On Linguistic Method 9783110872507, 9789027920058

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
FUSED UNITS IN PHONEMICS
ON THE RELATIVE TRACTABILITY OF MORPHOLOGICAL DATA
THE AUTOMATION OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURE IN LINGUISTICS
EVALUATION PROCEDURE IN LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS
OPERATIONS IN SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS
SYNTACTIC UNITS AND OPERATIONS
A STUDY OF INDUCTIVE METHOD IN SYNTAX
BEHAVIORAL TESTS IN LINGUISTICS
AUTOMATIC LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS A HEURISTIC PROBLEM
A DESCRIPTIVE TECHNIQUE FOR THE TREATMENT OF MEANING
ON STRUCTURALIST METHOD
STRUCTURALISM BEYOND LINGUISTICS
THE STANDARD LANGUAGE PROBLEM: CONCEPTS AND METHODS
SUBJECT INDEX
NAME INDEX

Citation preview

ON LINGUISTIC METHOD

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE N I C O L A I VAN WIJK D E D I C A T A edenda curat

C. H. V A N INDIANA

SCHOONEVELD UNIVERSITY

SERIES MINOR 30

1972

MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

ON LINGUISTIC METHOD Selected Papers

by

P A U L L. G A R V I N

Second revised edition

1972

MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

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

Second, Revised Edition

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER : 75-182468

Printed in Belgium by NICI, Printers, Gent

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

7

FUSED UNITS IN PHONEMICS (JOINTLY WITH MADELEINE MATHIOT)

13

O N THE RELATIVE TRACTABILITY OF MORPHOLOGICAL DATA

24

THE AUTOMATION OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURE IN LINGUISTICS

38

EVALUATION PROCEDURE IN LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS

48

OPERATIONS IN SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS

56

SYNTACTIC UNITS AND OPERATIONS

68

A STUDY OF INDUCTIVE METHOD IN SYNTAX

75

BEHAVIORAL TESTS IN LINGUISTICS

90

AUTOMATIC LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS: A HEURISTIC PROBLEM

112

A DESCRIPTIVE TECHNIQUE FOR THE TREATMENT OF MEANING

132

O N STRUCTURALIST METHOD

179

STRUCTURALISM BEYOND LINGUISTICS

183

THE

STANDARD

LANGUAGE

PROBLEM:

CONCEPTS

AND

METHODS

188

SUBJECT INDEX

194

NAME INDEX

199

INTRODUCTION to the second edition.1 The papers assembled in this volume are concerned with descriptive method in linguistics and in some aspects of language-and-culture research. The procedures proposed for linguistic analysis are based on the assumption that linguistic data are in essence amenable to empirical treatment, and that the techniques necessary for this can be inferred from a common-sense consideration of some of the consistently observable characteristics of natural languages. The aim of such an approach is to provide a frame for the acquisition of reliable knowledge about languages, rather than a systematization or 'explanation' of things already known or assumed to be known. Several models have recently been proposed in linguistics which involve an 'as if' mode of thinking. An 'as if' model in effect suggests: "Since we cannot deal with our object of cognition effectively or directly, let's look at it as if it were something else with which we can deal, and which is sufficiently similar to it so that we can generalize back." Thus, let's look at the grammar of a language as if it were a probability matrix or a sentence-generating machine. A variant of the 'as if model is the reductionist model, in which certain properties of the object of cognition are eliminated because they are considered intractable. It is thought that this reduces the complexity of the object. In linguistics, a common application of this reductionism is the attempt to eliminate considerations of meaning from the study of language which is 1

The views presented in this Introduction were previously stated in my "The Role of Function in Linguistic Theory", Actes du X Congrès International de Linguistes, Bucharest, 1969, pp. 287-91.

