kulagina and I. A. Mel'Suk (the machine dictionary was compiled with the cooperation of mathematicians and Moscow University undergraduates). This project was not planned to be a mere repetition of the American experiment. The material was also taken from mathematical texts but the initial dictionary was much larger (containing 1200 types selected from 2300 types of 20,500 tokens, and 250 idioms were also included in their micro-glossary). The algorithm was completed in February 1956 and then the programming and the coding of the dictionary followed. Three experts collaborated on the coding and eight on the programming. The machine produced its first translation of a sentence in June 1956, at a time when the programme had not yet been fully worked out. By the autumn of that year all the programmes had been put

MACHINE TRANSLATION

101

together and since that time the machine has been making regular experimental translations from French into Russian. E. V. Cekova is now responsible for this work and the perfecting of the programming. (Concerning what has been said so far, see the articles by Kulagina, 1958e, 1960a.) This same research centre was responsible for working out the English-Russian and the HungarianRussian algorithms. Work has also been going on for some time at the Precision Mechanical and Computational Institute of the Soviet Academy of Sciences (HHCTHTyr t o h h o h MexaHHKH h BMHHCJiHTenbHOH t c x h h k h AH CCCP). Algorithms for MT from English, Chinese, Japanese and German into Russian have been elaborated here with their accompanying dictionaries (cf. Rozencvejg, 1958b, 3). While the institute mentioned earlier is contemplating mainly theoretical research under the directorship of Prof. Ljapunov (although, as we have seen, practical advances have also been accomplished there), the Computational Centre has set itself the task of making as soon as possible algorithms and dictionaries which will best serve the needs of large-scale translation work. In addition to these two Moscow research centres, work on theoretical aspects of MT has also been going on since 1956 in Leningrad, as we have remarked above. As far as can be judged from the available conference material, specialists from the republics and provincial cities joined in the work in 1959 or 1960. These specialists also now have rapid computing machines and have trained their scientific personnel. A characteristic feature of this initial stage was the publication of foreign authors' works together with Soviet scholars' studies on various aspects and problems of MT (cf. e.g., Panov, 1956). The Soviet specialists are constantly following the progress of MT abroad. They publish a large number of articles on conferences held abroad in which they have taken part (Kulagina, 1960b), review works (cf., e.g. Zolkovskij, 1959b, and several other reviews and notices), compile cumulative bibliographies (Ivanov, 1962g; RaviS, 1962), describe and summarize recent developments (Nikolaeva, 1961d on the problems of Russian translation dealt with in foreign

102

MACHINE TRANSLATION

studies; Mel'Cuk 1961c, on MT abroad in general), and describe new machines (Babincev, 1959, on the Japanese "Jamato" machine). Mention may also be made of lower-grade doctoral dissertations on the subject of MT in the Soviet Union (e.g. Kulagina, autumn 1959; Molosnaja, December, 1960; Nikolaeva, spring, 1962 (these publ. by Nikolaeva, 1962b) and Mel'Suk, November, 1962 (MeP5uk, 1962a)). Against the background of our knowledge of the past and the present it may be of interest to glance at the future (or near future) plans of Soviet MT specialists. Taking a report drawn up jointly by Ljapunov and Kulagina (see Ljapunov, 1958) as our starting point, we can say the following about the present plans and projects: A workable system of linguistic concepts must be elaborated; its utility and applicability will be tested by MT. Algorithms for different languages must be worked out and intermediary languages constructed and tested in practice. There is also a great need for linguistic statistical research. The compiling of algorithms will facilitate the clarification of structural problems for the particular languages. The technical problems facing MT are as follows: the construction of special translating machines, the elaboration of systems of operation for these machines, the devising of high-capacity and easily accessible memory storage units for the machines, etc. The mathematical aspects to be solved are as follows: the workingout of rational methods for the coding of information (for each of the phases of work), the increasing of the effectiveness of the algorithms, the studying of abstract language models and model translations, the working-out of a mathematical language for the description of algorithms and the automation of the programming of algorithms. The complex cybernetic tasks include the mechanical solution of the problem of compiling algorithms, the mechanization of linguistic statistics and the construction of language models by means of machines (on the basis of restricted texts). For similar surveys, partly summarizing and partly blueprinting future tasks, see also Andreev, 1960a, Ivanov, 1961c.

MACHINE TRANSLATION

103

2. It is interesting to glance at the development of the general attitude to MT in the Soviet Union. When the regular column devoted to MT was opened in VJaz (No. 5, 1956), considerable space was taken up by the authors of the feature article (Kuznecov, Ljapunov and Reformatskij; Kuznecov, 1956) to dispel certain misconceptions and prejudices concerning MT. The two prejudices which they named were, firstly, the opinion that the mechanical approach to language was an "insult" to language (which is a "creative act" and an "art"!), and secondly, the reproach that machine translators were using terminology which was different from that of traditional linguistics (for the latter, for instance, the stem of a word is that part of the spelt word which remains unchanged when endings are attached to it). In the same issue of the periodical the most noted living representative of the Kazan school and an old exponent of applied linguistics compared the experiment conducted by Kulagina and Mel'Suk with another carried out in 1944, using the Smirnov-Trojanskij system, and concluded that the new system had much more promise and was also more automatic (in so far as it needs much less final editing, whereas earlier methods had left very much work to a post-editor; 2irkov, 1956). He further pointed out something which had already been emphasized by the younger workers on MT, namely that the machine would hardly be able to translate Balzac or Majakovskij, such feats never having been envisaged or thought necessary. At the commencement of work on MT, it was necessary to stress that the greatest and most difficult problems to be solved are linguistic in nature and technical only to a lesser extent. Some workers (e.g. Molosnaja, 1957b) were optimistic, but others (Barxudarov, 1958) laid stress on the difficulties to be expected. All of them agreed, however, that MT was possible - with a concomitant decrease in the need for pre- and post-editing - as far as texts of a certain nature were concerned. As for the boundaries and limits of MT, one paper made it clear that translation of poetic texts is impossible with the present types of machine in use and explained why (Ivanov, 1958b). The present machines - and it is hard to predict

104

MACHINE TRANSLATION

whether we shall ever have other machines at our disposal - carry out the task of translating by keeping the content constant while changing the expression (i.e. the same content is transferred from the expressional system of one language into that of another). Translation in this sense is completely satisfactory in those cases where the information is conveyed only at the level of content and nothing else is involved. In poetic texts, however, expression and form are also informative elements. It is theoretically impossible for a machine to deal with this kind of information (or to process it in such a way that the information fed into it remains unchanged not only on the level of content but also partly, at least, on the level of expression). Apart from this "inner" problem of MT, this new branch of linguistics raises a number of questions worth considering. The application of mathematical methods in general - as was pointed out in the Resolution of the Presidium of the Soviet Academy of Sciences - has a significance for the development of linguistic theory in that it reacts upon it. It may be supposed that MT will have a specific influence on general linguistics, so that it may be possible to abandon the defensive attitude adopted by Kuznecov and his colleagues in their article, which almost apologizes for the fact that machine translators use terms in their arbitrary senses. This negative standpoint could then be replaced by a more positive standpoint to the effect that not only do these "arbitrary interpretations" have no harmfull effect on linguistics but, on the contrary, can turn out to be very profitable. These were precisely the sentiments of Steblin-Kamenskij, an outstanding member of the Leningrad school of mathematicians (1958). In his opinion MT can be of great service to general linguistics in three respects. (1) It will provide an objective critique of traditional grammatical concepts (such as "word-classes", "sentence parts", "sentence", etc.). (2) It will accentuate the relative nature of all views formulated about language. (3) Finally, it will induce scholars to undertake a formal study of language and its system, for it can plainly be seen that language differs from all other meaningful sign systems in respect of its formal system. Meaning,