8

INTRODUCTION

then defined as being form only, or as being describable in terms of form only. What is studied, then, is not the object itself but the particular model. Such an approach is necessary if the object of cognition indeed does not lend itself to direct investigation. I contend that this is not so in the case of language. It is perfectly possible to look upon language the way we have observed it to be in our past experience and to systematize this observation by abstracting from it a set of assumptions about the characteristic properties of our object of cognition, such that it is possible to study the object in terms of these properties. If we formulate these properties, we obtain, not a model in the previous sense, but a definition in the classical sense of the word. Such a definition will, however, serve as a perfectly good frame for the acquisition of knowledge, and why not, therefore, consider it a model in its own right and call it a definitional model. To be useful, the properties set forth in a definitional model must be general enough not to prejudge the results, and specific enough not to be trivial. They must allow the differentiation of one's object of cognition from other similar or related objects, and they must provide suitable points of departure for a procedure. They must allow the deduction of the equivalence principle and relevance criterion proper to one's own field of study. I stated the essentials of such a definition of language as far back as 1948 in a paper before the 29th International Congress of Americanists;3 the analytic work which has led me to this definition and has followed from it has not invalidated it. As all classical definitions, my definition contains a genus and a differentia. It places language into the larger class of phenomena to which it belongs by stating that it is a system of signs. It differentiates it from other systems of signs by a particular set of structural properties. These properties can be formulated in terms of the conception 3 "Structure and Variation in Language and Culture", in: Sol Tax, ed., Indian Tribes of Aboriginal America, Selected Papers of the XXIX Intern. Congress of Americanists 3.216-221 (Chicago, 1952).

INTRODUCTION

9

of the system of language as a multiple heirarchy, in the sense of being structured in more than one direction. More specifically, language is considered to be a system structured in two dimensions and along three planes, with a separate set of levels proper to each of the planes. First, the dimensions. Language has two dimensions: those of the grammar and the lexicon. The two dimensions differ in terms of the purpose to which the signaling means of the language are put: the lexical dimension is defined as the system of reference to culturally recognized types of phenomena; the grammatical dimension is defined as the structure of discourse. The stipulation of a separate lexical dimension is the most recent aspect of my theoretical position. The necessity for such a stipulation has been established by Mathiot's work on lexicography3, but the structure of the lexical dimension has not yet been sufficiently explored to permit a detailed formulation in terms of my theoretical frame of reference. The grammatical dimension, on the other hand, is well enough known to permit a theoretical formulation of its structure. It is characterized by three planes, each with its own set of distinctions. The first of these planes is the plane of structuring. It is characterized by two levels of structuring, those of phonemics and morphemics. The second plane is that of integration. It is characterized by an unspecified number of levels of integration. The third is the plane of organization. It is characterized by two organizing principles, those of selection and arrangement.4 All of these distinctions are defined by functional criteria : (1) The two levels of structuring differ in terms of the extent to which the units of each level participate in the sign function (meaning) of language. The units of the phonemic level function primarily as differentiators of the sign function, the units of the morphemic level function as its carriers. 3

Madeleine Mathiot, "The Place of the Dictionary in Linguistic Description", Language 43.703-24 (1967). 4 cf. The paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes in the European structuralist tradition ; see André Martinet, Éléments de linguistique générale, 33, Paris, 1960.

10

INTRODUCTION

(2) The levels of integration differ in terms of the order of complexity of the units that constitute them: they range from the level of minimal units, which is the lowest, to the level of the maximal fused units, which is the highest. Fused units are considered to be not mere sequences of units of a lower order, but to function as entities of their own order, with certain overall qualities above and beyond the mere sum of their constituents. A correlate of the concept of fused units is the conception that the internal structure and the external functioning of a given unit are separate and potentially independent characteristics: units with the same internal structure may have different external functioning; units with different internal structure may have the same external functioning. Units with the same internal structure are called identically constituted; units with the same external functioning are called functionally equivalent. (3) The two organizing principles on the plane of organization characterize different manners in which the signaling means of the language are employed: selection from an inventory versus arrangement in a sequence. The three planes of the grammatical dimension of language are in a hierarchical relation to each other. The plane of structuring is defined by the most significant functional criterion and is therefore superordinate to the other two planes. Of the latter, the plane of integration is in turn superordinate to the plane of organization. Consequently, within each level of the plane of structuring a set of levels of integration can be defined, and within each level of integration of either level of structuring the operation of both organizing principles can be discerned. The theoretical frame of reference outlined above relates to the organization and justification of linguistic descriptions as follows: (1) The concept of the separateness of the two dimensions of language provides the justification for limiting the description to one of the two dimensions; thus, it allows the treatment of the grammar without including the lexicon.