MACHINE TRANSLATION

105

according to Steblin-Kamenskij, is not, therefore, a specifically linguistic concern, however much linguists may have been preoccupied with it. An important facet of MT, that of the problem of the intermediary language, has also evoked wide-spread discussion. Many scholars see intermediary language, or at least its correlational concept, as an analogy of the proto-language of the historicalcomparative linguists (cf., e.g., Ivanov, 1959, Mel'iuk, 1959a, etc.). Proto-language is, in one sense, a reassembled structure representing a group of languages, which summarizes certain of the features of these languages from a definite point of view. The machine intermediary language derives its system only from the systems of those languages which it is to represent, just as the proto-language is only valid for those languages whose features were taken into account when it was constructed. Although for experimental purposes the reconstructed underlying language may be compared with the new languages drawn into the field of investigation, the proto-language, as a whole, will still depend exclusively on those languages for which it has been constructed; in other words, if new languages are included, the abstract system will have to be modified. Of lesser importance but of practical value has been the consideration of the problem of international artificial languages, and it seems that the idea of intermediary languages may prove to be fruitful in this respect too (cf. Bokarev, 1958). On the other hand, MT relies not only on the theoretical part of general linguistics but equally on such traditional branches of applied linguistics as language teaching. At one of the conferences, Revzin lectured upon a favourite theme of his which he often expounded in his undergraduate classes, namely that Scerba's distinction between active and passive grammar can be put to use in MT too (1958). §5erba was of the opinion that a sharp distinction must be drawn between two kinds of grammar, depending on the aim envisaged in the teaching of a language. An active grammar would be based on the content to be expressed in the language taught, and this kind of grammar would be needed

106

MACHINE TRANSLATION

by those who want to speak and translate into the language concerned. A passive grammar, on the other hand, would be based on the expression itself and would show what a particular form is in the foreign language studied. Such a grammar would be needed by those who wish to read and translate from that language. The machine counterpart of this passive grammar is the set of rules for analysis, while the active grammar corresponds to the set of rules for synthesis. For a few other aspects of mathematical linguistics raised by MT see also Bagrinovskaja, 1961; for the correspondences between MT and language system see Ivanov, 1961b. Perhaps it is no exaggeration to say that it was the work done with translating machines that inspired an original and deep thinker like Mel'cuk to make a study of some of the basic concepts of linguistic science (for instance "system": 1962b) or when he considered the standard forms of linguistic description and the quantitative characteristics of these forms of description (1963a). 3.1. I shall now give a few bibliographical data on algorithms completed or in progress: Arabic-Russian (Frolova, 1958); BurmeseRussian (Timofeeva, 1958); Hindustani-Russian (Katenina, 1958); Japanese-Russian (Babincev, 1958, Jefimov, 1958); NorwegianRussian (Berkov, 1958); Indonesian-Russian (Andreev, 1958); Vietnamese-Russian (Andreev, 1958); Chinese-Russian (Voronin, 1958, Sofronov 1958); Russian-Chinese (Zvonov, 1960, Gao CuSun, 1960). As far as we know, the majority of these algorithms have not yet been tested in practice. 3.2. Several accounts appeared in the Soviet scientific press of the French-Russian algorithm and dictionary which, as we said at the beginning of this chapter, were the first to be made and tested (see Kulagina, 1956, 1958b, 1959b, and, in the greatest detail, 19601962;Cekova, 1958). These accounts are summed up below. The authors compiled their translation algorithm in an empirical way. They first of all analysed the process by which a human being translated French mathematical texts into Russian. Then they

MACHINE TRANSLATION

107

supplemented their initial rules and perfected them with the help of additional texts and with reference to the textbook rule of French grammar, which had not yet been covered. The theoretical result of their work, in one direction, was that it modified the system of French word-classes; in another direction, this work was most fruitful in that it gave Kulagina an opportunity to elaborate her set theory model of language, which we have briefly referred to earlier. The dictionary containing 1200 types (cf. Section 1 of this chapter) was compiled from the works of the French mathematicians, Picard, Borel and Appel. They classified under the idioms the compound conjunctions, prepositions and adverbs (like le long de "along", parce que "because", à peu près "approximately") as well as all the idioms in the traditional sense (like mettre en doute "call in question") and also a few mathematical technical terms expressed in several words. The majority of words have only one Russian equivalent in view of the fact that in mathematical texts the words are usually used in one sense only. There were, however, 189 words with more than one meaning, so that the Russian part of the mechanical dictionary contains 1326 items. The French words are listed in their stem forms (i.e. the longest segments which they have in common in all their written forms). This stem is identical with the singular form for most of the nouns and with the singular masculine form for most of the adjectives, etc. Some of the verbs are listed under several stems (e.g. faire, fais, fai, fass, fe), and this was expedient because, if they had appeared with only one stem of the unchanged written form, this would have made it necessary to store too many endings (the reduction of the stem to one letter would not have been considered a difficulty in itself). The exceptionally irregular verbs are sometimes included in the dictionary under separate stems, consisting of the stem and some of the endings taken together (e.g. être occurs under the following entries: êt-, ét-, se-', est, sont, soit, soient-, the dictionary has to provide for only those forms, whether of words or of grammar, which are really expected to occur in mathematical texts, so that the forms for the 1st pers. sing., 2nd pers. sing., etc., may be omitted).

108

MACHINE TRANSLATION

The Russian equivalents are entered under a similar stem form but, in the latter case, a noun may also frequently have several stems listed (e.g. the "stems" of oiimGica "error" are o u i h 6 k and oiiih6ok). The French machine word is not immediately followed by the Russian translation, the grammatical characteristics of the French word first being given; the procedure is similar in respect of the set phrases. After the grammatical analysis come the target language stem (word) equivalents and their grammatical treatment. Such a layout is advantageous, because the Russian part of this dictionary can also be utilized for translation from another language (as, in fact, was the case when translation was later made from English into Russian). We shall return to both the dictionary and the rules in more detail when we discuss the Hungarian-Russian algorithm and dictionary (see 3.4.). In the French part of the dictionary we find not only information regarding the gender and the type of plural of the French noun but also an indication of the "right preposition" and the "left preposition". This means that, for instance, in the expression a distance finie de "at a finite distance from" both prepositions are to be regarded as governing the noun distance. The one on the right referes to the case and meaning of the following dependent noun and the one on the left refers to the case and meaning of the noun distance itself. Kulagina describes in detail the looking-up operations, the resolution of idiomatic expressions, the discrimination of homonyms, the processes of analysing the French sentence and the synthesis of the Russian one. In an appendix the rules for discriminating homonyms are included with the rules of analysis (in two notations). While working on these rules, Kulagina conceived her operator theory, which was a significant advance towards the mechanization of programming (cf. Kulagina, 1958e, 50-1). A study of existing analytic of programmes had revealed that, various as they are, they can still be broken down into a limited number of elementary operations during which the information is transformed; these few elementary operations were called operators by Kulagina. 17 such operators

109

MACHINE TRANSLATION

were established in the course of the French algorithm. They fall into three groups : checking operators [to see whether the word has a certain ending (the ending must be looked up in the table) and to check whether the word has grammatical information, etc.], summing-up operators (recording the information, marking the word on a certain scale, deleting the information, etc.) and, finally, miscellaneous operators which cannot be assigned to either of the other two groups. In order to show what kind of sentences were translated by the machine we quote three examples: 1. Les relations que nous avons trouvées entre les racines et les coefficients d'une équation conduisent assez naturellement à l'études des formes symétriques. Translation: Coothouichhh, KOTopwe mm H a i i u m Meayiy KOpHHMH H K03HUHeHTaMH ypaBHCHHS, IipHBOflHT ecTecTBeHHO

k

H3yneHHK>

cHMMeTpaiHbix

flOCTaTOHHO

raaa »H3Hb: XpoHHicajibHbie saMeTKH", BR, XI (1962), 2, 138-141. Artemov 1933 - B. ApTeMOB, A. PetjiopMaTCKHtt, ncuxoAozutecKue ocnoeu otjjopMAeHUH yveSmiKoe (M., 1933). Artemov 1957 - B. A. ApTeMOB, "IIpHMeHeHHe OTaTHCTHHecKnx MCTOAOB B 3KcnepHMeHTajn>HO-(J)OHeTiraecKOM h ncnxononwecicoM H3yneHHH peiH", CP, 73-84. Avanesov 1955 - P. M. ABaHecoB, "KpaTHaiimaH 3ByKOBaa eflHHHua B cocTaBe cJioBa h Mopc{)eMbi", Brc, 113-139.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

141

Babickij 1959 - K. H . EaômiKHfi, " 0 6 oahoíí Moaejm HeMeiiKoro npocToro npeflJioaceHHa", MJI, 30-33. Babickij 1961 - K. H . Ea6nmcnii, "AJITOPHTM PACCTAHOBKH CJIOB BO (Jipase npH HC3aBHCHMOM pyccKOM CHHTe3e", C6. Mû, 323-337. Babickij 1962 - K. H. Ea6nuKnä, " K Bonpocy o MoaenHpoBamni erpyKTypu npocToro npefljioaceHHH", IICJI, 115-129. Babincev 1958 - A. A . EaômmeB, "PaôoTa naa anoHO-pyccKHM ajiropHTMOM MauiHHHoro nepeBOfla", M/7, 75-76. Babincev 1959 - A. A. EaômmeB, ".SnoHCxaH nepeBOAHecKax Mammia 'ÄMaTo'", Milu IUI, 3 (1959), 78-82. Bagrinovskaja 1958 - T. II. EarpHHOBCKa«, r . JI. FaBpmiOBa, "üporpaMMHpoBaHHe nepeBOfla c aHnmäcKoro « b i K a Ha pyccKHË", MII, 77. Bagrinovskaja 1961 - r . H. EarpHKOBCKaa, O. C. Kyjianma, A. A. JlanyHOB, T. H. MoJiomHafl, "HeicoTopbie Bonpocw MaTeMaranecKofi mmrBHCTHKH, B03HHKai01UHC B CBH3H C MailIHHHbIM nepeBOflOM", MIJuITJI, 6 (1961), 19-38. Balaban 1960 - M . A . EajiaöaH, "HCN0JIB30BAHHE NCHXOJIHHRBHCTHIECKOFT MOfleJiH H3MKa fljifl pemeHHfl HeK0T0pwx npoöJieM nprnoia^Horo H3bIK03HaHHH", IIJI, 57-61. Barxudarov 1958 - JI. C. EapxynapoB, T. B. KojiuiaHCKHü, " K Bonpocy o BO3MO3KHOCT«X MaiuiiHHoro nepeßoaa", BM, V I I (1958), 1, 129-133. Baudouin 1881 - H. A . EoflysH-fle-KypTero, OmpbWKU U3 Aenifuü no (ßonemme u MopcßoAozuu pyccKoao hsukü, Bwn. I ( = 03, 1881, IV-V, 1-32; 1882, II-III, 33-88). Baudouin 1912 - H. A. EoflysH-fle-KypTei», 06 ormoiuemu pyccKOio nucbAta K pyccKOMy H3biKy (Cn6., 1912). Baudouin 1960 - H. A. EoàyjH-de-KypmeHj. K 30-jiemwo co àun CMepmu. OTB. pea. C. E. EepHuiTeiiH (M., 1960), 120 p. Beleckij 1955 - A . A. EejieqKHÖ, "3aaaHH flajTbHeñmero cpaBHHTentHOHCTOpHHeCKOrO H3yieHHH H3MKOB", BH, I V (1955), 2, 3-27. Beleckij M. 1959 - M. H. EejieqKHñ, " O CHMBOJiHHecKOñ lärmen ajiropHTMa MaimiHHoro nepeBOfla", MJI, 36. Belokrinickaja 1959 - C. C. EenoKpRHHUKaa, M. E. E(J>HMOB, A. A. 3BOHOB, T. M . HmcojiaeBa, T. A. TapacoBa, " K THnonorHH jieKcmecKHx coOTBeTCTBHÄ", MJI, 67-68. Belokrinickaja 1960 - C. C. EejioKpmnimcaH H ap., "Pa3JiHiHwe ranbi OMOHHMHH H cnoco6bi Hx pa3JiHHeHiw npH MauiHHHOM nepcBo/ie", BS, I X (1960), 2, 97-101. Belokrinickaja 1961a - C. C. EejioKpnHHUKaa, T. H. Monoiimaji, " 0 6 auropHTMe He3aBHCHMoro MopiJioJTorHHecKoro aHajm3a nroeacKoro TeKCTa", C6. Mn, 280-294. Belokrinickaja 1961b - C. C. EenoKpHHHUKaH, R. A . Bonieic, M. E. ECJMMOB, A. A . 3BOHOB, T. M. HHKOJiaeBa, T. A. TapacoBa, "OAHH H3 IIOAXOAOB K nocxpoeHHK) H3biKa-nocpeflHHKa", C6. Ml7, 5-16. Belokrinickaja 1961c - C. C. EejioicpHHHincaH, "CTpyKTypa cjioBapu H npaBHJia aH&mna HeMemcoro cjioBa", C6. Mil, 204-221. Belonogov 1962 - r . r . EejioHoroB, " O HeKOTopwx CTaTHCTHiecKHx 3aicoHoMepHocTax B pyccKofi nHCbMeHHoñ peiH", BH, X I (1962), 1, 100-101.