INTRODUCTION

11

(2) The concept of the levels of phonemics and morphemics on the plane of structuring requires the differentiation of the description of the phonemic pattern from chat of the morphemic pattern, and to deal with their interrelation as a distinct aspect of the description. (3) The concept of the levels of integration requires the organization of the description in terms of both minimal units and various orders of fused units, on both the phonemic and morphemic levels of structuring. (4) The concept of the potential independence of internal structure and external functioning requires the differentiation of these two aspects of structure within the description. (5) The concept of the organizing principles of selection and arrangement on the plane of organization requires the inclusion, in the description, of the statement not only of inventories of units but also of their distribution. In conclusion, I want to underline the extent to which this functional frame of reference is nonformal and unspecific. Only thus can it meet the requirement of open-endedness. This is due to the conviction that, in a behavioral science such as linguistics, the aim of a theory is not to make 'predictions' in the naturalscience sense. Rather, it is to provide a frame of reference for a description of the object of study, as well as to provide operational controls for the many variables by serving as the foundation for a method. The results obtained by the application of the method are absorbed into the theory and lead to its expansion, thereby providing a more advanced point of departure for further descriptions. In actual analytic practice, procedures stemming from different properties of the structure are used in order of their applicability to the problems encountered, rather than in the order in which the model was presented. They do, however, fall into two broad classes: those drawing upon the co-variance of form and meaning - form-meaning procedures, and those drawing upon the regularity of recurrence of linguistic units - distributional procedures. The papers in this volume are arranged in the order of the

12

INTRODUCTION

observed tractability of linguistic data: phonemics, morphology, syntax, meaning, language and culture. The work of assembling and revising the papers for the first edition was done under the sponsorship of the AF Office of Scientific Research of the Office of Aerospace Research, under Contract No. AF 49 (638)-l 128. The second edition contains two additional papers beyond those included in the first: "The Automation of Discovery Procedure in Linguistics", and "Behavioral Tests in Linguistics". State University of New York at Buffalo January 1970

P A U L L . GARVIN

F U S E D U N I T S IN P H O N E M I C S * (jointly with Madeleine Mathiot) 0. The thesis of this paper is that an integrational approach to phonemic problems will yield both increased analytic efficiency and greater interpretive power as over a primarily linear treatment. By a linear approach we mean an investigation of phonemic patterns based on the assumption that segmental phonemes constitute sequences, with certain special phonemes - called junctural - forming anchorages of the sequences, and with other special phonemes (such as stress and pitch) - called suprasegmental - accompanying the linear segmental phonemes in additional, coterminous sequences. Hockett's discussion of "microsegments" and "macrosegments" has been a significant move in another direction of analysis.1 Pike's chapter on "Higher-layered units of the manifestation mode of the uttereme" 2 is an attempt to develop the theory of the integrational approach. In spite of his cumbersome terminology (e.g. "hyperphonemes" for phonemic fused units), we find ourselves in basic agreement with his point of view. In the present paper, we want to take an operational rather than theoretical approach and present a phonemic analysis based on the integrative rather than the linear assumption. * Originally published in Word, 14.178-86 (1958). The title under which this paper was published in Word, "Fused Units in Prosodic Analysis", was suggested by the editor of the journal. We are here going back to the title we used when we originally wrote the paper. 1 Charles F. Hockett, "Peiping Phonology", Journal of the American Oriental Society 67.253-67 (1947); also id., A Manual of Phonology (Baltimore, 1955), p. 43: "Ultimate phonologic constituents do not occur in an utterance as the individual bricks occur in a row of brickr. Rather, they occur in clusterings, these occur in still larger clusterings, and so on, up to the level of the whole utterance." 2 Kenneth L. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Human Behavior, Part II, Prelim. Ed. (Glendale, Calif., 1955), pp. 41-70.

14

FUSED UNITS IN PHONEMICS

The integrational approach posits that segmental phonemes do not simply constitute sequences, but that they fuse into units of higher orders, just as morphemes fuse into words or other higherorder units in morphemics. These higher-order phonemic units are assumed to have, as overall characteristics, (a) the prosodic features which in the linear approach are said to constitute the suprasegmental phonemes, and (b) the boundary features which in the linear approach are said to constitute the juncture phonemes. Finally, both the prosodic and the boundary features are assumed to be systematically related to each other, in terms to be established by the analysis.3 On the basis of the above, emphasis in phonemic procedure will be shifted to the following two operations: (1) the establishment of fused-unit boundaries to obtain proper frames for distributional statements; (2) the computation, within the spans of fused units of different orders, of the maximum predictability of phonetic detail from a minimum of features assumed to be phonemic. This is particularly relevant in the determination of prosodic features. Thus, the units and features serving as the best minimum base for maximum predictability will be said to enter into the phonemic pattern. The description which we are presenting is that of Chamorro, a language of the Philippine branch of the Malayo-Polynesian family, spoken on the island of Guam. 4 The data, consisting of isolated examples and narrative monologue, were recorded on tape and analyzed on the basis of consistent auditory impressions of phonetic oppositions.5 3