142

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Belopol'skaja 1961 - A. P. Eejionojibcicaa, M. B. CrpaTHanoBa, A. B. Kobphthh, "OopMajihHoe onpeaejieHHe thitob cohhhchhh (und, oder)", ffKOHMÜ, 2. Bel'skaja 1958 - M. K. Eejibcicaa, "OcHOBHbie xapaKTepHCTHKH cjioBapa H rpaMMaTHHecKHx cxeM MauiHHHoro nepeBoaa c aHrjiHÄcKoro asuica Ha pyccKHö", Mil, 79-82. Bel'skaja 1959 - M. K. Eejibcicaa, "O npHHipmax nocTpoeHHa cnoBapa fljia ManiHHHoro nepeBOfla", BS, VIII (1959), 3, 89-94. Berg 1960 - A. M. Bepr, "O HeKOTopwx npo6jieMax KH6epHeTHKH", B, 1908). Bogorodickij 1909 - B. A. EoropoaniiKnft, Onum $u3uoaozuu oöufepyccKoeo npou3HOiuenuH e cex3u c 3KcnepuMeHmaAbH0- (M., 1961), 374-382. Mel'cuk 1959a - M. A. MeJibiyic, "Pa6oTM no MamnHHOMy nepeBOfly B C C C P " , BecmHUK AH CCCP, 1959, 2, 43-47. Mel'cuk 1959b - H. A. Mejibiyx, " K Bonpocy o 'rpaMMaranecKOM' B H3WKenocpeflHHKe", MJT, 60-63. Mel'éuk 1959c - H. A. Mejibiyx, "Bcecoio3Hoe coBemarae no MaTeMaTHlecKoft jiHHrBHCTHKe", MITuIIJI, 3 (1959), 82-93. Mel'cuk 1960a - H. A. Mejibnyx, " O TepMHHax 'ycToHraBOCTb' H 'HÄHOMaTHHHOCTb'", BX, I X (1960), 4, 73-80. Mel'cuk 1960b - H. A. Menbiyic, " O TepMHHax 'ycToäHHBOCTb' H 'HAHOMaTHHHOCTb'", IIJI, 106-108. Mel'cuk 1960c - H. A. Mejibiyic, "Oömaa cxeMa MopojiorH. Po3eHUBe8r, "HeKOTopwe nHHrBHCTmecKHe Bonpocbi MaimiHHoro nepeBOfla", Bit, VI (1957), 1, 107-113. MoloSnaja 1958a - T. H. Mojionma», "Ajitophtm Mannnmoro nepeBOfla c aHrjraiicKoro »3biKa Ha pyccioift", Mil, 103. Molosnaja 1958b - T. H. Mojionmaa, "Bonpocbi pa3JinopMaijHOHHbia aHajiH3 KaK MeTOfl H3yneHHH CHHTaKcnca H3biKa", FIJI, 34-35. MoloSnaja 1960c - T. H. Monoumaa, "Om>iT cTaTHCTHHecKoro o6cnefloBaHHH rpaMMaTHiecKnx KOH(J)nrypau.Hii b aHnnuScKOM MaTeinaTHiecKOM TeKCTe", MlhillJI, 4 (1960), 64-81. MoloSnaja 1961 - T. H. Mojionmaa, 'TpaMMaTHHecirae TpaHC(J>opMaumi aHrjinitcKoro H3bnca", KTM, 37-38. MoloSnaja 1962 - T. H. Mojionmaa, "O uohhthh rpaMMaTiwecKoft koh(JjHrypauHH", CTH, 46-59. Morozov 1915 - H. A. M0P030B, "JlHHTBHcnraecKHe cneKTpbi (CthjicmctphlecKHfi 3TK)fl)", HOPJIC, X X (1915), 4. Morozova 1963 - H. r . MoposoBa, " O '6e3tH3bi>mbix rnyxoHeMhix' h 06 OBnaaeHHH hmh cjioBecHofi peibio", Bfl, XII (1963), 3, 58-67. Nadel' 1959 - E. H. Haipjib, P. r . nnoTpoBCKnfl, " O xpoHOJiorHiecioix h CTHJIHCTHTOCKHX HOnpaBKaX BflHaxpOHHHeCKHXHCCJieflOBaHHflx", Bfl, VIII (1959), 3, 66-72. Nikitina 1961 - C. E. HmcHTHHa, "OopMaJibHbifi aHajiH3 cTpa«aTeJibHbix KOHCTpyKipdt b pyccKOM 83bnce", MTIuTIJI, 6 (1961), 89.

154

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nikolaev 1960 - H. HwconaeB, "HeKOTopwe aaHHwe o H£ICTOTHOCTII ynoTpe6neHHH najieiKHbix epeHUHfl no MauiHHHOMy riepo BOfly", BX, VII (1958), 5, 149-151. Nikolaeva 1959 - T. M. HmcojiaeBa, "CTpyKTypa CHHTe3HpyiomHx npaBHJi B MauiHHHOM nepeBOAe npH yiacTHH H3biKa-nocpeflHmca", MJI, 79-80. Nikolaeva 1960a - T. M. HwconaeBa, "HTO TaKoe TpaHC(J)0pMauH0HHbi8 aHaJiH3?", BM, I X (1960), 1, 111-115. Nikolaeva 1960b - T. M. HmcojiaeBa, "TmiojiorHHecKoe conocTaBJieHHe pycCKoro y c r a o r o H nHCbMCHHoro H3WKOB", IIJI, 35-36. Nikolaeva 1961a - T. M. HnKojiaeBa, "AJII-OPHTM He3aBHCHMoro rpaMMaTHnecKoro aHajiH3a pyccKoro a3biKa", JJKOHMII, 9. Nikolaeva 1961b - T. M. HmcojiaeBa, " K Bonpocy o pa3JMHeHHH opM Ha - 0 / - E C aflieKTHBHblM THIIOM OCHOBbI B pyCCKOM H3bIKe", C6. Mil, 250-260. Nikolaeva 1961c - T. M. HmcojiaeBa, "KjiacanJuucaijHfl Ta6jimu>i pyccKHx rpacjwM (K npo6jieMe nocrpoeHmi iHTaiomero ycTpofierBa)", MKOHMII,

6.

Nikolaeva 1961d - T. M. HHKonaeBa, " O pyccKOM snbiice B 3apy6e«Hbix pa6oTax no MauiHHHOMy nepeBOfly", BH, X (1961), 5, 122-128. Nikolaeva 1961e - T. M. HmcojiaeBa, "ILHCBMEHHAH penb H CNEIJHIJIHKA ee rayHeHHH", B3, X (1961), 3, 78-86. Nikolaeva 1961f - T. M. HmcojiaeBa, "IIoCTpoeHHe npejjJio)KeHHH npH He3aBHCHMOM cHHTe3e pyccKoro TeKCTa", C6. Mil, 314-322. Nikolaeva 1961g - T. M. HmcojiaeBa, "Cmrre3 opM pyccKHX CJIOB npw MauiHHHOM nepeBOfle Ha pyccKHft H3biK", IJK, 5 (1961), 263-269. Nikolaeva 1961h - T. M. HnicojiaeBa, "CTpyKTypa ajiropHTMa rpaMMaranecKoro aHaJiH3a (npn M i l c pyccKoro fl3biKa)", MIIuIIJI, 5 (1961), 27-44. Nikolaeva 1961i - T. M. HmcojiaeBa, "TpaHC(J)0pMaLni0HHbift aHajiws CJIOBOconeTaHHfi c npHjiaraTeJibHMM - ynpaBjiaiomHM CJIOBOM", KTM, 33-36. Nikolaeva 1962a - T. M. HmcojiaeBa, "KjiaccHtjMKaumi pyccKHx rjiaronoB n o KOJIHNECTBY OCHOB H HX pacnpefleneHHio n o KaTeropraM",

CTH,

96-102. Nikolaeva 1962b - T. M. HmcojiaeBa, HeKomopue AumeucmmecKue eonpocti MaiuuHHOzo nepeeoda c pyccK0Z0 R3bwa u na pyccKuu a3biK (ABTO-

petJiepaT flHccepTamm) (M., 1962), 19 p. Nikolaeva 1962c - T. M. HmconaeBa, "OnbiT aJiropHTMHiecKofl: MopijiojiorHH pyccKoro «3biKa", CTH, 25-45. Nikonov 1958 - B. A. HHKOHOB, "PHTMmca MaaKOBCKoro", Bonpocu Aumepamypbi, 1958, 7.

Nikonov 1 9 5 9 - B . A . HHKOHOB, "CraracTHKa nafle»e& pyccKoro H3bnca", MIIuIIJI, 3 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 4 5 - 6 5 .

Nikonov 1960 - B. A. HHKOHOB, "KoHCOHaHTHbiS K03(J>(L>imH3HT", Lingua Poznaniensis, V I I I ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 2 2 8 - 2 3 3 .

155

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nikonov 1961 - B. A. Hhkohob, "Eopb6a naaeaceii", IJSLP,

IV (1961),

13-34.

Nikonov 1962a - B. A. Hhkohob, "KoHcoHaHTHbie coieTamw", PHHIII, 1962, 3, 24-28. Nikonov 1962b - B. A. Hhkohob, "MeToa HccneflOBaHHa cy$4>HKcoB npnnaraxejibHbix", CTH, 103-118. Novak 1960 - JI. A. HoBaK, "JlHHrBocTaTHCTH^ecKKÜ aHaJiH3 nacTOTHoro cjiOBap« 6ajiKaHQ-poMaHCKoro s3biKa", FIJI, 36-38. Oslo 1958 - Proceedings of the VHIth International Congress of Linguists (Oslo, 1958). Paduceva 1957 - E. B. IlaflyHeBa, "CraTHCTHiecKoe HCCJieflOBaHHe crpyKTypw cjiora", CP, 100-111. Paduceva 1958 - E. B. naflyneBa, "HexoToptie Bonpocw aHajiH3a cjioxchmx npefljiojKeHHfl h npefljioaceHHÜ c oahocjiohchmmh HJieHaivra", Mil, 107-108. PaduCeva 1959 - E. B. rfaayneBa, "HeKOTopue aaMenaHHa o naaexaioM CHCTeMe cymecTBHTeJibHoro b pyccKOM a3biKe", MJI, 24-25. Paduceva 1960a - E. B. naayieBa, "KjiaccHiJwKauHH cjiohchmx npeflJioHceHHa Ha 0CH0Be cnoco6a hx nopojKfleHiw H3 npocTbix", FIJI, 111-112. Paduíeva 1960b - E. B. naayneBa, " 0 6 oimcaHHH nafleacHoii CHCTeMbi pycCKoro cymecTBHTeJibHoro", BH, IX (1960), 5, 104-111. Paduíeva 1961 - E. B. naayneBa, A. JI. IIIyMHJiHHa, "OrmcaHHe CHHTarM pyccxoro asbiKa (b cbsoh c noerpoeHHeM ajiropHTMa ManiHHHoro nepe-

BOfla)", BH, X (1961), 4, 105-115. P a d u c e v a 1962 - E. B. naayneBa, "HcKyccTBeHHbiíí j b h k , oÓHapyatHBaromHfi

cxoflCTBa CHHTaKCHHecKoñ CTpyKiypbi cnoacHbix npefljioaceHHli ecTeCTBeHHoro H3bnca h (J)opMyji HcmcJieHiM Bbicica3biBaHnfi", C3C, 87-89. Panov 1956 - fí. IO. r i a H O B , AemoMammecKuü nepeeod (M., 1956). P a n o v M . 1961 - M . B. naHOB, " O pa3rpaHHHHTenbHbix cnraanax b MbiKe",

BX, X (1961), 1, 3-19. Papp 1963 - opMaTCKHii, "IIpHHumibi cHHxpoHHoro onacaHHH «bnca", CAuHH, 22-38. Reformatskij 1958a - A. A. PeopMaTCKH0, "O Koppejisnom 'TBepawx' H 'mhtkhx' cornacHbix (b C0BpeMeHH0M pyccKOM H3biKe)", Cercetari de Linguistiac, III (1958), Supliment, 403-407. Reformatskij 1958b - A. A. PeopMaTCKnft, "IlepeBOfl sub specie structuralismi", M n , 52-53 Reformatskij 1959 - A. A. Pett>opMaTCKH0, "06yHeHHe npoH3HoineHHio H (JiOHOJiorHa", in Haynuue doKAadbi ebiciueu UIKOMI OwioAozmecKue HayKu (1959). Reformatskij 1960 - A. A. Pe4>opinaTCKHH, "TpaHCJiHTepainw pyccrax T e x c T O B jiaTHHCKHMH 6yKBaMH", BH, IX (1960), 5, 96-103. Reformatskij 1961a - A. A. Pe4>opMaTCKHii, 'VJaxoTOMHiecKa« KJiaccwlMKauHa j3H(J)(J)epeHUHaJibHbix npinHaKOB h (J)OHeMaTHiecKaa Moaenb A3biKa", in Bonpocbi meopuu H3biKa e cospemnnou

3apy6eMCHOU jturn-

eucmme (M., 1961), 106-122. Reformatskij 1961b - A. A. PeiJiopMaTCKHft, "O HeicoTopbix TpyflHOCTHx o S y i e m w npoH3HomeHHio", in PyccKuu H3UK dun cmydenmoe unocmpmifee (CSopnuK Memodmecicux cmameu), n o « p e a . A. A. PeopMaTCKoro

(M„ 1961), 5-12. Reformatskij 1961c - A. Pe(J>opMaTCKHfi, "i>oHeTHHecKH0 MHHHMyM npn OBJiaaemra pyccKHM nporoHOineHHeM HepyccKHMH", PHHHI, 1961, 4. 7-10. Reformatskij 1962 - A. PeopMaTCKir8, "O conocTaBHTejn>HOM MeTo^e", PHH1I1, 1962, 5, 23-33.

158

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Resolution 1959 - " O pa6oTax no CTpyKTypHOMy aHajnoy", Peweuue Eiopo OmdeMHun JIX om 7-8 wojir 1959 z., HAH O JIM, XIX (1960), 1, 74-77. Resolution 1960 - B. IL rparopbeB, " O pa3BHTHH CTpyKTypHbix H MaTeMaraMCCKHX MeTOflOB HccjieflOBaHHa H3biKa", BH, IX (1960), 4, 153-155. Revzin 1957a - H. H. PeB3HH, "HeicoTopbie B o n p o c w ( J i o p M a J i m a u H H CHHTaKCHca", EMIT, 3 (1957), 20-29. R e v z i n 1957b - M. H . PeB3HH, " O cooraomeHHH CTpyKTypHbix H CTaTHCTHMeCKHX MeTOflOB B COBpeMeHHOfi JIHHTBHCTHKe", CP, 45-57.