For a discussion of phonemic predictability, see Noam Chomsky, Morris Halle, and Fred Lukoff, "On Accent and Juncture in English", For Roman Jakobson (The Hague, 1956), pp. 65-80. 4 An earlier, more detailed version of the phonemic analysis of Chamorro was submitted by Madeleine Mathiot in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Linguistics at Georgetown University (Washington, 1955). 5 We agree with statement of the Czech phonemicist FrantiSek DaneS about the use of instrumental phonetics in phonemics: "Today, many linguists and phoneticians, in spite of the latest improvements, look more soberly and

FUSED UNITS IN PHONEMICS

15

1.0 We shall first deal with the consistent phonetic oppositions leading to the establishment of fused-unit boundaries, viz. degrees of pause, and with the phonetic oppositions on the basis of which the phonemic prosodic features of the fused units were established, viz. different degrees of loudness and pitch. 1.1. Two degrees of pause were observed in the connected discourse: a more conspicuous longer pause (length varying from less than a second to more than a second), and a less conspicuous shorter pause (always shorter than the former). These two degrees of pause were defined to be the basic phonetic properties of TERMINAL JUNCTURE and MEDIAL JUNCTURE, respectively. Segments bounded by terminal junctures were defined as PHONEMIC PHRASES; those bound by medial juncture were defined as PHONEMIC CONTOURS.

1.2. Several degrees of loudness were observed, but upon closer examination it was found that in addition to differentially stressed nuclei within contours, contours as wholes differed in overall loudness, with this differential distributed equally over the nuclei, critically u p o n the possibilities of instrumental investigation, especially in regard to connected discourse. "There are two flaws in this method; one is of a m o r e general character, the second concerns mainly the investigation of intonation. It is true that instruments are more accurate and sensitive than the human ear..., but instrumental records and their interpretation in terms of physical acoustics do n o t give us a true picture of the way in which the speakers hear and understand (evaluate) their own language... "The insufficiency of the instrumental method shows up particularly in the investigation of pitch and stress and the phonetics of connected discourse in general. The instruments which we have are relatively imperfect, the investigation is cumbersome and complex and can therefore cover only a limited amount of data.... It is not completely true, either, that the instrumental method is free of accident - on the contrary, considering the relative scarcity of records ... the danger of accident is considerably greater than with the auditory method which has almost unlimited data at its disposal.... "The most complete instrumental record becomes useful to linguistics only after analysis and evaluation from the standpoint of the function and significance of the various components in terms of the system of the language. The instrumental record, however, does not by itself allow us to ascertain the significance and function of the various waves, formants, etc. - these must first be discovered, albeit only in outline, by an auditory analysis of spoken language..." (Intonace a vita ve spisovne cestini, Prague, 1957, pp. 39-41).

16

FUSED UNITS IN PHONEMICS

regardless of the degree of stress of the latter. Thus, instead of positing a larger number of degrees of stress, we attributed this contour-length loudness differential to a separate phonemic feature of CONTOUR INTENSITY (classifying contours as strong versus weak), and assigned a phonemic feature of STRESS only to differences in loudness between nuclei within same contour. 6 The relation of contour intensity to stress is such that an unstressed nucleus of a weak contour is less loud than an unstressed nucleus of a strong contour, a (primarily or secondarily) stressed nucleus of a weak contour is less loud than a correspondingly stressed nucleus of a strong contour. 1.3. Four phonetic ranges of pitch were observed (from lowest 1 to highest 4). These were found to constitute regular intonation lines within each contour in terms of the vocalic nuclei contained, and the final pitch of the contour was found to be associated with contour intensity as well as with the terminal or medial juncture ending it. In terms of the association of various pitch ranges with the longer pause, three types of terminal juncture (PARAGRAPH7 -FINAL, HESITATION, and TRANSITION juncture) could be established (see § 2) as against a single type of medial juncture. 1.4. Of these phonemic features, terminal junctures were considered boundary features of the phonemic phrase, medial juncture and contour intensity were considered features of the contour, and stress a feature of the vocalic nucleus. By resolving the different phonetic degrees of loudness into the separate phonemic oppositions of stress (presence vs. absence of stress) and contour intensity (strong vs. weak), we were able to establish contour intensity, together with a differentiation of the junctures, as the conditioning factors for the predictable occurence of pitch. 6