Revzin 1957c - H. H. PeB3HH, "CTpyKTypanbHaa JiHHrBHCTHKa, c e i n a H T H K a h npoÔJieMbi inyHemiH cJiOBa", BH, VI (1957), 2, 31-41. Revzin 1958a - M. H. PeB3HH, "'AKTHBHaa' H 'naccHBHaa' rpaMMaTHKa JT. B. IIIep6bi H npo6jieMbi MainnHHoro nepeBCwa", Mil, 23-25. Revzin 1958b - M. H. PeB3KH, "OopMaJibHaa Teopiw npeflnoJKeHHa", Mil, 50-52. Revzin 1959a - H. H. PeB3HH, " O IIOHHTHH 'MHoacecTBa OTMeieHHbix pa3' B Te0peTHK0-MH0acecTBeHH0H KOHuenuHH O. C. KyjiarHHofi", MJT, 27-28. Revzin 1959b - H. H. PeB3HH, " N P H M E H E M R E HOHSITHH 'ANEMEHTAPHOFI r p a M MaTHnecKOH KaTeropaH'

P.

JI. ^ o ô p y n i H H a

K aHanroy

HeMeuKHx

nafleaceS", MJI, 23. Revzin 1960a - M. M. PeB3HH, " O n p e f l M e T e H coflepacaHHH B y 3 0 B C K 0 r o cneuKypca ' B B E ^ E H H E B M a T e M a r a i e c K y i o JiHHrBHCTHKy H ManraHHbift nepeBOfl'", HJl, 73-75. Revzin 1960b - H. H. PeB3HH, " O HeKOTopwx noHHTiwx TaK Ha3biBaeMOii TeopeTHKO-MHO3KeCTBeHHO0 KOHlieniJHH H 3 b I K a " , BH, IX (1960), 6, 88-94. Revzin 1960c - H. M. PeB3HH, " O cHJibHbix H cjiaôbix npoTHBonocTaBJieHHJix B c u c T e M e naneacea coBpeMeHHoro H e M e u K o r o H3biKa", BH, I X (1960), 3, 82-85. Revzin 1961a - H. M. PeB3HH, Modem H3biKa (M., 1961), 191 p. Revzin 1961b - H. H. PeB3HH, " O J i o r i i i e c K O i i (JiopMe jiHHrBHCTHHecKHX onpeaejieHHfi", in C6. HpuMeHenue aozuku e nayKe u mexnuKe (M., 1961), 140-148. Revzin 1961c - H. H. PeB3HH, "TpaHccJiopMauHOHHMii CHHTC3 H TpaHc(J)opMaiiHOHHbiH aHajim", KTM, 8-12. Revzin 1961d - H. M. PeB3HH, "ycTaHOBJieHHe CHHTaKcmecKHX CBsneft B M i l MeTOflOM AftayKeBHia-Eap Xmijiena H B TepMHHax KOHcjwrypaUHOHHoro aHanH3a", ffKOHMH, 2. Revzin 1962a - H. H. PeB3HH, B. K). Po3eHUBeitr, " K 060CH0BaHHK) JIHHI"BHCTHiecKoft TeopHH nepeBOfla", BH, XI (1962), 1, 51-60. Revzin 1962b - H. H. PeB3HH, "HeKOTopwe T p y f l H O C T H n p n nocTpoeHHH ceMaHTHiecKHx MOflejieit ana ecTecTBeHHbix J B M K O B " , C3C, 17-24. Revzin 1962c - M. H. PeB3HH, " O noHHTMx oflHopoflHoro « t u c a c nojraofi TPAHC(J)OpMaUHeii H B03M0>KH0CTH HX npHMeHeHHH ruh CTpyKTypHoii THnojiorim", CTH, 19-24. Revzin 1962d - H. M. PeB3HH, " O HeK0T0pbix Bonpocax AHCTpn6yTHBHoro aHanH3a H e r o aajibHeftiiieii (J>opMajiH3aiiHn", TJCJI, 13-21.

Revzin 1962e - M. H. PeB3HH, "OcuoBHbie ejximnu,bi cnnTaKcniecKoro aHaJiH3a H ycranoBJieHHe OTHomeHHii Meacfly H H M H " , CTH, 119-123.

159

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Revzin 1962f - H. H. PCB3HH, " 0 6 obhom noaxofle k MOflemiM /iHCTpn6yTHBHoro (jioHOJioraiecKoro aHajiroa", ITCJT, 80-85. Rot 1960 - A. M. POT, " K Bonpocy o KaTeropHH nafleaca B H3bnce-nocpeaHHKe", n i l , 109-111. Rozencvejg 1958a - B. K). Po3eHixBear, H. H. PeB3HH, "06maa Teopmi nepeBona B CBH3H c ManiHHHbiM nepeBoaoM", Mil, 26-27. Rozencvejg 1958b - B. K). Po3eHUBeflr, Pa6omu no MauiuHHOMy nepeeody c unocmpaHHbix

H3biK08

Ha pyccKuti

u c pyccKoeo

ua

uHocmpattHbie

e

CoeemcKOM Coio3e (M., 1958). Rozencvejg 1959 - B. K). PcneHUBefir, "OSmaa jmHrBHcnwecKaH Teopmi nepeBOfla h MaTeMaTHiecKaa jiHHrBHCTHKa", MJI, 3-4. Rozencvejg 1960 - B. K>. PoseHUBeftr, "MauiHHHbiit nepeBOfl h HeicoTopbie Bonpocw MeroflHKH npenoflaBaHHH HHOCTpaHHbix H 3 M K O B " , FIJI, 13-14. Rozencvejg 1961 - B. IO. Po3eHUBefir, "IlepeBOfl h TpaHCHbix oTHonieHHK (Ha MaTepnaJie aHrjinficicoro snbiKa)", KTM, 38-43. Soboleva 1962 - n . A . Co6oJieBa, "KoMnoHeHTHbift aHajim 3HaMeHirii raarojia Ha 0CH0Be cji0B006pa30BaTejibH0r0 npHHunna", IICJI, 175-189. Sofronov 1958 - M. B. C0p0H0B, "06mHe npHHunnw MainHHHoro nepeBO.ua c KHTaticKoro H3biKa", BH, V I I (1958), 2, 116-121. Sokolova 1962 - B. C. C0K0Ji0Ba, " O HeKOTOpwx ciirHajiax rpaHHUM cjiob b C0BpeMeHH0M (jipaHiiyicKOM H3biKe", BH, X I (1962), 4, 66-71. Steblin-Kamenskij 1957 - M. H. Cre6jmH-KaMeHCKHii, "HexoTopwe 3avreHaHHa o CTpyKTypann3Me", BH, V I (1957), 1, 35-40. Steblin-Kamenskij 1958 - M. M. CTe6jiHH-KaMeHCKHfi, "3HaieHHe MainHHHoro nepeBOfla an si H3bitco3HaHHn", MMII, 1, 3-9.

160

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Steinfeldt 1961 - 3 . A. niTeftHeiibflT, "OioBapb-MHHHMyM pyccKoro H3biica a n a II-IV miaccoB 3CTOHCKHX IIIKOJI" (TaJuiHH, 1961), 87 p. Steinfeldt 1962 - 3 . A. HlTeBHe.rib,nT, "HacTOTHwfi cjioBapb coBpeMeHHoro pyccKoro JiHTepaTypHoro H3biKa", PHHUI, 1962, 4, 32-39 ; 6, 13-16. Steinfeldt 1 9 6 2 - 3 . IIlTeftHejn>flT, " H a c T O T H b i f i cnoBapb c o B p e M e H H o r o pyccKoro J i H T e p a T y p H o r o a3HKa" (TaJiJiHH, 1 9 6 3 ) , 3 1 6 p. Stieber 1957 - 3. IIlTH6ep, "Cjiobo b aacKyccm o CTpyKTypaJin3Me", BR, V I ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 3, 5 3 - 5 4 .

Strelkovskij 1958 - r . M. CrpejiKOBCKnii, "HexoTopbie o6mne npHHimnbi cocTaBneHHH cjioBapefi ana MamnHHoro nepeBoaa", MIT, 56-58. Struve 1918 - II. R. CTpyBe, "KTO nepBbiii yxa3aji Ha npHMeHeHHe CTaTHCTHKH k (JjujiojiortwecKHM HccJieflOBaHHaM?", HP AH (Bulletin), VI cep., Ms 13 (1918), 1317-1318.

Suxotin 1962 - E. B. CyxoTHH, "SKCnepHMeHTaJibHoe BbweneHHe miaccoB 6jtcb c noMombio sjreKTpoHHoii BbiHHCjnrrejibHofi ManiHHbi", IICJI, 198-206. Suj Kuo-tchan 1959 - CioK To-HacaH, " 0 6 3 o p CTpyKTypaJibHoro HanpaBJiemm b jnrarBHCTHKe", BH, VIII (1959), 3, 40-60. Superanskaja 1958a - A. B. CynepaHCKaa, "Ilpouecc TpaHCKpn6HpoBaHPW C06CTBeHHbIX HMeH H B03M03KH0CTb e r O a B T O M a T M a U H H " ,

EMII,

6

(1958), 44-80. Superanskaja 1958b - A. B. CynepaHCKaa, "Co6cTBeHHbie HMeHa b MauiHHhom nepeBOfle", Mil, 110-111. Superanskaja 1958c - A. B. CynepaHCKaa, "MeacflyHapoflHbiB ati(J)aBHT h MeacflyHapoAHaa TpaHCKpiramm", BH, VII (1958), 4, 78-85. Superanskaja 1962 - A. B. CynepaHCKaa, 3auMcmeoeanue cjios u npaKmuuecmx mpaHCKpunifUM (M., 1962), 48 p. Suprun 1960 - A. E. CynpyH, " O HeKOTopwx OHeMbi b CBeTe CHMBOJimecKoii jiorHKH", EMH, 5 (1957), 58-82. Saumjan 1958a - C. K. IIIayMaH, Hcmopun cucmeMbi dufficfiepeHifua/ibHbix 3AeMenmoe e noAbCKOM xsuxe (M., 1958). Saumjan 1958b - C. K. IIIayMHH, "JIoniHecKHfi aHajiro iiohhthh CTpyKTypw 5T3biKa", Mil, 65-66. Saumjan 1958c - C. K. IIIayMHH, CmpyKmypuan jiumeucmuKa kok uMMmeHmuax meopuH H3bma (M., 1958). Saumjan 1959 - C. K. IIIayMHH, "JIorHHecKHfl aHaJiH3 noHHTHa oHeMbi", in JIoeuuecKue ucaiedoeanun, CSopnuK (M., 1959), 159-177. Saumjan 1960a - C. K. IIIayMHH, "^ByxcTyneHiaTaa TeopHH OHeMbi H AH(j)(J)epeHLiHaiibHbix sjieMeHTOB", Bfl, I X (1960), 5, 18-34. Saumjan 1960b - C. K. IIIayMHH, "JiHHrBHCTHHecKHe ripo6jieMbi KH6epHeTHKH h CTpyKTypHaH jiHHrBHCTHKa", B0, XIV (1960), 9, 120-131.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

161

Saumjan 1960c - C. K. IIIayMHH, "O npo6jieMHoft 3anncKe 'TeoperaiecKHe Bonpocw H3WK03HaHHfl'", HAH OJIfl, XIX (1960), 1, 71-74. Saumjan 1960d - C. K. IIIayMHH, "OnepaimoHHwe onpeaejieHHH h hx npHM6H6HH6 b (J)0H0Ji0rHH", in C6. npuMeuenue JIOZUKU e uayne u mexnuxe (M., 1960). Saumjan 1961 - C. K. IIIayMHH, "TpaHCopMaimoHHaH rpaMMaTHKa h TeopHH noflKJiaccoB cjiob", KTM, 12-18. Saumjan 1962a - C. K. IIIayMHH, "EcrecTBeHHbiii H3biK KaK ceMHOTHHecxaH CHCTeMa", C3C, 13-17. Saumjan 1962b - C. K. IIIayMHH, "naHxpororaecKaH CHCTeMa itfHjxJiepeHUHaJibHbix 3JieMCHTOB h AByxcTyneHHaTaa TeopHH ie B coBpeMeimoM pyccKOM cjiOBOH3MeHeHHH", PHHUI, 1963, 5, 3-16. Zasorina 1958 - JI. H. 3acopHHa, " O pa6oTe Ha« pyccKo-aHrjiiriicKHM ajiropHTMOM ManiHHHoro nepeBOfla", Mil, 94-95. Zasorina 1961 - JI. H. 3acopHHa, "TpaHC^opMaiiHH xaK MeTOfl JIHHFBHCTHnecKoro 3KcncpHMCHTa", KTM, 28-33.

Zasorina 1962 - JI. H. 3acop«Ha, "Moiejn. HMeHHoro CKJIOHCHM pyccxoro nHCBMeHHoro TeKCTa", TICJI, 130-140. Zinder 1957a - JI. P. 3HHaep, "O JIHHRBHCTHMCCKOH BEPOHTHOC™", CP, 58-61. Zinder 1957b - JI. P. 3nnaep, " 0 6 OAHOM onwTe coapyacecTBa (J)OHETHKOB c HHACEHEPAMH CB»3H", Bfi, VI (1957), 5, 111-116. Zinder 1958 - JI. P. 3nH.aep, "O jiHHrBHcnreecKoft BpeoaTHOcra", Bfl, VII (1958), 2, 121-125. Zinder 1960 - JI. P. 3iutnep, Odufax (fiouemuKa (JleHHHrpaa, 1960).

Zinovjev 1960 - A. A. 3nHOBbeB, H. H. PeB3HH, "JIonwecKaa Moaejib KaK cpeflCTBo HayHHoro no3HaHHa", B&, 1960, 1, 82-90. Zolotarev 1959 - B. M. 3ojioTapeB, "BepoHTHocTHaH Moaenb npefljioKeHHH", MJI, 28-29. Zvonov 1960 - A. A. 3BOHOB, "IlepBbift onwT ManiHHHoro nepeBoaa c pycCKoro »3biKa Ha MTaftcKHft", Bfl, IX (1960), 3, 154. Zvonov 1961a - A. A. 3BOHOB, "AHajiH3 paMorawx KOHCTPYKIIHFT npu 6HHapHOM ManiHHHOM nepeBOfle c KHTaficKoro H3biKa Ha pyccKHii",

C6. Mil, 347-357. Zvonov 1961b - A. A. 3BOHOB, "AHaJiro cJiy»e6Hbix CJIOB npn 6HHapHOM MauiHHHOM nepeBOfle c KHTaftcKoro a3biica Ha pycCKHii", Co. Mil, 358-368. ¿erebin 1961a -

M . B . K E P E 6 N H , " O PA3PEMEHHN KOHBEPCHOHHOFT OMOHHMHH

npa He3aBMCHMOM aHajiH3e KHTaiicKoro TeKCTa", C6. Mil, 180-191. ¿erebin 1961b - M. B. )Kepe6HH, "CTpyKTypa H xapaKTep cnoBHHKa ana