This interpretation was influenced by Uriel Weinreich's CONTRASTTVE STRESS, which he defines as "facultative relative loudness, actualized only if the construction as a whole is emphasized in the sentence" ("Stress and World Structure in Yiddish", The Field of Yiddish, New York, 1954, p. 3). 7 These terms were selected on the basis of an impression of the semantic function of the junctures in the utterance.

FUSED UNITS IN PHONEMICS

17

2.0. We shall now discuss in some detail the conditions for pitch predictability. As was stated in 1.3 above, the final pitch of each contour is predictable in terms of the intensity of the contour and in terms of the following juncture, while the remaining pitches are predictable in terms of the number of syllables (which is the same as the number of nuclei, the syllable boundaries being predictable in terms of the configuration of vowels and consonants). We shall therefore deal with final and non-final pitches separately and in that order. 2.1 The primary determinant of final pitch is the type of juncture, since it determines the relative pitch range, whereas contour intensity determines the variation within it. 2.1.1. Paragraph-final juncture (symbol: # ) entails pitch 1 on the final syllable of weak contours, pitch 2 on the final syllable of strong contours (symbols: 11 marks following strong contour, lp indicates long pause): [ [M

1

lp] = / « M — /"

#/

#/

Example: [pinikdktu1 lp] — /pinikaktu # / 'my steps' versus [" mani?lu-h.u2 lp] = /" maniPlu-hu # / 'my siblings'. 2.1.2. Hesitation juncture (symbol: .|.) entails pitch 2 on the final syllable of weak contours; it has not been found after strong contours (note that pitch 2 on the final syllable of strong contours is a phonetic characteristic of paragraph-final juncture): [ [II

*lp] = / «//,] = /"

.¡./ #/

Examples: [paraPi2 lp] = /paraPi .|./ 'for the...', versus [" golay2 lp] = golai # / 'vegetable'. 2.1.3. Transition juncture (symbol: [) entails pitch 3 on the final syllable of weak contours, pitch 4 on the final syllable of strong contours: [ [M

8

M = / *lp]=/»

1/

1/

18

FUSED UNITS IN PHONEMICS

Examples: [paraPilaencu3 Ip] = /paraPilaencu / 'to the ranch' versus [" giniPilaencu4 Ip] — /" giniPilaencu |/ 'towards the ranch'. 2.1.4. Medial juncture (symbol: + ) entails pitch 2 on the only syllable of monosyllabic weak contours, pitch 3 on the only or final syllable of all other contours (and for all contours a slight lengthening of the final phoneme; symbol sp indicates short pause): p sp\ = l-+l [H-3^] = / H - + /

[

[II

3

*/>] = / 3sp]

=

/ll

+/ + /

Examples: [sae?1 j/j] = /sae?+/ 'because...', versus [" sae?3 j/>] = /!' s£e?+/; [zanmatuhu?3 jp] — /zanmatuhu?+/ 'when I get to...', versus [" zaPuPati3 sp] = /ii zaPuPati+/ 'and he/she pours'. Note again that while [- 2 j/>] equals medial juncture, [- 2 Ip] equals hesitation juncture (see 2.1.2.). 2.2. The pitch pattern of the non-final syllables of a contour is as follows: for dissyllabic contours - pitch 2 on the penultimate; for trisyllabic contours - pitch 1 on the penult, pitch 2 on the antepenult; for contours of four or more syllables - pitch 1 on the first syllable, pitch 2 on the second syllable, and pitch 1 on every subsequent syllable up to and including the penult. Examples: (all showing transition juncture): /pa-n|/ = [pa-n3] 'bread', /ta-ta|/ = [ta-2ta3] 'father', /b£-bali| = [b