He3aBHCHMoro aHajiH3a KHTaftcKoro TeKCTa", C6. Mil, 173-179. Zirkov 1956 - JI. M. )KHPKOB, 'TpaHHUbi npHMeHHMOc™ MamHHHoro nepeBoaa", Bfl, V (1956), 5, 121-124. 2irmunskij 1958 - B. H. >KMpMyHCKnti, "O CHHXPOHHH H flHaxpoHHH B

fl3biK03HaHHn", Bfl, VII (1958), 5, 43-52. 2irmunskij 1961 - B. M. ^CnpMyHCKHli, "O rpaHHuax cjiOBa", BH, X (1961), 3, 3-21. Zolkovskij 1960 - A. K. ^KOJIKOBCKHA, H. H. JleoHTbeBa, K). C. MapTeMbaHOB, " O npHHUHnaaJibHOM Mcn0Jib30BaHnn CMbKJia npn MaimiHHOM

nepeBoae", nJI, 97-99. Zolkovskij 1961a - A. K. aCoratoBCKHfi, H. H. JleoHTbeBa, K). C. MapTeMbaHOB, "O npHHUHnnajlbHOM HCn0JIb30BaHHH CMblCna npH MaiHHHHOM nepeBoae", C6. Mil, 17-46.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

¿olkovskij 1961b - A. K. 5K0JiK0BCKHfi, Review on Essays on and in Machine Translation by the Cambridge Language Research Unit (Cambr., 1959), MlhtllJI, 5 (1961), 81-89. 2olkovskij 1962a - A. K. JKojikobckhB, K). K. IIlernoB, "O bojmoikhoctjix nOCTpoeHHH C T p y K T y p H O f t n03THKH", CSC, 138-141. ¿olkovskij 1962b - A. K. JKojikobckhA, "O MOflenHpoBaHHH snbiKOBOro n o B e a e H H H c j i y i n a T e n a M y 3 W K H " , C3C, 135-137.

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA Edited by Cornelis H. van

Schooneveld

SERIES MINOR 1. ROMAN JAKOBSON and MORRIS HALLE : Fundamentals of Language.

1956. 97 pp.

Gld. 6.—

3.

EMIL PETROVICI: Kann das Phonemsystem einer Sprache durch fremden Einfluss umgestaltet werden? Zum slavischen Einfluss auf das rumänische Lautsystem. 1957. 44 pp. Gld. 4.—

4.

NOAM CHOMSKY:

Syntactic Structures. Fifth printing 1965. 118 pp. Gld. 8.—

5. N. VAN WIJK: Die baltischen und slavischen Akzent- und Intonationssysteme. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der baltisch-slavischen Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse. 2nd ed. 1958. 160 pp. Gld. 15.—• 7.

ERNST PULGRAM:

Introduction to the Spectrography of Speech. Second printing 1964. 174 pp., 31 figs., 2 tables. Gld. 12.—

8.

AERT H. KUIPERS:

Phoneme and Morpheme in Kabardian (Eastern Adyghe). 1960. 124 pp. Gld. 16.—

9. A. ROSETTI: Sur la théorie de la syllabe. Deuxième édition, refondue et augmentée. 1963. 43 pp. Gld. 7.50 10.

URIEL and BEATRICE WEINREICH: Yiddish Language and Folklore. A Selective Bibliography for Research. 1959. 66 pp. Gld. 6.—

and K. DELAVENAY : Bibliography of Mechanical Translation. — Bibliographie de la traduction automatique. 1960. 69 pp. Gld. 10.—

11.E.

12.

CARL L. EBELING :

13.

SHELOMO MORAG: The Vocalization Systems of Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Their Phonetic and Phonemic Principles. 1962. 85 pp., 2 folding tables. Gld. 15.—

14.

DWIGHT L. BOLINGER:

1961. 46 pp.

Linguistic Units. Second printing 1962. 143 pp. Gld. 12.—

Generality, Gradience, and the All-or-None. Gld. 5.50

19.

WALERIAN

SWIECZKOWSKI : Word Order Patterning in Middle English. A quantitative study based on Piers Plowman and Middle English Sermons. 1962. 114 pp. Gld. 16.—

20.

FINNGEIR H I O R T H :

152 pp.

Zur formalen Charakterisierung des Satzes. 1962. Gld. 15.—

22. E. F. HADEN, M. s. HAN and Y. w. HAN: A Resonance Theory for Linguistics 1962. 51 pp. Gld. 7.— 23.

SAMUEL R. LEVIN:

1964. 64 pp. 24.

Linguistic Structures in Poetry. Second printing Gld. 8.—

ALPHONSE JUILLAND

and

1962. 81 pp.

JAMES MACRIS :

The English Verb System. Gld. 8.—

25. IVAN IONÂGY: Die Metaphern in der Phonetik. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des wissenschaftlichen Denkens. 1963. 132 pp., 5 figs. Gld. 14.— 26. H. MOL: Fundamentals of Phonetics. I: The Organ of Hearing. 1963. 70 pp., 28 figs. Gld. 9.— 27. LÂSZLÔ ANTAL: Q u e s t i o n s of M e a n i n g . 1963. 95 p p .

w.

G l d . 10.—

28.

ROBERT M.

Linguistic Science and Logic. 1963. 108 pp. Gld. 10.—

29.

PUNYA SLOKA RAY: Language Standardization. Studies in Prescriptive Linguistics. 1963. 159 pp. Gld. 16.—

DIXON:

30. PAUL L. GARVIN: On Linguistic Method. Selected Papers. 1964. 158 pp. Gld. 14.— 31. LÂSZLÔ ANTAL : C o n t e n t , M e a n i n g , a n d U n d e r s t a n d i n g . 1964. 63 p p .

Gld. 8.— 32. GEORGES MOUNIN: La Machine à Traduire. Histoire des problèmes linguistiques. 1964. 209 pp. Gld. 22.— 33.

ROBERT E. LONGACRE:

Manual. 1964. 162 pp. 34.

WILLIAM

52 pp.

s.

COOPER:

Grammar Discovery Procedure. A Field Gld. 9.—

Set Theory and Syntactic Description. 1964. Gld. 8.—

35. LUIS j. PRIETO: Principes de noologie. Fondements de la théorie fonctionnelle du signifié. Préface d'André Martinet. 1964. 130 pp., 36 figs. Gld. 18.—

36. SEYMOUR CHATMAN : A Theory of Meter. 1965.229 pp., many graphs, 2 plates. Gld. 21.— 37. WAYNE TOSH: Syntactic Translation. 1965. 162 pp., 58 figs. Gld. 21.— 38. NOAM CHOMSKY: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. 1964. 119 pp. Gld. 10.— 39. D. CRYSTAL and R. QUIRK : Systems of Prosodie and Paralinguistic Features in English. 1964. 94 pp., 16 plates. Gld. 12.— 42. MILKA ivié: Trends in Linguistics. Translated by Muriel Heppell. 1965. 260 pp. Gld. 25.— 43. ISTVÂN FODOR : The Rate of Linguistic Change. Limits of the Application of Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. 1965. 85 pp., some Gld. 12.— figs.

M O U T O N & CO . P U B L I S H E R S . T H E H A G U E